🙄 The War on Woke (goes to TED)

👋🏾 Hello from TED Women 2023

Welcome to all the new Green Room members who’ve joined us since last Thursday! If you haven’t subscribed, join our fast-growing community of business travelers and perpetual learners by subscribing here:

Have a friend who can benefit from our coverage of leading business conferences? If so, click the button below! Thanks for sharing.

🎵 Just like a travel pillow, we at your neck… 🎵

Let’s dive in…

First, we want to send love to all of those impacted by the Israel and Hamas war. We send prayers of comfort for those who have lost loved ones, and prayers of safety for those who are feeling unsafe and insecure. We are praying for peace and that all of our humanity is seen and appreciated 🙏🏾

Today, we’re sharing a series of talks from conferences that have made us think. But first, some context…

Back in April, TED hosted its annual conference. The brand that offers a platform for “ideas worth spreading” hosted a talk that they, well… did not want to spread. Now, TED is being called “Woke” by the investors turned podcasters at All-in.

The talk was by Coleman Hughes, the Black and Latino writer of the book The End of Race Politics: Arguments for a Colorblind America. His talk, A Case For Colorblindness, had to go through a set of requirements (i.e., a debate) in order for TED to post it. The reason is that many of the Black internal staff at TED, along with organizational psychologist Adam Grant, did not feel safe by the talk and thought it was irresponsible and inaccurate. Coleman refuted their accusations but agreed to the conditions of release. Additionally, Coleman believes that TED intentionally withheld promotion of the video as they did not post it on their YouTube channel and because it had much fewer views than other videos released just before and after his.

Both the alleged suppression of the video, the content of his talk, and the subsequent debate got me curious…how can we unite if we can’t hear one another? How should conferences take the larger political and social landscape into consideration when curating content? What does it look like for psychological safety and free speech to coexist?

Coleman’s position is that instead of race-conscious policies, we should have policies that hinge on class. If racism is the problem, then let’s not talk about race. Let meritocracy rule.

I’ve watched Coleman’s Ted Talk, I watched his debate with Jemelle Bouie, NYT Columnists, and I’ve listened to the All-In podcast about his talk (there was so much loaded and callous language), and I’ve read the comments. You should watch them all, too.

To be clear, while I agree that the ultimate goal is for policies NOT to take into account someone's race or ethnicity, I do take issue with Coleman’s proposal that colorblind policies are a way to end racism. In my opinion, American history is being intentionally re-written to discount the enormous impact of enslaved Africans on the American economy. There is also an attempted erasure of the turmoil and intentional economic suppression experienced by Black Americans. Additionally, there are very real policies that have led to over-incarceration, underemployment, and poverty in majority Black communities and educational institutions. Given all of this context, the idea of colorblind policies feels like a poor attempt to elude the accountability that has been demanded for centuries.

I believe the ultimate goal of doing away with racism is for there to be a mending of the relationship between Policymakers, America, and Black Americans. I believe we simply want to be seen– a very basic human and relational need. I want to be seen. 

Colorblind policies won’t rectify the deep entrenchment of bias and fear toward Black Americans, regardless of their socio-economic status, because all of our systems are inherently biased. You would first need to address the bias that exists and be conscious of how races are impacted in order to create pure, colorblind policies. Being race-conscious only perpetuates racism if you choose not to appreciate our humanity.

💚 Amy & Bryan

P.S. Who else is here at TED Women? I’d love to say hi!

P.P.S. Shout out to Kemi A., one of the winners of The Green Room’s CultureCon raffle. Check out her post here to get a glimpse of her experience.

P.P.P.S. Last week we were In The Green Room last week with Isis Breana who kicked off CultureCon by giving practical tools to those with ADHD on how to turn their annual goals into daily to-do lists. The verdict is in… she was 🔥 We’ll bring you the notes on her talk ASAP.

Zoom out: Esther Perel at SXSW – “You can’t ignore the mess.”

Just a month before Coleman’s talk, Esther Perel graced the stages of SXSW. While everyone was talking about Artificial Intelligence, she drew the crowd in around another form of AI– Artificial Intimacy.

Her message feels extremely appropriate given the context of what took place at TED and thereafter. The esteemed relationship and sex therapist spends 60+ minutes breaking down the phenomenon that society seems to be moving away from the realities and messiness of life in an attempt to create a sort of frictionless existence. 

I totally understand and resonate with feeling unsafe by someone’s words or beliefs. Throughout history, we’ve seen examples of words that have led to actions that ultimately annihilated entire civilizations. So when Chris Anderson of TED decided to listen to his colleagues in the Black @ TED ERG and their expressed feelings, I see why he would be hesitant to release the video.

On the other hand, I question, similarly to the attempted removal of Critical Race Theory in schools and the hysteria it engendered, whether these are the types of friction Esther is referring to that we are all attempting to avoid. Is there a way to validate feelings of a lack of safety while also creating space for friction? Perhaps that was Chris’s objective in creating space for the debate. The debate offered a space to discuss the varied perspectives without judgment. I would go further and say we need more spaces that allow these varied perspectives without judgment and with loads of curiosity.

I think if Colorblind policies are ideal, then there needs to be an acknowledgment of the very real fears of marginalized communities in order to lay the groundwork for a true systemic overhaul.

I believe we need to reconsider what it means to be in a real, human-to-human relationship with others with opposing viewpoints and the messiness that yields.

Zoom in: The Other AI: Artificial Intimacy

Esther Perel, a Belgian-American psychotherapist, is known for her work on human relationships. She spoke at length during SXSW 2023 on the topic of what it means to truly be alive! So let’s dive into her talk so you can know what in the hell I’m actually talking about.

Her talk will help you…

1. Contextualize what it means to hold more than one belief at once

2. Consider what friction(s) you may be avoiding

3. Appreciate failures as a form of experimentation

There is no right or wrong, only options.

Esther’s talk begins with a story of a man who created his own Esther Perel AI bot after his breakup. He regarded the bot as “pure” and unhindered to give him advice without the cloud of Esther’s background or the distraction of other clients she may serve. This, in turn, led Esther to contemplate the impact artificial intelligence and technology as a whole are having on relationships and human connection.

You are not right!

• Life is not a series of problems to be solved but rather a series of paradoxes. This is a powerful core belief that Esther promotes across all of her work. The idea that multiple things can be true at the same time requires us to live with the belief that what we believe is not “right” but instead an option or a potential choice to make. 

• Instead of attempting to find the right answer, it’s advised that we consider which consequences we are most comfortable living with. “Every choice comes with grief for the choice that we did not choose.” When we fail to acknowledge dilemmas and paradoxes, we are more likely to succumb to polarization.

• “Polarization occurs when we outsource the side of the dilemma we do not care to hold ourselves.” For whatever reason, you ground yourself in a belief that does not allow you to acknowledge the other sides of that belief. The risk of polarization is that if you question something, it’s automatically seen as if you are casting judgment “as if those who are pro-abortion don’t care about life.” It’s important that we hold both sides of the dilemma to be in relationship with one another.

Distraction = disconnection, which breeds loss

• Artificial intimacy = when people are physically with one another but are not present. A more scientific description can be called Ambiguous Loss. Mostly used to describe Dementia patients and the like, Ambiguous Loss is defined as when you are with someone who is physically present but who is emotionally or mentally gone. A more practical example would be if you are in the same room with your partner but each of you is on their phone or computer. Together, but not connected.

• Esther is clear to say that artificial intimacy with bots is not her concern, but rather how “digitally facilitated connections are lowering our expectations of intimacy between humans in the real world.” Distracted attention is not enough. For example, a study was conducted on telehealth psychotherapy patients. Quantitatively, they all highly regarded the experience. But qualitatively, researchers realized that patients had actually lowered the bar for their virtual experiences. Holding it to a lower standard than their in-person interactions. “Just because someone feels satisfied with artificial intimacy doesn't mean it's good or real.”

Frictionless = Flatness

• Esther believes that technology like Netflix, Spotify, etc., while extremely helpful, can lead us to a form of “assisted living.” In an attempt to make life easier, choices simpler, and ongoing comfort, we seem to have reached a place where we attempt to smooth out the friction of life. Smoothing to a point of flatness.

• “The experimentation and the failures [inherent to being alive] are all central to the development of our identity.” When we take the risks away, we take away the learning opportunities. We take away the opportunity to truly get to know our own selves in the now, vs. a version of ourselves that we’ve adopted or held on to from past experiences. It is making us unprepared and unable to manage the unpredictability of love and life. Attraction + challenge = desire. The challenge is integral.

🎵…For the way you slept 😴 🎵 

Oh, you’re up? In that case, here are some ways we can work together. 👋

1. 📈 Looking for design sprints around sales, revenue, and community growth? Well, our agency, Marble Design Studio, is a leader in the space. We help design programs and systems for leading companies and startups. Learn more here and book a call to get going.

2. 💰 Looking for $500K or more of sponsor dollars for an upcoming conference? We have a proprietary database of over 10,000 brand sponsors looking to partner with high-aligned community builders and conference organizers. Get in touch if we can help connect the dots.

3. 💚 Work with the Green Room. Do you love learning, traveling, going to conferences, and building community? Us too! Reach out if you’re interested in working with us as a community ambassador or writer!