The paradox of efficiency | Edward Tenner

Is our obsession with efficiency actually making us less efficient? In this revelatory talk, writer and historian Edward Tenner discusses the promises and dangers of our drive to get things done as quickly as possible -- and suggests seven ways we can use "inspired inefficiency" to be more productive.

[SwayVanathane]

In summary:

1. Take the scenic route - There's more to learn out there.
2. Get up from the couch - Unhealthy minds and bodies are distracted and inefficient.
3. Monetize your mistakes - (and embrace plenty ) Often the mistakes have been the million dollar ideas.
4.Try the hard way - Summarizing is a more accurate way to learn, and half-assed learning can cost us more time than time spent actively learning by summarizing.
5. Security through diversity - The world is constantly changing, perspective is important as processes become obsolete.
6. Achieve safety through redundancy - Multiple well developed independent systems along with constant training prevent total failure.
7. Be rationally extravagant - The pursuit of efficiency can be just as costly as that of extravagance. Therefore, it's the balance of the two that is the most efficient.

[Fanny-Fanny]

ProTip: watch at x2 speed. Perfectly understandable and saves you 7 or so minutes - efficient AF, innit?

[blomakranz]

I often had avoided 100% efficiency by accepting the inefficiencies of experiments and failures, but now I know that what I have been doing could have made me more efficient in ways (and obviously less in others)

[Lunareon]

The recent redesign of public transport in Helsinki is a prime example of efficiency gone wrong: All previous long lines were chopped into short ones that connect to one of a few main lines. This was supposed to make travelling faster, easier, and more cost-efficient. In reality, travel times increased, difficulty and discomfort increased, and costs went up. What on earth happened!?
Short answer: Reality is messy and people want convenience.

Long answer:
Previously, people could take one bus/tram, which would drive a long, winding route through small roads and neighborhoods, taking its sweet time to get from one end to the other. It was deemed _inefficient_, because there were fewer passengers per line, and the vehicles were empty at parts of the route, due to overlap. With the new, _efficient_ system, most routes became shorter, meaning you will usually have to transfer at least once, often twice, to get from one place to another. While this may reduce time spent inside a vehicle, that "saved" time is actually spent walking to another stop and/or waiting for the other vehicle instead, and the total travel time doesn't shorten in the end.

The more transfers there are, the harder it becomes to plan the route from one place to another. The journey also becomes more susceptible to disruptions. One vehicle being late usually means being late to all the following transfers, meaning you will have to plan the whole route from the beginning again. To prepare for the risk of disruptions beforehand, you will have to add extra time for each transfer, which will again lengthen the total travel time.

Also, the main lines simply don't have enough capacity for all the passengers that transfer from connecting lines. This has already resulted in overcrowded vehicles and people having to wait for the next one, or the one after that, because there just wasn't any room on the previous one. At rush hour, there's sometimes a whole queue of vehicles of the same main line, or additional vehicles on standby nearby in case the passenger capacity exceeds. What was saved by shortening the connecting lines comes back as added costs to the main lines and their constant maintenance due to overuse.

In terms of convenience, transfers are also inconvenient and uncomfortable. Getting on and off vehicles, walking from stop to another, and waiting at the mercy of the elements are annoying enough even when you're not carrying anything, but they can quickly become nightmarish if you have a bag of groceries, luggage, a mobility aid or a pram with you. Besides, you're not paying the ticket fees to walk, you're paying for not having to!

[sujayshah]

"To be truly efficient, we need optimal inefficiency. The shortest path may be a curve rather than a straight line... Too much efficiency can weaken itself. But a bit of inspired inefficiency can strengthen it. Sometimes, the best way to move forward is to follow a circle." - Edward Tenner

[fjooyou]

"My interest is in the present"

And the whole video is full of history.

[ossen]

We forget that the last station is the same for everyone.
At the end, it is a joyful being that makes it worth living.

[TheLivirus]

Anyone who has attempted multivariable optimization is familiar with the problem of local optima. From the vantage point of a local optimum, all directions seem to make the situation worse. Yet, what you have found is rarely the global optimum as there are typically many such locations in the variable space and it is not obvious you are in the most optimal of them. To find out you must dare to leave the local optimum and explore what appear to be less optimal territories.

[jhunt]

Whatched this on 2x speed. Didn't take much of it in, but damn it's efficient.

[butter_nut]

The artillery example was ridiculous. It's the same as saying "If the just didn't innovate they'd loose the war sooner." losing the war is what they _dont_ want

[pauljohnson]

I'm not sure if 30 different anecdotes in 15 minutes is a great way to promote inefficiency

[devashishgole]

The chance factor is beyond our control and the law of un intended consequences has proved that sometimes even after the best of our efforts the outcome turns out to be way too different than what anyone could have ever thought.

[aravindnarayanan]

Wonderful, wonderful! Thank you, Edward sir.

[VoiCheck]

Thanks for popping my cherry of seeing a TedTalk presenter (uncomfortably) read the entire thing from queue cards

[peggyharris]

"Rational Extravagance"
I could get into that.

[mikelabor]

I can recall some of the speculation from the late 50s and early 60s.
The drift was with all of the new "push button technology" (especially kitchen appliances), the big problem of the year 2000 was how to creatively use all of the "spare time" these labor saving devices were going to generate?
The thought then was that (perhaps) study of "the classics" or poetry and art would flourish!
Nobody speculated that the new standard would be that everyone's schedule would be permanently slammed BUSY.
None of the efficient devices created a scrap of "spare time". . .

[davidjones-vxju]

i made it to 1:12... and i don't think this will be an efficient use of any more of my time

[roemer]

Every CEO should watch this talk every Monday morning

[jean-francoiskener]

TED talks usually teach concepts in some minutes, which could be taught in seconds.

[klatis]

guys, can somebody explain me the school bus<--> punching bag analogy or whatever it was?