Why the majority is always wrong | Paul Rulkens | TEDxMaastricht
Вставка
- Опубліковано 20 жов 2014
- This talk was given at a local TEDx event, produced independently of the TED Conferences. Paul Rulkens is an expert in achieving big goals in the easiest, fastest and most elegant way possible. Originally trained as a chemical engineer, he has moved his focus to the fascinating field of high performance.
Paul Rulkens is an expert in achieving big goals in the easiest, fastest and most elegant way possible. Originally trained as a chemical engineer, he has moved his focus to the fascinating field of high performance. His work is based on his knowledge and experience about the practical application of behavioral psychology, neuroscience and especially common sense. He currently works worldwide to make successful people, teams and organizations even more successful. He lives with his wife and two children in Maastricht.
Website: tedxmaastricht.nl
Flickr: www.flickr.com/photos/tedxmaa...
Facebook: / tedxmaastricht
Twitter: / tedxmaastricht
About TEDx, x = independently organized event In the spirit of ideas worth spreading, TEDx is a program of local, self-organized events that bring people together to share a TED-like experience. At a TEDx event, TEDTalks video and live speakers combine to spark deep discussion and connection in a small group. These local, self-organized events are branded TEDx, where x = independently organized TED event. The TED Conference provides general guidance for the TEDx program, but individual TEDx events are self-organized.* (*Subject to certain rules and regulations)
Reminds me of the Monty Python bit where a big crowd says in perfect unison "Yes, we're all different." and then one guy in the crowd says "I'm not."
We are all individuals... Yes, I remember that one. Thanks for the recollection.
Brilliant
"Life of Brian"...a true classic
.
@@Oziriz .
“A really bad idea, embraced by millions of people, is still a really bad idea.” ~ Tony Blauer
Imagine how bad a bad idea is when a minority think it up
A bad idea is a bad idea no matter how many people think it up
There’s more chance of a bad idea coming from one person ,
The majority are usually right
@@johnnyreggae969 no because that one person that started the bad idea isn't gonna be the only person with a bad idea because there are TONS of ppl with bad ideas and SOME people may think that a BAD idea is a GOOD idea and then next thing you know you'll have a MAJORITY of people with BAD IDEAS therefore the MAJORITY ARE ALWAYS WRONG
Trump
"When all think alike, then no one is thinking"- Walter Lippmann
"If you ask questions, they start by banning." (Bryson Gray)
"It would be wrong to think"
Vladimir Lenin
Very timely
Nothing wrong if all think a like like for example that they like Donald Trump
well I wouldn't say no one is thinking
“If you want to have results you’ve never had before, well, you need to start doing things you’ve never done before.”
God I love that
But it is so much more comfortable doing the same thing over & over again and complaining! :D
That's an excellent comment and observation of the persistent policies of the democratic party in the United States
Policies not working but making everything worse, and the response is, were not doing enough of it
@@tarekyared4404sounds like a particular group of people and their political party in the United States
Mark Twain once said: "When you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect."
Similarly Clemens said "what most people know ain't so."
Hahaha, a good one...
The majority of this comment section entirely missed the point of the video. The majority is always wrong in the sense that the majority isn’t ever extraordinary. If the practice is done by the majority then it won’t be successful it will yield average results. If the question is how can I make a successful business, following what everyone else does won’t get you there. The majority can never be successful only average. Yes he basically said think outside of the box but he explained how, something you rarely hear. He explained that you have to recognize your boundaries and think of ideas that exist outside of them. Honestly it was very inspiring and great advice.
It's staggering how many people here totally missed the main points, but I guess that also proves that the majority are most inclined to do what they consider normal, and thus never exceed the average box.
The people who moved the world never did like everyone else were doing at their time. A collective mind is only good at doing what they already know works, but a mind that stands outside of what is currently being practiced, is the one mind that has the capability to innovate and change our perception of what we do and how we live.
Every majority factor is based on safe options and predictability and consistency, which in the end results in a status quo situation that just keeps itself running, nothing more and nothing less.
Daniel Kemnitz
Incredibly well said.
@@Real_MisterSir I understood the point at the end of the vedio but i do see einsteins whole class passed.😂
Stop making sense. Thank you, the Majority
@@Real_MisterSir its because they just read the title
The first thing which came to my mind after watching that is actually, that this could go in two different directions. If you do what the majority is doing you will achieve normal results... if you do abnormal things, you will achieve abnormal results, but that doesn’t necessarily mean, that your results will be among the top 3% they may be among the bottom 3% as as well.
It’s called the bell curve iirc ;)
OR *_"Mass psychology"_* .. As a former investment Banker and day trader...
what some of us know is that Market movement is 97% dependent on what the masses "THINK IS TRUE" NOT what is ACTUALLY TRUE.
That's why of course some companies that haven't made a dime, losess year after year *are often the highest valued.* 🤣🤣
There is thing called measurable performance. Perhaps we could try that?
@@desim-arch Sure - what is measurable performance then?
I guess that's why you should know what you are doing
Having a brilliant idea is only the start. The next thing is to have the passion and commitment to follow that idea through when everyone tells you you're wrong, and being resilient enough to keep pushing through countless rejections until you finally get a breakthrough. Many examples of successful people in history had this experience.
I think Funding is the key... and bloodlines.
Many not so successful people made the same thing. But nobody writes books about them.
Einstein was very good in this. catching an idea and driving it to the very end
@Nonconformist_ZH in these days, yea
True, but it’s also about knowing when to give up on an ideas. Entrepreneurs can hold on too long to ideas and lose a lot of money in the process on something that was never valuable. A good entrepreneur knows when to pursue, continue, and to discard a business idea.
"If I asked people what they wanted most, they would have told me " ~Ford
Great quote mate ! perfect example
and younger women and older whiskey.
@@LanternOfLibertyI'll take those. Don't bother with the horses for me.
Reminds me of today when people want faster cars while UFOs are real.
@@LanternOfLiberty I can't think of a better interpretation for life Good Sir
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect
MARK TWAIN
I should have read a few more comments...I just posted the same quote!
Why?
BINGO
By nature the majority is independent of an arbitrary sense of right or wrong.
We humans all need oxygen to survive. That is not only a universal opinion, it is a fact--no oxygen, you die. That is a MAJORITY position.
Uhhh...oops.
While there's no doubt that the content he presented was superlative, what I noticed is that he presented it flawlessly, without a single filler word..truly commendable
no one can dispute a flawless presentation
That was well performed indeed. Sadly the rhethorics lacked and tricked mostly the incompetent and the lazy. But those are the customers you want if you're doing a MLM scam.
he said uhmm
He repeated sentences several times. He avoided filler words by being repetitive! It's the same.
First class seminar, very well presented, right amount of humour and very thought provoking! Thank you for sharing..
The only thing useful in this talk was the enumeration of the 4 sides of the box.
So when you think outside the box, you're actually thinking inside a bigger box?
Yes, because humans do have limits.
You're so high
@@jasondashney Normal humans have normal limits.
Anything above normal becomes hard to know where that limit begins, and where it ends.
*Mind blown
Rokas S - there is no box
What if the majority thinks that the majority is wrong
+dan b , then there is still a majority who thinks majority is wrong!
Their actions would prove that is a lie
They do
Then that can be considered "common sense"
..⊙﹏⊙which in its own right is a misnomer
Then they would be right. Congrats. You've just hacked his theory.
I don't know how many times I've heard people say "think outside the box," and never understood what they meant but after watching this, I get it. I'm definitely coming back for this.
Yes, in other words, don't get caught in the four boundaries of the box, ie. technological boundaries, legal boundaries, physical boundaries, and moral boundaries....
The trick is to laterally think... type nlp and chunking up and down into a search engine to familiarize yourself...
It's really cool and simple to do...
@@stephenmani8495 Yea. Don't let moral and legal boundaries keep you from greatness.
@@jacobshirley3457 - Question is whose morals? Trump's morals? Biden's morals? Or Mormon morals? Taliban morals? (yeah, Taliban is one of the most outspoken and clearest on its 'morals!). Or Buddhist morals? Chinese morals? Vegan's morals? Or the Vietnamese morals who eat dogs? This morality list can go on....You see the problem? So, once the world's population can agree on a list of morals that EVERYBODY can agree on, THEN I might consider sticking to somebody else's moral boundaries. Until then, No.
what they usually mean is demonstrated by taking 9 dots arranged in 3 rows and 3 columns. Connect all 9 dots with 4 lines without lifting your pencil off the paper.
Nice talk thank you!
8 years later and UA-cam build an even more complex box for me to live in. 8 years ago there was a man telling me about a box we live in. If I could tell a 2D person in this box to step over a line he or she could jump out of the box and explore the good stuff. Unfortunately, boxes are carefully created by industry and government today. Im living in different boxes with different purposes. It’s hard to be really free in thinking these days but it is still possible. Learn kids about integrity and give them the tools to always think for themselves first and then take the boundaries into account, sometimes break the rules of the boundaries and swallow the consequenties. But only break the rules if you can handle/win and survive the consequences.
you are 100% correct, ive been trying to tell my family and friends the value of Christian Nationalism. there is more evidence supporting Anglo Saxon and christian superiority than there is evidence we landed on the moon. even our ancestors from the 1800s KNEW that the skulls of african slaves vs the skulls of white people could NOT support the size of a civilized brain. it is a shame that the majority were willing to risk civil war back then to ignore this fact and they are on track to do it again.
Praise trump and our lord jesus christ. Glory to the anglo race!
I loved his speech but most importantly he was a great speaker. He never stopped his speech with awkward “uuhs” or “likes” but told it comfortably without hesitation. And he clearly masters pauses.
Great speaker, abysmal script. Totally lackluster, uninspired thinking. Disliked
Wasn't a speech, It's a lecture
Said "ladies and gentleman" too many times, and honestly the content of the talk itself was lackluster.
The face he makes every time he's proposing a weird idea is cracking me up.
5:55 6:49 9:21
@@warsilver99 yeah, I guess rewatching it I see what you mean, still, dude knows how to speak
The best part.... "the purpose of all thinking is not to think ”
But how was that applied in the case of the examples he gave?
Taxi business.
How to expand your taxi business in London ensues a lot of thinking.
Finding the solution removes the requirement for thinking.
to get to the 3% you need to stop ignoring the lack of solutions and simply enduring to the next day. Work your head at finding the right questions for you and your business and then solve them. It is really quite simple in principle.
on the other hand I my self believe that the "best 3%" is just a choice of words targeted at a specific audience of overachievers. You don't need to be the best, or even near the "top" to have enough ^^.
especially since defining the top is so elusive.
He did make a mistake right there. He tried to imply that you should stop thinking in between the tunnel vision. At least that is how i understood this argument...
Step away from the "bang head in the wall"?
+Powerofriend Ah, thanks. I think I get what you mean. You mean to say that one ought to simply find a solution whereby one doesn't need to worry any further about the solution, right? In that sense, thinking up a solution which eliminates the need for further thinking, so that you can enjoy the rest of your day.
Following the crowd is the safe bet, doing something different is high-risk, high-reward
The title is promising but the lecture is a platitude
I love how he says that 97% of people work for the remaining 3% and then the one person gets the Applause from a hundred or maybe thousands of people.
oh wow, interesting right
@@murjansconcierge True. They all paid to hear him talk.
At least 97% of those applauding are aspirant 3%ers!
And implies that only the lives of the 3% are valid and truly worth living. No. not part of his majority either, happy to be eternally working on it theses days.
"If everyone is thinking alike then someone isn't thinking" George S. Patton.
Wow this made me think, like really. Funny though
"wo alle das gleiche denken wird nicht viel gedacht!"
(Karl Valentin)
Walter Lippmann, I read earlier. Who stole it from whom, I now wonder.
@@klausmuhlmann7589 🤔🤔🤔
@@manfredziernhold6046 It is in fact an adage that predates Lippmann and Valentin. It may have been coined by Benjamin Franklin -- difficult to say. The "nicht viel" (not very much) is certainly Lippmann. Franklin says flatly "... no one is thinking." Valentin's and Lippmann's dates overlap. Did they read each other? -- difficult to say.
Hits particularly well during these totalitarian times
would you prefer if all these capitalists and multinational companies just did whatever they pleased?
Would u prefer to live on Mars and accelerate the destruction of the earth?
Do you even know what totalitarian means lol?
I'm not following industry norms by watching this video at work instead of actually working
And getting paid by the guy who thinks outside the box!
The rest of your peers are also goofing off at work, and that’s why you’re not accelerating. Bravo, you fell in the 97%.
LOL. This is one of the silliest videos I have seen in a long time.
This man has inspired me to break food industry norms and never wash my hands after taking dump
I think that *is* the industry norm.
This was one of the most Ted Talk Ted Talks I've seen in a long while
they can do a Ted Talk - but can they do the Ted Walk?
you mean it was a bit abstract and beating around the bush style... i get it. a lot of people think that way it seems but i still liked this one for some reason even though it didnt present anything tangible
@@jvincent6548 okay buddy
@@chinmaygupta1530 Oh it's tangible. I sell online, and trying to crack the market in things "everyone" buys is impossible. The big boys own it. Thinking outside the box is the only way to survive. Nothing abstract about it.
@@garyking508 That sounds pretty good. Maybe if the speaker had used examples like the one you gave, the talk would have been more tangible but he only stated the theory, so people not familiar with the concept in real life may have a harder time understanding what he really means.
Paul is describing how to break through barriers to market entry without directly competing with competitors. It’s a brilliant concept that redefines and creates new markets. Why walk crowded halls when you can take just as long detouring through the garden?
If the subject interests you I can only recommend you to read Blue Ocean Strategy. It's everything he said but put in an applicable framework.
Thats what i did all mylife. But it has to be said, that it is not always safe. For me it is more acceptable to fail with a new idea, than against a competitor, but most people are preferjng to compete in existing boundaries than than to fail outside of them, given the fact, that you are labeled much more negative than if you fail inside the boundaries.
Paul is a false lieing fake apostle
@@schupiluliuma7179 this is so true. This is why I never criticize new ideas as long as they don’t cause harm to people other than ones-self.
@@bylyone23 Blue ocean is a great term to know, but it’s a boundary within itself. You can’t be “too blue ocean” or even the best invention or breakthrough can fail. This mainly applies to new technology or products. For example, making a flying car not look like a “ground car” would vastly reduce the chances for adoption by people. As an inventor myself, this is really frustrating when you HAVE TO worsen a design or idea so that it is less intimidating at the cost of functionality or cost.
Brilliant! Everything is brilliant thought, idea, competence, and performance. Thank you
It was an amazing pleasure to listen to you
"The majority is always wrong" obviously is a hyperbole. The fact that most people didn't get his main point actually proves his point xd.
Came down here to say that
the term hyperbole is an adjective, not a noun. Nevertheless, your point is well taken.
Think Different - Steve Jobs
@@keithhinchcliffe5629 you must be thinking of hyperbolic? no, hyperbole is not an adjective.
Samuelson baker well said. he starts like this... “majority can be right, but not cause they are majority”
when this is the start... you get uncomfortable on what follows ^^...
This was perhaps the best tedtalk I've ever heard, and after reading the majority of the comments below, I am happy to see the majority doesn't agree.
yea the majority is worng
The majority of comments didn't even watch the video 😆
Lol 😂 👨👩👧👨👩👧👦👨👩👦👦👨👩👧👧👪🙆🏻
@@vijnmusic4707 8 years later I see 145 K likes, no dislikes, and I see only positive results which shows me that the majority believe they are in the 3%
The commenter consensus are merely lemmings lined up following one another. The main benefit of lemmings is finding out where the best places to not think are.
This is an excellent Ted Talk. Thinking outside the box, two issues arises: 1) Law - Breaking the Law. ? - Find the holes within it or promote changes 2) Morals & Principles - values define a lot of yourself! However, you must be able to change your values (at least review it on a regular basis). You must work hard on yourself and be creative to think without barriers.
Paul Rulkens is a top tier public speaker
"The majority is always wrong, the minority is rarely right"
-Henrik Ibsen
I write angry women - Henrik Ibsen.
@@count7340 No wonder.
@@RogerBarraud what
Dr Stockmann in 'An enemy of the people'
It's not about what is right or wrong it''s about being ahead of the majority of people in a/multiple fields/domains of activity.
the thing is, we think being different is good. but there are MILLIONS of companies who did it differently, trying to innovate the market and failed. but because they weren't successful, their company was never known. and THAT is the true majority, this is the basic idea of something called "survivor bias" which is a bias towards the numbers that get counted and not the whole set. basically, you could have a thousand different companies with new innovation before only one is successful.
Exactly. I think that it is the part that is quite left aside in his presentation. At the end when he is saying ''As of today that choice is completely yours'', it is only halfway through, if less. Yes, anyone can innovate and think outside the box if they set their mind to, but not everyone will be successful doing it, only 3%. The survivor bias is a fantastic explanation here. Official patent sites are filled with innovative ideas that never made it to market. Although a lot of successful people won't dare say it, a great part of the success is actually based on luck.
@@LtKregorov it's also based on subjective experience alot of the time, if a successful person just happened to get successful, they might blame all the hard work they did while a poor person might have done just as much work and gotten nothing.
@Maxwell Severins Bruh my post is 6 months old like what, i don't even remember what i was talking about.
I'll try to respond though
@Maxwell Severins First, innovation inherenerently based on change, and that's what i meant.
Second, Survivor bias plays a big role here. I bet there are plenty of people who live and breathe their buisiness, but didn't have any sucess due to simple misfortune. And do you wanna know why you haven't heard of these people? It's because they WEREN'T sucessful in working hard, so they never earned enough to become someone "big" and their voices were never heard.
The worst thing about suvivor bias is that it's the suvivors who get to make the rules. In this case, suvivors are people who have the power and influence to speak and be heard.
That's because the key ingredient to success from a start up perspective is timing. If you have the best technology, product or service and it's the either too new, ahead of it's time, or the same or too similar to well estsablished, known existing competitiors. It's not funding, it's not proven management..... It's timing.
It finally makes sense to me why I don’t like to be in groups, the thinking goes out of the window!
Nothing wrong in being in groups
@@MrNll004 A group can be useful if they are working together with the specific remit of coming up with innovative ideas. But the OP is talking about herd mentality, whereby people in the group don't want to go against set group norms. That kind of situation results in group think, where individuals abandon independent critical thinking, and just agree to think the same thing as the rest of the group. This is a pretty common group behaviour.
“I will never be normal. Normal is just another word for average.”
--Jeffrey Fry
Everyone thinks they're in the 3%, ironically.
A very little part of people will accually recognize their position in this procentage, ironically, the majority think is already in that special minority and that's stoping them to grow up, I see this interesting.
No I am not thinking this. I see this every day how much pain it is to learn something, while you have the pressure to be producite instantly. Its actually quite painfull it feels always that i am torn between long term better solutions and "get something done" its a difficult flower.
97% do at least. And maybe 1/3 of the actual 3%
@@apostolosfilippos there cannot be a shepherd without the sheep
Dunning-Kreuger?
(Sp?)
“Extraordinary people are ordinary people with an extra amount of determination”
“The thought that often drives me hazy is it I or the others that are crazy”
“Freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose”
Ted talk over
well it's not me, so it MUST be you :D :D ooops, there you go, wrong again, maybe we are BOTH crazy :D
“The thought that often drives me hazy is it I or the others that are crazy” In most cases it is both.
Look at me! I did this. And so can you!
Ted Talk over.
Knowledge and desire determine success
💪
I’ve sat through many talks like this during my working life, exhorting us to break the mould, by people who never did anything original themselves (I’m thinking HR personnel here). Corporations are dominance hierarchies which rely on the people at the top ruling over those beneath them. They are structured on a division of labour and standardised behaviour, not very conducive to thinking creatively. A good number of the 97% are well aware of this.
You're definitely the majority.
You may not be in a position to change anything in your organization but you have freedom outside work to change things. In your organization you must be at a level where you can tell others what is your vision and ask them to execute it. Not everyone is risk averse but the majority, sadly, is. This is the reason why for the billions we are on this planet our progress almost feels like it's stagnating. Musk comes to mind here, but there are not many like him willing to go against the grain all the time.
@@Bruckner people who look to billionaires for answers are not intelligent.
He is definitely among the 3 percent.
I love how he did his faces after sentences, his expression is priceless
I like this combo-accent of dutch, way too posh british and a touch of german
I want that accent aswell
I was thinking this as well!
linguaphile he sounds like the Major from Hellsing Ultimate
Makes for a great movie villain.
linguaphile I missed the posh British but I did make the following observation:
WWII was around 70 years ago and still ... the presence of a German accent will not get you a laugh no matter how clever your comment.
Can I PLEASE get an “Amen” up in here, or what?!!! Very well said.
I must have watched this speech over a dozen times since I first watched it roughly 6 years ago, and I still draw a lot of inspiration from it. Simply amazing!
The talk begins with an anecdote about Einstein to drive home the point that "Questions remain the same , but their answers change over time". In any activity an average performer seeks to emulate the efforts done by people before him. But people forget that ordinary efforts will only get them ordinary results. An average performer when faced with adversity will either do more or less of what he was already doing whereas a high achiever will try to seek out a different approach. In doing so the person rises above the rigidity of their self and have the possibility to become a better self.
I'm guessing that you wrote this comment for yourself, so you might have better comprehension.. If I'm right i have one question - Does it work ?
He could be completely lying but that accents makes me believe every word.😄
I swearrr..😅😅😅
Then you should listen more to Dutch people
He sounds a lot like a dutch colleague I had. I'm guessing dutch 👍
@Martin Gerlach The origin of the word Dutch comes from the word diut, the name of the language spoken in the Netherlands and West Germany before the Middle Ages , so the people spoke diuts. Later on the word evolved to Dutch for the language of the people from the Netherlands and Deutsch for the people of Germany. That’s how the English speak English, the French speak French and in de Netherlands we don’t speak Netherlandish, but Dutch and the Germans speak Deutsch and not Germanish. It was used to name the language of the people (peasants) to differentiate from the official language of the rulers, French or Latin.
After the separation of the southern part of the republic in a Belxit, they became Belgium which is way more French oriented nowadays that the Netherlands, where French has no status and in Belgium it is one of the official languages next to Flemish and German. The different people of Belgium don’t even understand each other and refuse to give in and speak the same language in a conversation. It’s ridiculous, but also the perfect location of the European Parliament, where nobody understands each other but cultivate the illusion of a union. It’s no coincidence the EU parliament looks like the Biblical tower of Babilonia. Genesis 11-9 clearly speaks of the Babylonian confusion of speech, which was a punishment for being to proud and thinking they knew better than god. This hubris let to their downfall, the same as the EU and Belgium.
A funny fact is that people from the Netherlands can easily understand about 80% of spoken Deutsch (German) but the other way around proves way more difficult (10-20%). In the Netherlands we speak English with ease but we hardly understand the Wallon French from Belgium due to the very strange pronunciation. Even the French have a hard time with it. The Belgian Wallons actually don’t even like the French. And the Dutch. And the Flemish. And the Germans too actually, something about WW2.. Well, I leave it here.
De mazzel (That’s the Dutch version of mazzeltov, from the Jews we welcomed in Amsterdam after they were kicked out of Portugal.)
@Martin Gerlach Servus Martin. Können Sie mir Bescheid geben ob es tatsächlich so ist, das gesprochen Holländisch meistens für Deutscher nicht so einfach zu folgen ist? Ich habe manchmal gehört, dass es Deutscher so vorkommt, als ob wir all unsere Wörter zusammen schmieden. Dadurch scheinen die unterschiedlichen Wörter kaum noch zu erkennen zu sein.
The very only useful TED Talk ever
Its always reassuring to know that im not the one whos insane.
As Someone who enjoys persuing morality and researching the state of the natural world and the human condition, unfortunately from my research alot of the truths of the world are the opposite of what MOST people believe. The backlash and results make me seem like either a "know it all" or "crazy/bad" but they have no understanding or information to prove me incorrect.
We live in a world where the norm is being completely disconnected from reality.
Tell me more please?
If you don't tell him, he's going to call you a know it all
To be 100% clear, he could also explain that the 3% will succeed x times out of xxxx tries to escape the ordinary. One must embrace failure. The 97% will never try.
Edison failed hundreds of times before finally making the light bulb, when asked about his failures, he said "I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work.".
@@hyteck Didn't Edison steal ideas though?
not really. he has done what people like elon musk do: hire people to do work and then take credit. he claim an invention from Mr.Tesla, but that’s really the only one (to my knowledge)
An important point, this.
the innovators aren't always the best when it comes down to the weeds of calculations and tinkering.
I'm suprised this doesn't now carry a COVID-19 misinformation box courtesy of Google.
You haven't noticed you haven't been sick the whole time, though, huh?
He didn't mention covid
@@ericfair-layman2429 it was a joke about Google's heavy-handed response to ANY disagreement with the majority opinions on covid. If you ask ANY questions you are automatically a conspiracy theorist/anti-vaxxers.
@@OmegaTou And what valid questions have people been asking, pray tell?
We still haven't come to terms that the vaccines are no solutions and sooner or later we will have to learn to live with the virus, because this virus is not going anywhere and is going to outlive any species of mammals on this Earth. It will take a couple more months before people start realizing they do not want to be jabbed 3 times a year, they do not want immunity as a service ... and the they already have a tool to tackle this coronavirus as they tackle 200 other respiratory pathogens, including some coronaviruses. It is their immune system.
Paul Rulkens delivers a motivational message at Maastricht University in The Netherlands. He cuts to the chase with the premise that 97% of the population lives inside the “box” of normalcy and see no reason to risk going beyond. Consequently, they live their entire lives working for or serving the three percent who do live outside the box. This presentation just might change your life - if you want it to.
Watching this in 2022, I can't help relating this talk to the Covid situation
I disliked the video to be part of the 3%. Now I'm outside the majority. But I'm also an idiot.
good, now reject faith and support us
that was actually a very creative application of being a part of the minority haha
correction being a dislike now is among the approximately 7%
Archibald Belanus Depends. that way you, at some level, told other people that this video is not good ~ not worth the time watching it. That way you probably eliminated some possible future rivals
+Big Foot thats clever
It strikes me that this is another box to be in: that we must always be doing new, innovative, expansive things.
Well, the motivation is that if we provide a good or service in exchange for value, and we rely on that value to live, but someone else innovates first, they outcompete us and we lose our source of livelihood. So society tells you must always keep innovating.
Where I personally think this perspective goes wrong is in the way we see innovation as the end goal. It's not a goal, it's a means. If we can improve a process we're already successful at, then we free up more time and resources to do other things - things that we actually want to spend our time and resources on.
@@Munchprime Good point. Yes for example we might direct our time and resources toward things like restoring the ecology of the planet!
You needn´t see it as another box, just become aware of the box you´re in at the moment. That allows you to make conscious decisions with no strings attached
We wouldn't have to constantly do "new and innovative" things. If we took time to figure out all of the possibilites of error of a proposed concept or an idea, and took care of them before we even considered mass production. In this country we throw anything and everything away that's old, becuase we have no use for them because it's NOT "new and innovative" despite the fact that they WORKED and wasn't wasteful or foolish...That's the problem with living in a CONSUMERIST society, everything has to rapidly and carelessly produced for the sake of mass consumption. Nothing made makes people happy or satisfied, cause they're ALWAYS wanting more...
I thought so as well, I thought: "actually I'd like to to some traditional stuff". It's not about being innovative but doing something of quality that you enjoy. Take the axe company Gränsfors Bruk, they specialize in making axes, traditional axes, no plastics, just iron and wood for different specialized uses, it's not "innovative" it's traditional and it's not "EXPANSIVE" and "GROUND BREAKING" it's just good craftsmanship and love of the craft - that's whats important, seems more like a motivational speech for get rich fast Silicon Valley types.
It's a fair point. Your choice is to follow or lead.
There is only one universal consciousness which veils itself so not to be by itself. To be more concrete. The meaning of life is love. - Wald Wassermann, Physicist.
I'm an historian and I would say that "change" comes from concrete conditions, nobody wake up a day (or watch a video on youtube) saying "I think out of the box" and change the world. Lavoiser was the founder of modern chemistry, he smashed previous alchemy and he did so because he was amazingly rich. Be out of the box it's a complex combination of knowledge, experiences and life conditions. We have to empower poor people and middle class people not selling ideas (for free of course), but improving their life conditions in a way they can be more free and have the quiet mind needed to develop themselves and not just survive day after day.
Pilot mind it's needed when you fight day by day, to not have it is just a privilege.
I have to disagree.. change comes from a person who thinks (out of the box) and put his thoughts into action,the majority as mentioned is “not really thinking” (or thinking inside the box) just on auto pilot mode. I can’t agree with thinking out of the box is a complex combination cause some crazy ideas have came out of people who isn’t really knowledgeable,nor have tons of experienced and various life conditions..and they belong to the 3%.
@@kerbull708 As a historian myself too, i bet you are not historian neither scientist.
As a fellow historian i couldn't agree more! Well said!
I’m sure you’re a historian cause your effort to assume the present is pretty inaccurate..btw,I wrote my opinion about the topic not about the person/user who commented nor their background or anything personal. I wish not all historian is as closed minded as you.
@@kerbull708 I know that you just wrote an opinion. And from my expierience, your answer to me, actually proved me right on beting that your opinion is based on ignorance in that perpective.
It's not just on high performance issues. It's on issues / world views that people hold but haven't looked closely at. People are getting all into their emotions without checking facts.
Their favourite emotion is baseless fear.
@@psalm2764 fear makes people pliable to those offering percieved safety.
@Dawson Davis You presume a whole lot. I have a question for you what is a woman?
@@centurionguards3819 i love this, you being a matt walsh guy who is very clearly working in a way to regress our society and the thinking that you are somehow not in this “majority” when trans people are clearly the ones in the outside the box minority
So many truths here! Thankyou 👍
8:24 autopilot spotted 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
To be successful does need much more than thinking out of the box.
"Mehrheit ist der Unsinn.
Verstand ist stets bei wenigen nur gewesen."
~Friedrich Schiller
Die Räuber
"Awareness is known by awareness alone," is the sole irreducible axiom of reality.
Yes!!
Technically correct. This message conveyed here isn't for everyone.
In other words, to paraphrase George Bernard Shaw, "reasonable people adapt to the world; the unreasonable persist in trying to adapt the world to themselves. Therefore, all progress depends on being unreasonable.” I wish I were one of the 3%, but I fear I am anything but. Oh well!
Shaw also said, if folks use more recources than they can contribute toward, they should be put in a line, hearing beautiful symphony music playing, as they walk into a building - to a gaseous termination.
Another arrogant bloodliner.
Too bad the 'majority' does not research, confirm & learn things on their OWN - hence, the majority refer to George as a "thinker". The majority do not even SEE what they Look at - let alone Question anything.🤫 Don't wake them ... it's too late, anyway.
He clearly says WHEN IT COMES TO HIGH ACHIEVEMENT the majority is always wrong... repeatedly...
Yes. He does doesn't he? I wonder how he would define "High Achievement"? He did mention Morality...just once I think. (Right after he first drew the box) But the other three sides (actually the "box" is really, as depicted, a squarish shape.)
I wonder if he has forgotten how valuable the "Majority 97%" is to the "3%", the "2%" and the "1%"? (Though the "1%" may have won "independence" from the "97%". (They are self perpetuating in their own "world"?)
Daniel, not valuable to us at all, and indeed, quite detrimental.
@@viktorreznov4718 Howdy, Kade. It looks like you are saying that the 97% is NOT valuable to us at all. Am I reading your answer correctly? And then you continue with "indeed quite detrimental."
I need to ask you a few questions if I may: When you write "us", do you meant part or all, of the "3%", "2%" and "1%" ?
If "part", which part please? The "3%", "2%", or "1%"?
If your reply is to the affirmative for the above, then would you please further share your Ideas about this? I need to better understand your Thoughts and Feelings about this.
If the majority is high achievement then it becomes normative lol
@@mccaboy That is truly philosophical because it will never happen.
I am not what I do. I do what I am. No boundaries. No rest. - Racine
This was an eye opening speech… Be mad or be mediocre 👍
Yes !
Maybe my giant essay posts will interest you ! apparently large comments too fast and too much makes YT delete them. I replied to @theironherder and @Xogroroth666 and there are heaps more rants on various videos 🤣
All these years later and this is still one of the best ted talks out there.
It's a ted-x talk. And it shows. Because it lacks depth and research. And only uses cheap rhetorical tricks. A boondoggle in lack of a better word.
@@Macatho you hit the nail on the head. This is Ted X talk designed for tech bro managers. "Nobody is thinking but me, everybody is lazy but me, if they tell me it can't be done they are just not visionary like me..." mindset. Sometimes there is a reason WHY things are done certain way and that reason is (again, sometimes) because a lot of very smart people spent a long time designing the procedure to do it that way. Sometimes the shortcut is not the safest way, is what I'm trying to say. Yeah, you could do it that way, but if you do it that way, 99% of the time everything will be fine but 1% will lead to catastrophic failure and people might even die because you did it slightly unsafer but slightly faster and "more efficient" way. So your faster and slightly unsafer way was made illegal because of that 1% of catastrophic failures.
That's just one part of what's wrong with the talk.
This is the most content-free TEDx talk I've ever watched.
For example, if you would have a TEDx talk, but removed all the content, you might have a talk titled "Why the majority is always wrong"
Jumbozo FOR EXAMPLE, thats was the only way he drew it in fuh
Carol Cyr
That’s because you didn’t really listen or you didn’t really understand. The answer to his question on how to be successful was simple, think outside the box. Where the talk had value was he explained how. On top of that he proved his claim about the majority with a very insightful and valid point.
for 97% this talk has been content-free xD
Fun.
You only remember the beginning and ending of presentations/conversations.
By the time the presentation has come to an end, you forgot 99% of what has been said.
It doesn't really matter what he says, did you enjoy and understand his message?
Covid make this speech so much more understandable.
Yup my thouggt exactly
Ye like all the people saying the vaccine doesnt work like what? it obviously does or like the people who just wont wear a mask because their daddies at fox tells them not to. Like yeah I totaly understand. those sheople at Fox.
@@noahaglund3179 the vaccine doesn't work. I have 2 coworkers that are double vaxxed and they're now out for 2 weeks. Cuz they have covid. I got tested and I'm fine. Everyone else at work is fine. I'm not vaxxed and neither is majority of my coworkers. The Vax isn't isn't Vax. By sheer definition a vaccine is supposed to give you immunity. It doesn't. Thus by definition, it's not a vaccine. In fact if you go look up the patent number for the Vax you'll find out it's not patented under anything biological, it's actually patented as tech. So really let's use our heads here. If it's not a Vax, what is it?
Thought the same
@@noahaglund3179 okay, just dont stop other people from making their own decisions
Brilliant speaker. Lovely suit.
Grande lição para todos os que se escudam em
"cruzar os braços" e "abanar com a cabeça"!
Definitively a case study of survivor bias. Thinking and working outside the norms come with as great risk as it has rewards.
Ola Ruud it calculated risk but risk nonetheless people usually profit off of people failure or inability to do something anyway
Well obviously. Life is nothing but a grand table of eternal gamble after all.
if you try, there is at least a chance of success.
@@adarshpayyavula6071 chance of success is no match to loss of time, which is finite forever, at least for us, at least for now.
absolutely right the speaker didn't fully consider this...
One should emphasize that the main risk of stepping outside a non-innovative, but somehow functioning and comfortable box is potential failure of actually being innovative successfully, making the main obstacle for such a decision "fear". Hence, the decision of whether or not one steps out of the box should not be a cool, hipster, we-are-all-individualistic kind of thing, it should be the result of well thought out ideas and courage. And while the talk made it sound like it's the "cool" thing to belong to the 3%, it should be added that we cannot all be part of the group that designs the game. Some still have to play it. And since innovation is always a matter of exploring a new path, it's equally alright for someone to decide that they want to be part of those who keep the ship running until we have decided on a new course.
Demian Haki This is a well thought out statement. When you think about the numbers, does it seem that you'd actually need the majority to keep the ship running with the possibility of the 3% making a horrible mistake? if it was 50/50 the mistakes could occur on a much larger scale. That being said well thought out idea's have a less chance of going that far but it doesn't get rid of the possibility.
Demian, great post.
Agree totally regarding the first part regarding fear. The second part is questionable, who says that so many players have to play the game. We could build a society with many more games and in each game fewer players or rotate the innovators or even play games with fewer rules. However, many people barely understand the rules and therefore would have trouble inventing new ones. I would say we have to remember that many people fear change (as Demian mentioned) and at the same time that many people would make a mess if they tried, in other words, their is justified.
Ano Nymous I agree with greed and perhaps a jealous competitive obsession won't let the 3% allow any one else to be in the group for fear of losing their extraordinary share of resources they once used to innovate but no only hoard to stifle any competition to their success, even at the cost of being stuck with an inferior end result. If I ever make it to the 3% I won't step on others who happen to have a similar goal, if they are better then the current solution then being replaced might be inevitable and rather than feared should be embraced.
Demian Haki Very well said.
Seeing the majority agreeing with this guy and praising him. I'm now conflated. Taking his advice seems like the norm now.
Cool name. I believe that taking his advice and just agreeing with it are two different things. It could be the difference between those who will become the 3% and those who won't.
Only found Paul recently. I love his speeches
Aristotle said that when many are in agreement, it is an indication that wisdom is present. That's the most careful statement I've ever heard.
That's NOT wisdom, that's compliance to a group. Sheep are NOT wise. I don't even think Aristotle was even THAT foolish to say that...
The majority of the audience cheered for the speaker!
Breakthrough, even with social norms this happens. Wonderful lecture
How many of y’all just read the comments without paying any attention to the video
“Each of you can be part of that 3% if you think outside the norm”. That’s mathematically impossible.
No it isn't. Every one in that room could be part of the 3%. The 3% is about 240 million people.
Note that he didn't say 'all of you', but 'each of you'.
Maybe instead of "can" he should have said "could".
Eventually they can raise these 3% to something higher
Well. At that time, he is only addressing the people in that room...
Brilliant observations, really enjoyed this talk. Well done!
This is more true that most will ever dare to understand. I have never understood why people think that the best process to achieve better results is to follow what everyone else does? The statement itself is a paradox, perhaps closer to (as a famous scientist once said) insanity. I've always considered what others do, taken the best parts, and then applied those principles in a different way, even if it goes against the grain of society, the rules, the law. Most would incorrectly assume that this would lead to a life of disaster, but as our speaker reinforces, the opposite will ring true: you'll achieve better results by NOT falling in line or following the herd. Will you face hardships that the others don't? Yes. Will you be lectured and potentially ridiculed for not heeding the valuable advice of conformity? Absolutely. The hardest part of this level of being is allowing yourself to become accustomed to being the "outsider," the "rebel," and at the highest levels, the visionary. Look to those who have also taken the path less traveled, and yes, it will make all of the difference. I remember being kicked out of several hospitals for these types of behavioral inconsistencies, and the same for colleges as well, but the end result was forging a path that allowed me to find a job that started me at over $35K more than the average for the field, the same paygrade as someone with a decade of experience, all because I refused to take less than the exceptional, while reaping the rewards of becoming the exception.
One of the best TED Talks that I have heard over a long long time.
The answer promised in the title is not offered in the video.
:) That's the point, we have to found it by yourselfs by thinking outside the box; otherwise if it would be handed to us on a silver platter we we'll be still on the automated pilot who just has received another instruction.
Yes, it did. The majority produces norms. Norms don't always solve problems. Innovation doesn't come from thinking in norms. It comes from thinking outside norms.
gregory brian it didn’t. Being wrong or right has very little to do with whether something is innovative or not.
Thank you, I'm was not alone then to wonder how mass intelligence could be disproved!
Oliver Hoffmann - The majority is always wrong when it comes to achieving extraordinary results because the majority is never extraordinary; the majority is, by definition, ordinary. The title fails to specify a particular thing that the majority is always wrong about (literally meaning the majority is wrong about everything), but that particular thing, achieving extraordinary results, is identified in the video.
Thank you very much for this. Finally I can explain my life-choices scientifically though I always knew it in my heart.
Amazing I loved this. I find it frustrating because the other issue is that the 97% don’t always understand or value the different thinkers 🤷🏻♂️
. they don't not always understand . they never understand . it is not even considered .
you are 100% correct, ive been trying to tell my family and friends the value of Christian Nationalism. there is more evidence supporting Anglo Saxon and christian superiority than there is evidence we landed on the moon. even our ancestors from the 1800s KNEW that the skulls of african slaves vs the skulls of white people could NOT support the size of a civilized brain. it is a shame that the majority were willing to risk civil war back then to ignore this fact and they are on track to do it again.
Praise trump and our lord jesus christ. Glory to the anglo race!
Brilliant speech. Thank you so much. Feeling vindicated in a very satisfying fashion. 🤜🤛🙏💜
"Be yourself; everyone else is already taken."
what i understood from the lecture is 'be the best version of yourself'. Make some effort -of course always being yourself.
Michael Beach be there or be square!
So in his 3 examples (taxi , ikea, dell) he basically tells us to not to know anything, build anything or sell anything to be superior. Great advice , thank you!
What a pitty, that people are laughing instead of crying. What a pitty that stupidity doesnt hurt....
Nice tie, a fancy voice and a good collection of anecdotes. Just what the majority are looking for in the thought leadership department.
you hit the nail on the head. This is Ted X talk designed for tech bro managers. "Nobody is thinking but me, everybody is lazy but me, if they tell me it can't be done they are just not visionary like me..." mindset. Sometimes there is a reason WHY things are done certain way and that reason is (again, sometimes) because a lot of very smart people spent a long time designing the procedure to do it that way. Sometimes the shortcut is not the safest way, is what I'm trying to say. Yeah, you could do it that way, but if you do it that way, 99% of the time everything will be fine but 1% will lead to catastrophic failure and people might even die because you did it slightly unsafer but slightly faster and "more efficient" way. So your faster and slightly unsafer way was made illegal because of that 1% of catastrophic failures.
That's just one part of what's wrong with the talk. The other is there is a type of innovation that is good for the individual but screws a lot of people in the process. Just google con, confidence trick and fraud : )
@@jo1stormlord What you say is half the story, because most of the time, the way things were made was in a time when we had to calculate stuff with slide rulers, computers didn't exist or were full warehouses that made less math than a properly trained person, we had no internet, GPS or smartphones where you can videochat or send high resolution images or video to someone else anywhere in the world instantly. A time you made a 6 liter V8-engined car with 200HP and it was considered good, and next year you made a 7 liter one to make it better. A time the largest factories where not making pieces of silicon etched at the atomic level, with investments in the 10s of billions, or the most valuable companies sold intangible stuff, algorithms we call "software".
What a lot of really smart people did in the 60s, 70s or even in the 00s is no longer relevant today. A lot of industries and businesses have died and will keep doing it because of this. Specially when a 70+ year old suited guy (or several of them) who hardly know how to use whatsapp run them.
Again, sometimes he is right. Innovation and fake innovation are easy in IT. Most of the time he is not right. Make a shortcut in safety standards and people die, because those were written and paid for in blood (see latest seagate dive for an example. 14 successful dives then death). Make a shortcut in finance and law and that is called a fraud, sometimes even a ponzi or pyramid scheme (see NFTs for example). "What if people give me money and I don't give them anything useful out of it" is called a scam for a reason. Uber destroyed cab industry by pretending not to be a cab company and skirting laws, only to make traffic, service, safety and salaries worse for everyone.
Yes, there are entrenched industries but they are the exception and not the rule.
Measure the smartness of an audience by what they are laughing about.
I Noticed they didn’t laugh at the obvious punch lines either.
It's a very good video to start thinking more wide that we used to do. Thanks for great material.
What he missed to say is that the box exists because outside of that there Is mainly death. It there are 1000 doors to quit the box, probaly only one leads to the happy place of success, while all the other ones lead to failure, but only successful stories become famous.
Brilliant truth for all of us to absorb 🙏🏻
One of, if not the very best learnings to come out of my total youtube experience.
Thought provoking talk, and very well presented! Thank you!
However, Paul Rukens misses those who did not follow the majority and *failed*. It seems even likely that failures outnumber the successes. Thus, what the minority does is not likely to be correct, not even when we only focus on high performance. We have a case of the survivor bias here, just as Ola Ruud mentioned it in the comments below.
In fact, what the minority does is more risky, risk-seeking, courageous, etc. in the sense that anti-normal decisions are perceived either to be very clever (under success: the Einsteins, IKEAs, Gates, etc.) or very silly (the unnamed bulk of failures nobody have ever heard about). Departing from the norm causes nothing but evaluative extremity, and in case your focus is restricted to the successes very positive evaluations (what Paul Rukens argues).The majority option, on the other hand, is connected to less extreme evaluative reactions and should therefore be regarded as the save, reliable, cautious, etc. option.
I've myself conducted research on the phenomenon of evaluative extremity under low and high prevalence of decisions. You may find the following article interesting:
Erb, H.-P., Hilton, D. J., Bohner, G., & Roffey, L. (2015). The minority decision - A risky choice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 57, 43-50.
My thoughts exactly!
Very well said. Although this ted talk is inspiring, it leaves the risk factor totally unexplained
This is only workable for a few (small percentage of the population) Unfortunately. The thinking and innovation required by others would upset the comfort they enjoy with the predictability of their life. The level of stress this creates for people on the path to these innovations is extreme and the high risk is not something the average settled person would want to take on
I'd rather work for a working concern that guarantees a decent salary then be an innovating genius. I want to leave work at work.
@@emanuelgaldes3515 Absolutely. The innovation is for a handful of people who, in the end, will realise they have been used
@@emanuelgaldes3515 Those "innovating geniuses" don't feel the way you do about what you call "work". They don't sacrifice life for their work, instead their work is a huge, great and fulfilling part of their life.
Your comment makes me think that you see work as something to be endured for the sake of the salary, and that the only or main value of it is the money you get from it. Do you really think that this is any better than being an innovating genius who finds joy and fulfilment in their work?
Yes. About 3%.
Hasn't convinced me at all ... though he would argue that my statement proves his point: I am destined to do the same thing over and over. Not really, but I respect the knowledge that's been learned and don't feel it needs to be overturned, but rather just fine-tuned and improved.
“The crowd is untruth.”
- Soren Kierkegaard
Source
Ebiowei Fekumo it comes from Kierkegaard’s writing, ‘That Individual’ which was published after his death.
So being a noncomformist is cool after all
@@Jacob-ye7gu the fashionable nonconformist.
"I'm not like most girls."
Most girls.
@@acefader96 or is Ebiowei Fekumo trying to imply that Mr. Kierkegaard obviously never knew about crowd'sourcing' and the *Wisdom* of the crowd.. :p