TED talk comparisons

These two TED talk are different in style and tone . In Matt Cutts TED talk, he talks about how he wants to do a 30 day challenge like the movie “Super Size Me”. He wanted to do something he always wanted to do and stick with it for 30 days. He presents his list of things he wanted to challenge himself with such as bike to work, take a picture a day, and write a novel. He also listed things he wanted to eliminate like no TV, no sugar, no twitter, and no caffeine.  He made the choice to actually show us pictures of his 30 days challenge. This was effective because he made it seem like it was possible for people to do a 30 days challenge. I enjoyed his talk becasue I have already accomplished one of his 30 days challenge which was to write a novel.  I like that his talk was light-hearted and how he made it work by dressing casually and adding some humor.

In comparison, Stacey Kramer begins with a picture of a wrapped tiffany box. My first thought was, “Oh, it’s a ring.” That of course is the best gift, although that wasn’t where her talk was leading up to. The first time I watched this I had no idea where her talk was going until she revealed her “gift”.  She started with the tiffany box and used it like it was a positive thing. It made her talk very effective because she goes on to say how the gift was good for her in so many ways. When she revealed her gift she described her tumor as “a rare gem” to go along with the tiffany box she began with. It wrapped up her talk up nicely even though we were just hit with a curve ball with what her gift was. The tone of her talk was serious and thought provoking. I like her style in that she kept the audience guessing.

Of the two TED talk, I liked both styles. Both of the Ted talks were personal and it allowed them to talk easily about their topic. I liked that they put a spin on it and presented with a bit more life and animation.  

ted talk analysis

        In Stacy Kramer’s “The Best Gift I Ever Survived” TED talk, she makes a connection with her audience from the start.  She tells her viewers to imagine a gift; she verbally paints a picture of this gift so her audience specifically knows the details of the gift about which she is talking. Stacy describes this gift by giving vivid details such as: it is the size of a golf ball, it is wrapped, and it will positively impact one’s life.   This description of the gift demonstrates an immediate connection with her audience. She then shows a picture of a gift box. Furthermore, she connects with her audience by literally telling it how she knows they are anxious to know what is in the box. As her speech progresses, she opens the wrapped box and describes how this object inside the gift box has not only triggered a new positive outlook on life and changed the person she is, but also a state of bliss in her life; this gift is a brain tumor she unexpectedly had and battled. One may find it bizarre how a brain tumor could be the gift of a lifetime, but it sure did have a life changing effect on Stacy. The viewer might also notice how she moves her eyes around the entire room rather than staring at one particular spot. Theses eye movements demonstrate how she connects with every member of the audience. She did not move around the stage a bunch, but I think that worked due to the serious content of her speech. Generally, speeches that cover serious content involve little movement about the stage whereas speeches of less serious material involve more movement. She ends her speech by saying whenever one is faced with something unexpected in life, he should stay strong and consider it may be a gift with profounding effects.

          In Terry Moore’s “How to Tie Shoes” TED talk, he brings a whole new perspective to the act of tying shoes. He shows a way in which the shoe laces will less frequently become untied. He describes how describes how there is a strong form of knot in which one ties the shoelace in the opposite direction than the typical, normal way; this orients the bow along the transverse side of the shoe, and this is what can prevent one from constantly having to tie his shoes. He has a very humorous presentational style, and this humor, apart from the audience’s state of awe and interest, is what forms the connections between him and his audience. In his speech, contrarily from Stacy, he uses more hand gestures/movement and moves more about the stage, and these presentational styles appropriately fit the content of his speech. He also brings props (the shoes) to his speeches which add to his it in a positive way.

          Personally, I enjoy all presentational styles as long as they are conducive to the subject matter of the speech.

Comparing two TED talks

The first TED I watched was A Story of Mixed Emoticons, this one I enjoyed watching. I liked how he told us a story the emoticons and how it was easy to follow. Compared to other TED talks when I didn’t have an idea of what was going on, Rives talk made sense the entire time. As the presenter he was dressed casually and relied on the screen for a majority of his speech. But, if he hadn’t relied on the screen throughout the story he was telling, the speech wouldn’t have been the same. He built his speech into the images, which were popping up on the screen, these images then created a story. Everything he does has a casual affect on his presentation, and makes it seem real, like people talk in emoticons everyday all day.  This story that he tells his audience seems as if it would be a high school movie.

The story in The Best Gift I Ever Survived is more formal and personal to the speaker, Stacey Kramer. By the way she is dressed, how she is presenting the speech, and what impact it has had on her is what makes this speech so personal. When the video first starts, she tells us about a gift that she had received and shows us a picture of a little blue box, the viewer doesn’t know or expect something so dramatic as what she is about to reveal to us. As she goes on through her speech, she continues to describe to us this gift, this gift quickly turned into a bio-hazard bag. She revealed to the audience that she once had brain cancer. Once the viewer hears about her gift, it’s shocking to think that someone like the speaker, who seems to have a normal life, would have gone through such a traumatic and scary event.

While these talks are both very different stories, speeches, and presentational styles, their stories both have an everyday occurrence to them. In the emoticon story, everyday people used emoticons in conversations or to even lead a conversation. In Stacey Kramer’s speech everyone, everyday gets cancer and is surviving it. Ones presentation was casual, and the other was formal. Both of the speeches had different effects on the audience. Overall I liked both of the speeches and how each of them were so different, by they worked with the stories the speakers were trying to tell.   

Comparison of two TED talks

http://www.ted.com/talks/terry_moore_how_to_tie_your_shoes.html

http://www.ted.com/talks/matt_cutts_try_something_new_for_30_days.html
Between the two talks, Terry Moore “How to tie your shoes” and Matt Cutts “Try something new for 30 days” I find that the two speakers have very different presentation styles. In Terry Moore’s talk, “How to tie your shoes,” he went for more of the formal look with the blazer and the collared shirt. He looked like someone who was use to speaking in front of larger groups like those that you would find at a TED conference. Moore also liked to speak with his hands. Moore did a very good job at supporting the content of his topic by having a shoe on the stage with him. He then demonstrated the way that most Americans are taught to tie their shoes. After doing so, he then went on to explain why the way we were always taught was the weaker way. (By weaker way, I mean a weaker knot.) Moore then used the shoe again to demonstrate the stronger knot. Moore could have done that talk without the shoe but that may have been a little more difficult to explain. He closed his talk by tying in the overall theme of the TED convention, which was that a small advantage someplace in life could yield tremendous results someplace else.

            In Matt Cutts talk, “Try something new for 30 days,” Cutts went for more of a casual look than formal. He was in a brown long sleeve t-shirt and blue jeans. I noticed that he liked to walk around and use his hands to help speak in the talk and, he used pictures to kind of help to provide a background for the topic. Cutts mentioned a list of things that you could add on to thirty-day challenges or things that you could cut off of your thirty-day challenges. One of these thirty-day challenges that really jumped out at me was writing a novel. The reason why it jumped out at me was because I did the same thirty-day challenge last semester for Creative writing. Cutts also used pictures of himself in the talk. He started by using the comparison to computer nerd then on to the guy who bikes to work. He even climbed Mt. Kilimanjaro, which is the highest mountain in Africa. That is something that most people don’t even think about doing. He closed the talk by stating that small sustainable changes for thirty days are more likely to stay than larger changes.

            Overall, I felt that the better presenter was Matt Cutts. I liked that he moved around in the talk and used the slide show with the pictures. I find that presentation style of TED talks to be a little bit better than others unless the speaker just relies completely on the slideshow.  I just felt that the talk that Cutts gave was better. Maybe it was because Cutts was able to move around the stage more often than Moore was. 

The Comparison of two TED talks

Richard St. John’s “8 Secrets of success” presentation is incredibly different compared to Damon Horowitz’s “Philosophy in Prison” presentation.  

Richard’s presentation style is too casual, to the point where it is distracting. He did not use a clicker to go from slide to slide, but used his computer which compelled him to look away from the audience and at his computer. This is where is loses his audience and where the presentation becomes annoying. He talks a little too fast and you can tell he is feeling rushed which takes away from his presentation. He also did not dress for the part. He is talking about success and so you would think the presenter would be wearing a suit or something but he is not. He is dressed casually, wearing his glasses and croakies around his neck. On the other hand, I liked his PowerPoint. I thought the pictures and quotes put together were excellent and simplified what he was trying to say. Richard St. John’s “8 secrets of success” presentation consisted of good content but was just presented poorly.

Damon Horowitz’s presentation style of “Philosophy in Prison,” was not casual but dramatic. It was as if he was doing a monologue.  Damon dives right into it. He grabs the audience’s attention by introducing Tony. Not only does he introduce Tony but he turns to the side and re-enacts Tony’s thoughts and the conversations the two of them have had. This is definitely more effective than if he was to just summarize and tell the audience these things himself, not acting as Tony. Damon talks fast however, it is not hard to follow. He also pauses and slows down his voice during certain instances for emphasis. His presentation is intense but flows well. Everything he does on stage is in coordination with the content of this presentation. For instance he says Tony’s “mind was free but his body was in prison” and while on stage when he turns to the side to act as Tony, he puts his hands in his pockets, symbolizing him being confined, but when he faces forward he takes his hands out of his pockets and moves them around as if they were free. Finally, Damon finishes strong with the statement “Let’s do this!” where you can hear the power in his voice and his arm and hand extend forward.

                I prefer Damon’s presentation style where he fully embraced what he was talking about rather than Richard’s style where it seemed rushed and he, the presenter did not seem as prepared. 

Presenational Style Comparison

                Of the TED talks that I watched, there were many different types of presentational styles. Some styles were similar while others were different. The two talks that really stood out to me were “8 secrets of success” and “a story of mixed emoticons.”

                “8 secrets of success” is a very strategized and “powerpoint” type of presentation. I think the speaker does this because it is a very effective way to get his point across. His “point” is really similar in fashion to a lesson taught in school. He even says that originally he came up with the presentation for high school students.

The main aspect of the presentation is visuals. The visual is a strand of slides that each consists of the “secret,” a physical representation of the secret, and a quote from a person referencing the secret. The visuals are such a vital part to his presentation that literally the speaker stands in one place and continues to click from slide to slide on his keyboard. The visuals are very basic and consistent. I think this is perfect for how he is trying to present his topic. In reality, achieving success is not always as simple as following a couple rules, but through these slides, he makes it seem that way.

His tone in presenting the slides also has a large impact. As each slide progresses, he talks in a very simplistic, easy going, and happy tone. He sounds almost as if he is just happy to be there spreading the joy in how easy success can be. This tone is great for his topic because it makes it seem as if having success is as easy as “1, 2, 3.” He also throws in bits of humor throughout his presentation. This humor is effective in that in really lightens the mood, and again, makes his topic seem simple and achievable.

“A story of mixed emoticons” has a very different presentation style. The presentation is again visual heavy, but in a much different way. Compared to the “8 secrets” presentation, this one is much less direct. The presentation basically is about how words do not necessarily need to be used in order to communicate in modern times. Rather than “telling” this idea, though, the speaker shows it.

The visual he uses is a screen with a story on it written in emoticons. He then tells this story in a very poetic and storybook-like tone. The viewer does not know the true topic of the presentation until the very end, so this type of presentation style forces the audience to pay attention and become invested in what the speaker has to say. Also, people typically like a good story, so the audience wants to listen. Finally, his message is made apparent at the very end with the quote “I don’t need to write it down.” This ultimate line is almost relieving and uplifting because it give the audience closure and awareness of the idea at hand.

Both of these styles are very effective. Honestly, I do not prefer one or the other. I think they are both fitting for different types of topics. The second one, though, I do think is simply more interesting. I think that the factor of unknown about what the speaker is trying to present is very effective in forcing the audience to be interesting and invested in the presentation. I feel that the factor of surprise or relief in a presentation has a lot of power.

TED talk comparisons

In this TED talk Matt Cutts talks to the audience about how trying new things for 30 days can change your life and the way you live it.But it is the way that he does his talk that convinces me and possibly other viewers that his idea has validity and is an idea worth trying. Cutts walks on stage in a t-shirt and jeans which automatically suggests to the audience that this is a relaxed topic. This also gives the viewer a sense that Cutts is a normal guy like everyone else, making it much easier for the viewer to relate. When Cutts begins his speech he jumps right in to his personal story and experiences doing the "30 day challenges". This allows the viewer to see that the guy telling us to do something does it himself. This gives the viewer much more confidence in the speaker and the idea that he is presenting. Cutts also gives another reason to accept this challenge. Cutts claimed that when trying these new things, time seems to slow down and you are often able to remember life in a more meaningful way. Cutts does a really good job of persuading his audience to try this idea, and i know after watching this I want to try something new for 30 day
 
This TED talk presents a completely different style of presentation. Stacey Kramer is in a completely different attire from Matt Cutts(from previous TED talk). She chose to wear a formal dress and high heels suggesting to the audience that her talk is more formal. In this talk Kramer Shares her own story of a gift that she received that has changed her life. She starts the speech with telling what the gift has given her. She challenges the audience to imagine what this gift could possibly be. From the beginning, the audience begins to realize that this is no ordinary gift. However, Kramer knows this but she knows this and this is what she uses to make the viewer think about what a gift like a tumor can do for a person that is not normally thought about. At the end Kramer challenges everyone to think about everything that happens to them and think of it as a gift in some way instead of a burden. And because of Stacey Kramer's story you cant help but believe that if she can do it with cancer then why can't we with our everyday lives.

Comparing TED talks

In Stacy Kramers, The best Gift I ever survived her presentation was the norm in a sense. She stood there in nice clothes, stood firm on the ground, didn't move around so much and just used a couple of pictures on a slide to really get her point across. She chose not to have videos, or a lot of props or even wear a crazy outft, that was the right choice in my opinion. She was talking about the brain tumor she had and it really isn't a topic that should be taken lightly. It was obvious that it was a topic close to her because it wasn't that she was just talking about someone who had a brain tumor she was the one who experienced it and had to live through it. I certainly think her choice of just having her up on stage and three pictures was effective because it made me focus directly on her and what she was saying. Even her dress and shoes were very plain so that I literally focused on just what she was talking about nothing else. 

Colin Robertson's TED talk to me seemed quite the opposite, even though to me it was still as effective in he getting the meaning across that he wanted.At the beginning of his TED talks one thinks that he will simply be talking about his new start up company and then what pops up on the screen is about unexpected discoveries and what is seen probably as a TED speakers worst nightmare, his screen not loading, and having technical difficulties is seen as a good thing.He used props, and the audience and the screen and even people popping up on stage in morph suites dancing around him in circles. Balloons flying everywhere and that to me was literally the opposite of Kramers who had everything focused on her, and Robertson's had your attention everywhere focused on what is going on around and if this is really happening or not. It was certainly unexpected. It still was effective because you still understood the point he was making. 

I prefer the style of being able to go up on stage and and talk but also used videos and pictures to help get the point across. It gives me something too look at and often times a visual of something that their talking about and it helps me to understand more. But I do also like and admire the person that can get up there in plain and dark clothing and just talk but also keep the audience interested and get their point across effectively. Because at that point to me, you yourself and what you are saying are captivating the audience and keeping the interested not just the props or what is in the background.

TED Talk comparisons

 In Richard St. John's TED Talk he takes a topic that could take hours to explain and packs it into three minutes, while Terry Moore takes a very simple topic that could take a couple seconds of explaining and spreads it out to three minutes.  Both of these talks include explains to support their content and some type of visual aid that also supports their content.

In Richard St. John's 8 Secrets of Success he uses a slide show to support his content.  It was very effective because not only did it have the 8 secrets to success, but it also included explains of people, little cartoon pictures, and humor.  He could have just explained the 8 secret to success, but it wouldn't have been as effective as using humor and visual aid.  I really liked that he made such a complex topic seem so simple and easy, like anyone could be successful.

In Terry Moore's How to Tie Your Shoes he explains a very simple topic, that is common knowledge to most people.  He uses visual aid to support his content, which is very helpful.  He takes a simple, 5 second motion and spreads it out to a three minute demonstration.  I liked that he used a real shoe and tied it the way we were taught and then he showed why that way was 'wrong', which was also helpful.  He then ties it the 'correct' way and demonstrates why that is he right way, because it doesn't come untied as easily as the first one.

3 Minute TED Talk analysis

Two of the most interesting presentation styles I have seen while watching TED talks were the styles from the talks “A TED speaker’s worst nightmare” and “Rives: A story of mixed emoticons.”  Most talks involve a speaker standing up at the stage and talking about an issue that is important to them.  While these are very interesting, the style in which they present is nothing like the ones used by the speakers in “A TED speaker’s worst nightmare” and “Rives: A story of mixed emoticons.”  Instead of a traditional speech, they use completely unorthodox styles in order to translate their point to the audience. 

In “A TED speaker’s worst nightmare”, the speaker starts out pretending to give a normal, academic speech but he is cut off when his equipment starts to malfunction.  After several awkward moments with the audience people in the audience start twirling colorful umbrellas, dancers in morph suits come out, and it is clear that the speakers point all along was to create a dance instead of a speech.  While the speaker obviously had the dance planned, I think that the audience can take from the talk that if something doesn’t go according to plan you just have to make adjustments and keep going.  I think that his presentation style was effective for making this point.  Since he started out with his equipment breaking, the audience had to be feeling sorry for him and thinking about how awkward the rest of the speech is going to be.  He then starts the dance routine and the crowd no longer is thinking about how awkward the speech might be, but rather how he did a great job of turning something bad into something good.  While this style was definitely different, it was also a creative way to get his point across. 

The other TED talk I thought had an interesting presentation style was “Rives: A story of mixed emoticons.”  This was one of my favorite TED talks that I have seen because of the presentation style.  The speaker uses everyday emoticons to create a story of a boy mustering up the courage to ask out a pretty girl.  She says no, but the story was still cool.  The way he constantly referred to the graphic of his story on the screen was very effective.  It made it easier to follow along since the speaker was talking rather quickly.  Another thing that the speaker did in his presentation was he zoomed in on each picture as they were told in the story.  This made his initial big picture of lots of random pictures much easier to understand.  His story of the boy was a little sad, but the way he presented it with the emoticons was very effective.  His story was probably one of my favorite TED talks that I have watched because of the different way he was able to use emoticons to animate the story that he told.  

3 Minute Comparison - "Mixed Emotions" and "Best Gift"

Compare at least two talks in terms of presentational style. What choices were made in order to support their content? Are these choices effective? Which style(s) do you prefer – Why?

 A Story of Mixed Emotions

First of all, the way he wrote his story using only characters and acronyms was really cool.  The speaker, Rives, was wearing business casual, and had a 9 o’clock shadow.  This works well with his speech because it is a relatively formal, but the way it is written is informal. For the snippets we see of him talking he is using his hands. He also has a deep monotone voice that works well with the content of the speech.

The story of the TED talk was an awkward male who was trying to ask a girl on a date and fails. His speech reminds me of a kindergartener teacher reading a picture book to their students. All you can see is what is on the screen while Rives narrates the story. This also works well because as a living he writes pop up books for children.

The choices he made of worked well with the material. I liked how when the story was being told all you saw was the screen and not the Rives with the screen. I know this is just editing but it works well for the message of the speech. I liked how  it was not just pictures on a power point but the pictures changed to what he was talking about.

The Best Gift I Ever Survived

This was a great story of a woman, Stacey Kramer, who took an awful series of events and spinned it into a positive experience. She starts off describing an unknown object which changed her life. It isn’t until the end that we learn that it was a brain tumor. After watching it for the first time, it made me want to watch it again knowing that what she is describing in the beginning was a tumor.

She wore a black dress which works well with her content because what changed her life was life threatening. It was a very emotional speech. The picture she used after the surgery was very powerful and kind of hit you in the face just after she told us she was talking about a brain tumor.  She did not move around a lot but she did not need to.

The choices she made were effective in her speech. This is a story that only a woman could tell because of the nature of the speech and the message she was trying to get across.

I liked her style she had during her speech but I doubt I could recreate it or would want to. 

Matt Cutts vs. Terry Moore

“Try Something New for 30 Days” vs. “How to Tie Your Shoe”

Matt Cutts talks about trying something you have always wanted to do for 30 days. His talk is more focuses on the actual talk. He uses some visuals, but his words get his point across and I think the visuals are there more for entertainment. He makes fun of himself a little, calling himself a “desk-dwelling computer nerd” but this helps relate to the audience. It is like his way of saying “if I can do it, you can do it”. He is very casual in his sweater and jeans. He doesn't move around too much and seems very comfortable on the stage. I liked when he was talking about writing his novel and he says, “Is it the next great American novel? No! I wrote it in a month; it’s awful!”. I really liked his topic because he is to proposing some huge, life changing idea but a simple, doable suggestion to help enrich our lives. At the end he asks “What are you waiting for?” which I thought was a good way to end it because his idea is simple enough and he makes it so easy to relate to for his audience it makes me want to set a 30-day goal for myself.

Terry Moore’s topic alone caught my attention: How to tie your shoes. I immediately wanted to know what I had been doing wrong for the past 18 years. He is very funny in his approach and makes a lot of good jokes. I love when the audience applauds him for successfully tying the shoe. Unlike the other two TED talks, Terry has a prop. His prop is the focus of the whole talk and without it the talk would not have worked. He is more business casual in his coat and button up shirt but the way he presents and speaks is casual and easy. He is obviously comfortable talking and sure of his shoe-tying abilities and is fun to listen to. My only complaint is that he really doesn't explain the difference between the two styles of tying a shoe. He just says “go the other way around” and considering this is the whole point of his talk, I was hoping he would go into more detail about the science of why one knot works as opposed to the other. I did like, however, the way he ended it. He compared tying a shoe to living life by saying “finding a small advantage someplace in life can yield tremendous results someplace else” then throws out a Star Trek reference and walks out.

Matt Cutts' and Stacey Kramer's TED Talks

            “Matt Cutts: Try something new for 30 days” TED talk and “Stacey Krammer: The best gift I ever survived” talk are both about each speakers personal experience and how it changed their perspective on life.  However, these two speakers present their talk in completely different styles.  Matt Cutts takes a very informal approach to his speech.  He is dressed casually in blue jeans and a brown sweater.  He walks around the stage and talks to the audience in a conversational manner.  He asks questions and answers them.  He uses humor effectively and incorporates graphics into his speech.  His TED talk is about his own 30 day challenges.  This is where he does something he has always wanted to do for 30 days.  For example, he takes a photo every day for a month, goes a month without sweets, and rides his bike to work every day.  He did this because he realized that the months are going to pass whether he wanted them to or not and he decided that he was going to make those months memorable and worthwhile.  Ultimately he challenges the audience to take their own 30 day challenges.  His style helps support his challenge.  By presenting himself casually he was able to relate more with the audience which might have an effect on whether or not the audience chooses to accept his challenge.

            Stacey Kramer takes a very formal approach to her speech.  She wears a nice, black dress and heels.  She moves around the stage very little and uses subtle hand motions.  Her speech is about surviving a brain tumor and how that changed her outlook on life.  This heavy and profound subject warrants a more formal presentation style.  Stacey Kramer incorporates photos into her speech that help explain her story.  While she doesn’t wish what happened to her on anyone, she does encourage the audience to look at bad things that might have happened to them as blessings instead of curses.  She says that she gained great peace from her “blessing” and she wishes the audience could gain that too.  The formality of her speech underscores the importance of this event in her life.  I prefer Stacey Kramer’s presentation style better.  She seemed well rehearsed and put together.  I like her formal tone which makes her seem prepared for her TED talk.  She didn’t move around the stage too much, which I think is a good thing because too much movement can be distracting.  I also think that when presenting in front of a large group of people it is better to dress up because it makes the speaker look put together and respectable.        

3 minute TED talk comparison

"Philosophy in prison" takes a rather complex and ethical argument of right and wrong and explains it in 3 minutes. Whereas "How to tie your shoes" approaches and explains a fundamental and basic knowledge of all people and takes 3 minutes to explain a 5 second motion of tying a knot. Both of these TED talks use examples to support their point. "Philosophy in prison" uses the real world example of a man by the name Tony; who is locked up in San Quentin prison for shooting a "punk" who had stolen from him and his mom, at 16 years of age. The speaker, Damon Horowitz, is very theatrical throughout his TED talk. He uses the stage and his body to express the dramatic moments of the story he is telling. His clothes are very business casual; he is wearing dark jeans with a blazer paired with a cardigan and button up with no tie. This is pretty much the exact same apparel as Terry Moore in his TED talk on how to tie your shoes. Moore and Horowitz appear similar in their apparel but different in their delivery. But terry also uses an example in the form of a prop. Appropriately enough his prop is a shoe on which he demonstrates the normal way that everyone ties their shoes, that he claims is the wrong way. The difference, from Damon Horowitz, though is that Terry is not theatrical in his delivery of his speech. But one thing that Terry Moore never does is show us the "right" way to tie your shoes. He spent 3 minutes telling us we are wrong without ever telling the audience the right way. Right and wrong are addressed in both of the TED talks just in different contexts. So while they are seemingly talking about completely different topics the deeper meaning in the talks are essentially the same. The ethics of right and wrong is a hard topic to fit into a 30 minute speech none the less a 3 minute one. Damon Horowitz got into the ethics of right and wrong while Terry Moore did not mention any ethics.
       I personally enjoy the TED talks that have a lot of life to them. So I like the theatrical ones where the speaker uses music or props and moves around the stage. This style of speech holds my attention better and keeps me engaged in what they are talking about. I would have to say that I enjoyed Damon Horowitz, "philosophy in prison", more than Terry Moore because of his speech method but also because Moore never finished his explanation. While this was on purpose I am not a fan of the open-ended story.