Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Media Books Book Reviews

Everything Bad is Good for You 288

clampe writes " In Everything Bad Is Good For You: How Today's Popular Culture is Actually Making Us Smarter, Steven Johnson tries to convince the reader that video games, television and the Internet are good for us, despite critics who talk about "vast Wastelands" and "infantilized societies". The book raises interesting questions, but in the end is a lightweight analysis that is better for engendering sound bites on NPR and The Daily Show than for convincing serious readers." Read on for Clampes' review.
Everything Bad Is Good For You: How Today's Popular Culture is Actually Making Us Smarter
author Steven Johnson
pages 238
publisher Riverhead Books
rating 7
reviewer clampe
ISBN 1-57322-307-7
summary Popular culture may have a role in making people smarter


In "Everything Bad Is Good For You" Johnson argues that major forms of entertainment like television, video games, films and the Internet have grown increasingly complex over the past several decades, which corresponds to an increase in average IQ scores in the U.S.

The introduction to the book summarizes cultural criticisms about the growing banality of entertainment, focusing mostly on television. Johnson uses this springboard to state his thesis: that popular culture is not only growing more complex, but that the complexity is making consumers of pop culture more intelligent.

The main content of the book is divided into two main parts, with the first arguing that video games, television, the Internet and movies have grown more complex in recent years, and the second part outlining the relationship between those forms of entertainment and increased intelligence.

Johnson claims that the complexity of problem solving and exploration involved in current video games help players learn critical thinking skills. He amusingly asks the readers to consider a world where video games have been around for centuries and a new technology called the book is all the rage. The cultural critics currently bagging on video games would claim books are static, isolating and understimulating. Johnson is the first to admit he's usng hyperbole here, and books obviously have value, but the point is made. Video games, he points out, cannot be directly compared to books in terms of the types of intelligence they encourage. Video games, according to Johnson, are valuable because they force players to make choices, solve problems, keep track of varied situations and in some cases cooperate with others.

Criticizing television is a popular straw man activity for cultural critics. The boob-tube, the idiot box, the vast wasteland. Johnson argues that while the general thinking is TV has gotten worse over the past 30 years, it in fact has become much better. Current shows have more complex narratives, trust viewers to catch subtle references and have denser social networks. Johnson compares "Dragnet" to "Starsky and Hutch" to "Hill Street Blues" to "The Sopranos" to show the evolving complexity of narratives in television dramas. Even reality TV, the easiest target around, is more complex compared to it's historical antecedent, the game show.

The Internet is valuable in three ways according to Johnson: by virtue of being participatory, by forcing users to learn new interfaces and by creating new channels for social interaction. Johnson provides a laundry list of online interactions that bring people together and make them smarter.

Johnson gives a "qualified yes" to the proposition that movies have undergone the same transformation as television. His main evidence is the increase in the number of characters to be found in "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy compared to the original "Star Wars" trilogy. The other main evidence is the development of a sub-genre of films he calls "mind-benders" typified by Kaufman works like "Being John Malkovich".

In Part 2 of the book, Johnson associates research that shows American IQ scores have risen over the past several decades (the Flynn Effect) with the increased complexity of popular culture. He looks at alternative explanations for this trend, such as nutrition and education, dismissing each in favor of the popular culture explanation.

The Good:
There is something about people who say they never watch TV that makes me want to punch them. I'm also a little tired of having to explain at dinner parties and family gatherings that my playing video games does not mean I went ahead with the lobotomy. Johnson seems to have tapped into a real feeling that television and games are not the worthless pastimes that popular media decries them as. The book raises interesting and important questions, while providing a tonic against cultural nay-sayers.

As in previous works like Emergence, Johnson has an engaging and approachable writing style. He blends personal experience and decent explanations of the literature to craft his arguments in an engaging manner.

The Bad:
The main problem with this book is the strength of the claims made in Part 2. Human intelligence is a complex mechanism affected by a blend of genetic and environmental factors. It is possible that games and television play a role in positively affecting intelligence, but Johnson has not strongly made that case here. The data he presents, while intriguing, are correlational at best and arbitrary at worst. Johnson is actually careful to qualify the populations he considers to be affected by popular culture, and the kinds of intelligence he is talking about. However, the arguments still hang together on fragile strings of "It could be" and "it's not like because of this".

For example, it could be that his selection of television shows to compare biases his analysis. What Johnson says about the increased complexity of television narratives seems intuitively true, but there's danger in the kind of analysis where shows are plucked with no clear selection mechanism from the past and we draw such sweeping conclusions from them.

There are also several alternative explanations to the trends pointed out in this book. For example, let's assume that there is more worthwhile television than there used to be. However, the real comparison should be between worthwhile television compared over the total amount of television available. Given the explosion of television programming since Starsky and Hutch, it's not surprising that better shows are available. Another explanation might be the maturation of the media. Literature is the gold standard here to some extent, but the novel is an older media form that has had many opportunities to attract good authors than television and video games. Over the centuries that we've had novels, we accumulated some talented authors, and those luminaries attract other talented individuals. Television and video games are a newer media, and consequently haven't accumulated as many giants. Some of Johnson's examples of the new complexity in television and film are really examples of a couple of special individuals, like Aaron Sorkin and Charlie Kaufman, attracted to an increasingly mature art form.

The above counter-examples show some of the dangers of this case based argumentation at the center of this book. By using pseudo-case studies, there isn't really a basis by which the data presented by Johnson is stronger than "because I said so." Work that would help his argument has been done in communication studies, developmental psychology and cognitive psychology, but those fields are largely ignored here. Instead, cranky old guys like Marshall McLuhan and Neil Postman are set up as straw men. This disconnect reminds of how well Howard Rheingold incorporates current research into popular press efforts like this book. Johnson does use some decent resources like James Paul Gee, and seems to be widely read in several cogent fields, but it doesn't seem reflected as well as might be expected in the actual text.

The sections on the Internet and movies are clumsy and seem almost to be afterthoughts to the other sections. The section on video games is stronger, and the book would have been better by concentrating on that element of the story alone. May not have had as cool a title though.

Final recommendation:
This book is fun, light reading. It's not bad as a catalyst for discussion at parties, but as a serious polemic argument it doesn't hold up. Still, the book is a good airplane read, or something for the hammock. But you're better off playing a video game."


You can purchase Everything Bad Is Good For You: How Today's Popular Culture is Actually Making Us Smarter from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Everything Bad is Good for You

Comments Filter:
  • Wait a second... (Score:4, Informative)

    by LeonGeeste ( 917243 ) * on Friday October 28, 2005 @02:30PM (#13898960) Journal
    Is this the same Steven Johnson that wrote this load of crap two years ago?

    http://slate.msn.com/id/2085668/ [msn.com]

    His argument (and I use that term advisedly) was that when you use Google, really stupid searches (like for "flowers" alone or "steven" alone) get bad results, so good searches must be getting bad results too. To see how badly he got roasted on that article, you can go into their "fray"

    http://fray.slate.msn.com/?id=3936&tp=webhead&nav= navof [msn.com]

    and do a search for articles before 07/17/03 (the day after the article was put on the web) to see the comments of the people around that time. (I'd link the search, but it doesn't seem to let me.)

    Now, I know Johnson had a point, and after tons of criticism he eventually put one together, but that hastily thrown-together-argument should have been in the article the first time around. You can see his pitiful attempts to defend this earlier article here, which is the list of his posts on the Fray:

    http://fray.slate.msn.com/?id=3936&tp=webhead&acti on=morebyuser&m=8603692 [msn.com]
    • Whatever, I'm waiting for the TV movie version of this book before I make a decision.

      But seriously, I think this guy's major points are proven right here on Slashdot. A high percentage of the readers of Slashdot, relative to the general population, are video game players. I would also say that compared to other message boards I see around the internet there are more intelligent posts here. Of course my post rating threshold may just be set too high.

      • by khasim ( 1285 ) <brandioch.conner@gmail.com> on Friday October 28, 2005 @03:08PM (#13899293)
        But seriously, I think this guy's major points are proven right here on Slashdot. A high percentage of the readers of Slashdot, relative to the general population, are video game players. I would also say that compared to other message boards I see around the internet there are more intelligent posts here.
        The question is how do you define "intelligent posts"?

        Take this to a political forum and you'll see what I mean. The "intelligent posts" usually are the ones you agree with while the uninformed idiots are usually the ones you disagree with.

        But that's just human nature.

        Personally, I know people who love playing video games who have trouble with basic troubleshooting on that same computer.

        If such were the case, wouldn't we see more baseball players with advanced math or physics degrees because they have experience with velocity and curves and such?
    • I don't know what he hoped to find with a 'flowers' search on google, but I found exactly what I'd hope: a bunch of ways to get flowers.

      Likewise, Steven finds me links to information about various famous Stevens. I suppose he was hoping to find himself, but what he has to understand is that google is not (yet) particularly emphasizing personal search, and so what you find is links to the various more generally interesting Stevens.
      • Re:Wait a second... (Score:3, Interesting)

        by jfengel ( 409917 )
        His point (to the degree that he had one) is that Google shows a bias towards commerce. If I asked you to tell me about flowers, you'd give me something more like a dictionary or encyclopedia definition, but Google gives me places to buy them.

        That comes as no surprise to you, of course, and you (the intelligent Slashdotter) would have no trouble finding out what you wanted to know by giving Google just a bit of context. The only people asking about "flowers" in the most general sense are third-graders wri
        • I can't even agree with that. General flower information not related to buying them starts at link #8, and makes the first page of results (2 of 9 results are for generic flower information).
    • by Cassanova ( 578879 )
      What an Idiot this guy is. I saw your first link to his Slate article on google:

      Search for "apple" on Google, and you have to troll through a couple pages of results before you get anything not directly related to Apple Computerand it's a page promoting a public TV >show called Newton's Apple

      Hell, if you come to me and say "Apple" - how the hell will I know what the context is? I cannot have a meaningful conversation with you without first establishing the context especially since the word is ambiguo

    • by Veinor ( 871770 )
      From the first link in parent:

      Search for "apple" on Google, and you have to troll through a couple pages of results before you get anything not directly related to Apple Computer--and it's a page promoting a public TV show called Newton's Apple. After that it's all Mac-related links until Fiona Apple's home page. You have to sift through 50 results before you reach a link that deals with apples that grow on trees: the home page for the Washington State Apple Growers Association. To a certain extent, this p

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 28, 2005 @02:31PM (#13898977)
    don't have time to read article

    pls send synopsis, gmail in profile

    or IM

    k thx

    no time to login
    • OMG ROFLMAO

      But seriously folks...

      This "review" reminds me of the record reviews in small campus newspapers of podunk-town colleges.

      "This Independent band you never heard of released a new album which you will never hear on the radio and will not be able to find in any record store within 500 miles of here. It's not as good as their earlir stuff, which you will also never hear, and frankly that older material was not as good as their fans (all three of us) remember it to be...."

      Gosh. Thanks for that crucia

  • by vena ( 318873 ) on Friday October 28, 2005 @02:32PM (#13898981)
    i still find Herbert Gans' Popular Culture and High Culture [amazon.com] to hold excellent arguments and recommend it for anyone interested in the broad scope of this discussion.

    (no referral code in amazon.com link, i promise)
  • Shiny! (Score:3, Funny)

    by Stanistani ( 808333 ) on Friday October 28, 2005 @02:34PM (#13898992) Homepage Journal
    >a lightweight analysis that is better for engendering sound bites on NPR and The Daily Show than for convincing serious readers. ...which makes it perfect for us Slashdotters!

    Gotta run... I'm analyzing the 'subtle narrative' of a rubber ball.
  • by wpiman ( 739077 ) on Friday October 28, 2005 @02:34PM (#13898997)
    Beating up bitches and killing cops definitely helps on the IQ.

    People crapped on pool halls when they first came out. Fact is- they kept kids out of trouble. When there was no TV- kids collected comic books. There is always going to be distractions-- they are just growing to be more complicated.

  • How it works for me: (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Black Parrot ( 19622 ) on Friday October 28, 2005 @02:35PM (#13899007)
    Turn on television, flip channels, find nothing but crap, turn it off and read a book.

    Turn on radio, flip channels, find nothing but crap, turn it off and play my musical instrument.

    It's kind of like:

    Go to a burger stand, eat burger and shake, get sick, live off soup and water for a week.

    • Turn on television, flip channels, find nothing but crap, turn it off and read a book.

      Garbage in - Garbage Out. Do some research first. Are you really so lazy and self-centered to think that you can just turn on the tv and find good quality shows? Do you walk into the bookstore and just randomly pick books off the shelves?

      Next time, try something like the following instead:

      Poke around tviv.org and various tv-show forums looking for dicsussion of shows that sound promising.
      Go to favorite bittorrent aggreg
  • Let us start with basic of all knowledgde: language. You can not convince me that youngster are becoming more articulate in their language. In the Netherlands we have this huge language problem: kids are becoming less skillful in language because of the lack using it properly. I think chatting, watching and reading street talks aren't making things more easy.
    • by voice_of_all_reason ( 926702 ) on Friday October 28, 2005 @02:47PM (#13899117)
      How is this a "problem?" Kids are changing the language, yet still seem able to communicate sufficiently with each other. Sounds like an optimization to me. Perhaps you meant to add "...and get those dang varmints off mah lawn!" too?
      • somebody mod parent up. the mere fact that he addresses them as "youngsters" indicates that he is likely an old fogey. i bet he drives a buick, too... :)
      • I agree. Every generation complains about its descendant's poor language skills. This is an example of linguistic evolution, however, the perceived "lower class" languages always evolve at a faster rate than "higher class" language. This is because the "higher class" is always aiming at social mobility, where language is, in effect, inbred, and therefore more resistant to change.

        As for the book, it seems like an overly simply argument. You can't just go around denying common sense to make interesting
      • by Jekler ( 626699 ) on Friday October 28, 2005 @03:07PM (#13899288)
        Kids aren't changing the language, but an all-consuming pursuit for validation and individuality lead them to passionately believe that every act of self-expression is far more important than it really is. Slang and poor usage don't evolve the language. 50 years from now, the rules of formal grammar will most likely be identical. Kids will have adopted new slang, a new way to compose sentences so they sound "cool" to their ears, and even then they'll argue that they're helping evolve the language.

        • by ionpro ( 34327 ) on Friday October 28, 2005 @03:44PM (#13899640) Homepage
          So, you are saying that the formal grammar of today is the same as that of Churchill? There are several classes of new gramatical constructs that are in use today. Perhaps not in scientific papers, but in the vast majority of written communication, the language has most definitely evolved. For a good (and humorous!) look at some of the new classes of words in use, I recommend this short essay [spcomplete.com], which is a amature linguist's view on modern slang. The biggest drive for language today that I see is the need to communicate larger and larger volumes of information more quickly. The use of acronyms and abbreviations shorten the language. Unforunately, most of our brains haven't yet caught up with our newfound ability to say so much so quickly, so occasionally a pause is required. This is where the "APMs" that our friend was talking about come into play -- a person may say "like", or "um", or any number of other things to fill the gaps while his or her brain turns over the next thought.

          A number of people decry language no longer being an 'artform', something to be molded for great beauty. There will always be the wordsmiths who produce language akin to art. But since language is no longer a province of the elite, since (in the first world) the people are finally participiating in matters of import, the language will evolve for utility, and not beauty. I, for one, am fine with that.
        • "...rules of formal grammar..."

          That's your problem right there. There are no rules of formal grammar. We don't have and English Language Authority like the French do. what is called 'standard' or 'formal' or 'proper' grammar is simply dialects of the educated class in large cities, such as London, Melbourne, New York and Chicago. It's the same 'street talk' that your kids are making up as they go along, expect it happens in the halls of academia, and the editing rooms of newspapers.

          At best it's simply on
      • yet still seem able to communicate sufficiently with each other

        Typical teenage conversation:
        "Because, you know, the other day I was at the mall youknow, and I was like, Oh my god look at that girl's dress! Because she was like, you know, really FAT, you know, and all the fat on her was like, you know, showing up everywhere youknow, and I remembered this diet in the magazine, you know, and I was like,..."

        Because SUFFICIENTLY is by no means EFFICIENTLY.
      • I disagree that "sufficiently" is equivalent to "well".

        Most college-age people that I know communicate awkwardly, at best, or ineffectively, at worst, when in any setting outside of casual social conversation. The casual conversation may indeed be simplified, but at the expense of precise and concise language use elsewhere.

        Also, this language problem has a huge impact on academic performance. Test taking is always dependent on a clear understanding of the question, often more than understanding the material
    • Language is primarily a functional thing. Things like contractions evolve to make communication more efficient. Although in formal English, contractions are still discouraged today. Just because kids are using netspeak doesn't mean they're any stupider than I am for using contractions in this post. To them it's normal and speeds communication. Language is not a perfect measure of intelligence.
    • Cheese and crackers golly, I never thought that could happen, boy gosh! Kids have been getting dumber for thousands of years, thats why there is never any progress. Rest assured your generation is the last generation of worthy human beings. Feel better?

      To actually respond to your points, I think more kids have the ability to communicate with more people. When you were a kid did you talk to people at any given time of day? Did you talk to people from other states or even other countries multiple times a w
    • OK I hate grammar/spelling Nazis and I *did* note you said "In the Netherlands..." but a post on correct use of language that fails to use the plural of youngster correctly and uses a phrase like "more easy" instead of easier does not deserve to be moderated insightful. There are definitely times when using proper language, to the point of being obsessive about it, are important. A post about proper language is one of these times.

      Oh well, good karma was fun while it lasted...
    • I forget where I read this, but one source of our knowledge about the evolution of the Romance languages is the writing of the Roman equivalent of John Simon and William Safire: "Dagnabit, it's equus, not caballus!"

      A goodly part of what those "inarticulate" youngsters are saying will turn to fossils, like "groovy," or "23-skidoo," "the bee's knees," or "absquatulate" from still earlier times... but OTOH, part may be the source of what the languages we speak will turn into.
    • Perhaps they seem less like masters of the language, but at least today's kids are capable of reading and writing. Illiteracy was generally accepted 100 years ago, and still somewhat common 50 years ago. Of course, I'm not trying to say we have squashed it completely, but the situation has improved.

      - the Hun
    • The linguistic "problem" you mention seems to extend further than grammar, logic, and even semantics. People with such language problems cannot organize their writing and speech because they cannot organize their thoughts, and they cannot organize their thoughts because their "mental map" does not correspond structurally (or symbolically) to the "actual terrain" of the world they occupy. Put another way, creatures that assume "fact" will inevitably think in fallacious ways, and will inevitably view things
    • I take your point, but "articulate" is a very vague idea. Perhaps they are not "articulate" in the sense that they use styles of language or vocabulary to which some other group or generation is accustomed. However, there is a lot of complexity and fast evolution in "web speak". In many ways, prior generations are "inarticulate" to new generations, with outdated catch phrases and slogans.
    • You can not convince me that youngster are becoming more articulate in their language.

      (sacrasm ON) Well, like, clearly, there are, you know, some problems with the language of youth, like communicating their ideas and stuff? (sarcasm OFF)

      Seriously, I think that young people have a need to have a more diverse language skill set than most "adults" need to, and therefore don't have the time or ability to master the one or two language skill sets you're looking at.

      For example, a young person may have to
  • Let's face it. Benny Hill and Love American Style are poor second choices to House, The Simpsons, Family Guy, and Seinfeld. All of the latter require more sophistication from the watcher instead of pure... whatever it was that Love American Style thought was funny.
    • by wpiman ( 739077 ) on Friday October 28, 2005 @02:39PM (#13899041)
      I have to say the 1980's show Dukes of Hazard was the ultimate in sophistication. It has been all downhill from there.
    • That is way too small of a sample to form a good case. Seinfeld was OK for a while, but got annoying, and Family Guy is simply annoying. I've never seen Benny Hill or Love American style, but I've enjoyed several episodes of The Beverly Hillbillies. I thought Hillbillies did a good job of poking fun at both the common man and high society without being mean.

      One thing I can say about the past is... no reality shows! Soaps without a script, and on prime time! How can that possibly be dumb!?
    • Since no one has said this already, what about Monty Python? That's sophistication for ya?
  • Well... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Sheetrock ( 152993 ) on Friday October 28, 2005 @02:42PM (#13899070) Homepage Journal
    Johnson claims that the complexity of problem solving and exploration involved in current video games help players learn critical thinking skills.

    Six months ago I bought a computer game that has been broken in nearly every sense (fun, speed, function) for $50. A couple of patches have been offered for the game that barely touch the problems, and a patch is going to be offered "real soon now" for at least two months.

    The reaction in the gaming forum I visit to see if the patch is finished is absolutely and totally depressing to me. Any suggestion that this is was a ripoff is immediately torn apart by forum members, a couple of which have actually bought brand new computers to try to get their computers to run this game.

    So I'm going to go ahead and disagree that critical thinking skills are being enhanced by video games. Every indication I see is that as fun as they are they're like a digital form of huffing glue for "game enthusiasts".

    • Alternatively, look at the case of Master of Orion 3. That game was awful as released, and even the patches didn't help. But the hackers at ataricommunity stepped up and turned it into a game that lived up to most of the promise of the marketing and has only crashed on me once in over 20 hours of play. Believe it or not, the game is actually a lot of fun if you install the InvaderMod and .exe hack, and that's all user-developed. So don't totally write off games as inspiration.
    • Re:Well... (Score:2, Interesting)

      I'm not understanding your point here. A poorly-made video game doesn't have anything to do with video games as a whole being "good" or "bad."

      The community reaction you're referring to is normal regardless of the product. You take just about any product that you're not happy with and post your complaints to a forum dedicated to that product and you'll get some serious back talk. People *want* to be happy with the things they've purchased, and it's quite normal to defend it, faults and all. You should ex
    • Are you sure that a population composed of people that paid money for a non-working game in the first place is really the right place to be looking for intelligence?
  • Okay so suppose television and videogames raise the IQ of people of low or average intelligence. Without tv or videogames there is nothing to replace this kind of 'education', so these people would of gone without the benefit of this mental stimulation.

    You would be hard pressed to convince me that if a learned person replaced their intellectual persuits with television their IQ would go up.
    • If I'm not mistaken IQ isn't a measure of education, nor can "the average IQ go up" as the review states.

      It is my understanding that IQ is a represenitive comparison of your cognitive skills with the average.

      Strictly speeking cognitive ability is independent of education, but practically since we have to test for it you can learn how to answer the questions.

      On the other hand I belive the average IQ is defined as 100. If the average person becomes smarter his IQ is still 100.
      • In Lake Woebegone, Minnesota, all the children are above average. This would suggest that a good portion of the adults are below average. If that has been the case for a statistically significant period of time, we can conclude that the population is getting smarter. (As children reach adulthood, the next generation of children comes along still smarter....)

        I don't have data for the population as a whole, but the radio show Prairie Home Companion does provide this one data point, which, over the years I'v

    • You would be hard pressed to convince me that if a learned person replaced their intellectual persuits with television their IQ would go up.

      It doesn't have to be all one or the other.

      It could be that different learning tools all have diminishing returns, and mixing them is a good strategy. So maybe spending 100% of your learning time reading books is better than spending it watching TV, but mixing them 50/50 is even more effective than reading alone. Or that, say, spending some time going to plays, readin
  • In his defense... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Otter ( 3800 ) on Friday October 28, 2005 @02:43PM (#13899080) Journal
    There is something about people who say they never watch TV that makes me want to punch them.

    Those people seem not to understand that the clichedness of bragging about not watching television outweighs any positive impression it makes.

    Anyway. Not having read the book, but as I understand it from the review -- it seems perhaps unfair to criticize it for not reaching statistically meaningful conclusions. If the argument it's challenging is "Television is moronic and for morons and that's why everyone nowadays is a moron!", it seems like a reasonable counterargument. And it's not like said argument isn't made routinely.

    • by guaigean ( 867316 ) on Friday October 28, 2005 @02:50PM (#13899141)
      Those people seem not to understand that the clichedness of bragging about not watching television outweighs any positive impression it makes.

      Why does one have to brag about not watching TV? I watch rented movie once a month maybe, other than that I avoid it like the plague. It's not that it's bragging, its that I fin that watching TV results in me learning less, and getting less done. It's too easy to zone out on the preview channel for hours, and I just end up tired. Instead, I find programming or interacting with my family in my spare time to be much more enjoyable and stimulating.

      I have serious doubts about the validity of this author's points. I think as previous posters have mentioned, it has far more to do with the idea that perhaps many people would not have this intellectual stimulation at all without TV, and therefore something is better than nothing.
      • Re:In his defense... (Score:4, Interesting)

        by xappax ( 876447 ) on Friday October 28, 2005 @03:26PM (#13899457)
        People have hostile reactions when you say you don't watch TV because they assume that you're trying to prove something, or show how cool you are, or convince them of some political analysis. When the subject comes up and I say "No, I haven't seen that commercial - I don't watch TV," many people respond as though I had said "TV is for the weak-minded. You watch it too much."

        Why do people interpret a simple statement about personal behavior as a loaded criticism? I suspect it's because on some level, they feel sort of guilty and/or criticize their own TV-watching habits, and are therefore quick to interpret discussion on the subject to be directed towards them.

        I get the same thing when I say "Oh, the soup has bacon in it? No thanks, I don't eat meat." Suddenly I'm subjected to an extended monologue on why they eat meat and how they don't really eat as much as most people...

        dude, eat what you want, watch what you want - I don't care, I just don't want to adopt all your habits so that you can feel comfortable.
        • If you want to experiment with people's reactions, get more specific:

          "I don't watch commercials" may impress them with your technology.

          "I don't watch that show, I think $Actor is a hack" may get agreement.

          "The only media I have time for is Stuff and Maxim," which definitely wouldn't be interpreted as morally superior.

          It's most fun if you can tailor it to your audience and predict the reaction in advance. (Not that I've ever done this)

        • I very rarely watch TV and I have to say that I agree. Every time the subject of television is broched and I mention that I don't watch TV people immediately seem to retaliate to a precieved attack on them for watching TV.
          Of course I certainly have no political or elitist reasons for not watching TV- it's simply a combination of there being few things on TV that I really enjoy, and the fact that when there is a show on that I wouldn't mind watching I usually end up missing it most of the time anyway.
          I al
  • by kinglink ( 195330 ) on Friday October 28, 2005 @02:43PM (#13899085)
    Does the book hold water. You speak of light reads, and I've read such books where if you don't want to think about it it makes sense. But as you apply the theory it falls apart. Is that what you are bringing up here, or are you saying more that the book doesn't go indepth enough but leaves the reader with a new perspective that is at least decently thought out to the point where if you bring it up, it can't be just torn down in a minute (by a thinking person of course, a zealot will try to tear down even the most obvious truthes in the world)?

    It sounds like an interesting read, but I read enough fiction.
  • Empty television (Score:2, Insightful)

    by nerdup ( 523587 )
    There is something about people who say they never watch TV that makes me want to punch them.

    That's funny, because there is something about people who talk incessantly about The Apprentice and Desperate Housewives that makes me want to punch them. Sorry, but not watching television is as valid a choice as spending your life watching fake people do fake things and getting lobotomized by car ads and "reality" programming.
    • That's funny, because there is something about people who talk incessantly about The Apprentice and Desperate Housewives that makes me want to punch them. Sorry, but not watching television is as valid a choice as spending your life watching fake people do fake things and getting lobotomized by car ads and "reality" programming.

      While I certainly have no issue with people making a choice to not watch TV, the feeling I picked up from that statement was that it was the WAY many people tend to say it that's ann
    • Saying that all television is no better than The Apprentice is like saying all literature is no better than Harlequin Romances. You're simply ignorant about the quality programming that can be found on TV.

      Now, that's OK -- someone can choose not to watch TV, just like someone can choose not read books. But don't think it makes you culturally superior.

      • Re:Empty television (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Fallingcow ( 213461 )
        Any suggestions on some good programs?

        My biggest problem with TV is that they don't (generally) set out to tell a story with a beginning, middle, and end; rather, they have a strong beginning, then make the middle up as they go along, extending it for as long as it's making money, then they (MAYBE) tack on a craptastic ending when it's no longer profitable, often failing to wrap up the original issues from the beginning of the show.

        I have found very few shows that do not follow this formula. "Babylon 5" co
        • I mentioned this in another post, but I found HBO's Deadwood to be truly excellent. It's historical fiction based on the history of Deadwood, South Dakota. The second season isn't out on DVD yet (I don't get HBO), but the first season was really good. The casting was especially good -- if you look at the historical photos of the characters, the actors even resemble them.

          Opinions vary on this, but I've been very taken with Lost. So far it's been really compelling. Some people think it's too mysterious for

  • Bad argument (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Spy der Mann ( 805235 ) <spydermann.slash ... com minus distro> on Friday October 28, 2005 @02:47PM (#13899120) Homepage Journal
    "video games, television and the Internet are good for us".

    In the first place, I didn't know videogames (tetris, pacman, Grand Tourismo), Television (Junkyard wars, animal showdown, Wolf's Rain), and the Internet (wikipedia) were bad for us.

    And I can't think of ANYONE (except extreme fundamentalists) who thinks that ALL videogames, ALL Television and ALL the internet are bad for us.

  • I can just see Jack Thompson seeing this book as vindication of what he is "fighting". Seriously, if one is to admit that Video Games can teach us (Increased coordination and Social Interactions) and influence society - as this book sugggests - then it is pretty easy to see how someone like him could come to the conclusion that violent video games and media can teach us those traits as well. Influence society in a negative sense.

    Now, I don't buy into all of this nonesense - but I can certainly see this

    • Given Jack Thompson's overall reasoning skills, the connection wouldn't be nearly so indirect. It would be more along the lines of, "See! Not only are these games turning your precious children into violent, amoral thugs, they're turning them into SUPERGENIUSES! If the gaming industry isn't stopped, soon we'll be beset on all sides by evil masterminds who are building their own nuclear warheads and holding New York City hostage because they were programmed to do so by these terrorism simulators!"

      I really
  • by DigitalRaptor ( 815681 ) on Friday October 28, 2005 @02:49PM (#13899135)
    "It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity."
    Albert Einstein

    I tend to agree with this poem:

    We are all blind until we see
    That in the human plan
    Nothing is worth the making
    If it does not make the man

    Why build these cities glorious
    If man unbuilded goes
    In vain we build these cities
    Unless the builder also grows.

    And of course:

    "To educate a man in mind and not in morals is to educate a menace to society."
    Theodore Roosevelt

    Our society is plagued with menaces, and I highly doubt that will change, except to increase. If it ever does change it will start at home with better parenting and at church (yeah, yeah, don't even start).

    • I've just finished reading 'God Emperor of Dune'.

      Leto makes an interesting point. Well heaps of them but one that stands out here. To paraphrase a little...

      Technology increases the number of things that you can do without getting your conscience involved.

      This is a bad thing.
  • Ob Woody Allen (Score:3, Interesting)

    by HungWeiLo ( 250320 ) on Friday October 28, 2005 @02:50PM (#13899143)
    Everything our parents say is good is bad for you. Sun. Milk. Red meat. College.
    • To expound:

      Sun: causes skin cancer, may cause blindness if misused
      Milk: leads to buildup of phleghm
      Red meat: bad cholesterol, mad cow disease
      College: idealistic group-think can lead to ridiculous protests, fraternity hazing, alcohol abuse

      Wait a minute -- milk is bad for you?

      Well, I did some checking, and found this: Stress, antibiotics, mastitis, and pus [www.veg.ca]

      Pus.

      Tasty.

  • by adam31 ( 817930 ) <adam31 @ g m a i l .com> on Friday October 28, 2005 @02:53PM (#13899164)
    which corresponds to an increase in average IQ scores in the U.S.

    Ah yes, the fabled "increase in average IQ score"... Apparently, we just cracked 100!

    However, I predict that a plateau for the foreseeable future.

  • Media or Technology (Score:3, Informative)

    by ajnsue ( 773317 ) on Friday October 28, 2005 @02:54PM (#13899167)
    Its worth it to consider the concepts that Marshall MacLuhan developed concerning Media. His description of media being Hot or Cold is relevant. The television was hot and the print media was cold. Hot media has an inverse affect on our minds - it required less involvement and interraction. Whereas Cold media like a book required our mind to be active... What does this character look like, sound like... our minds are energized. Hot media like tv is "...relax and leave the driving to us..." How this can possibly activate our minds is beyond me.
  • by Flopy ( 926705 ) on Friday October 28, 2005 @02:54PM (#13899170) Homepage
    His main evidence is the increase in the number of characters to be found in "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy compared to the original "Star Wars" trilogy.

    Wasn't LoTR written a couple of decades before SW?
  • by G4from128k ( 686170 ) on Friday October 28, 2005 @02:55PM (#13899184)
    I grew up with 3 commercial broadcast channels and 1 public broadcast station. It sucked compared to what's available today on basic cable. Sure there's more junk on TV, including public TV and the old commercial stations. But channels with 24 hr news (of varying leanings), home-and-garden, science shows, outdoor/exploration shows, independent films, food, etc. TV has more hours of quality per day than it did in the past.

    Yes, total TV crap is up by a factor of 50X and the crap-to-quality factor is worse by a factor of 10, but that still means we have 5X the available hours of quality programming compared to 30 years ago.

  • Ironic... or is it? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Wannabe Code Monkey ( 638617 ) on Friday October 28, 2005 @02:55PM (#13899188)

    The book raises interesting questions, but in the end is a lightweight analysis that is better for engendering sound bites on NPR and The Daily Show than for convincing serious readers.

    Hmm... sound bites on NPR... That's interesting, it sounds like you probably never listen to NPR [npr.org]. The breadth and depth of their coverage far surpasses any other news source I've found. For example On Point [onpointradio.org] is a two hour program, each hour consists of:

    • An opening news debrief from a reporter or journalist on the biggest stories of the day.
    • An in-depth conversation on a single topic with newsmakers, thinkers and callers.
    • And the end of the hour segment that allows for more personal reactions to news and important issues, including radio diaries, excerpts from speeches, or special series segments.

    They almost always have two or three experts in the relevant field during the discussion segment. Topics are explained and discussed with logic and level-headedness. Most of the time the topics are shown to be complicated with more sides than just the conservative vs. liberal slant you get from other news sources.

    In fact I was listening when Morning Edition held a seven minute interview with the author of "Everything Bad is Good for You" back in May. I just googled for it now and it's available to listen to for free on their website: Morning Edition, May 24, 2005: Everything Bad is Good for You [npr.org].

  • by queenb**ch ( 446380 ) on Friday October 28, 2005 @02:58PM (#13899211) Homepage Journal
    Unfortunately the video game industry and the TV industry are hung up on focus groups. The only thing to ever come out of a focus group is bland. All it takes one in-duh-vidiual who has negative responses and is outspoken about them and magically the marketing wonks tell the TV or game produces, "The focus group hated that." In fact, that's not the case. Only one person in the focus group with a forceful personality hated it. The real story is that the rest of the people in the focus group were either too polite or too non-confrontational to deal with the loudmouth.

    If you want a baloney sandwich, hire a focus group. If you want a gourmet meal, hire a chef with some flair and vision to create you a masterpiece. Admitted the gourmet meal costs more, but it's also infinitely more satifying. For those who say that the one hour format simply won't support "good TV", I'd like to point out the following, "The Sopranos", "Southpark", "The Dave Chapell Show", "Deadwood", "The Man Show" (original), "Dead Like Me", "Carnivale", and "Rome". The only thing these shows have in common is that they were produced by and air on cable TV channels. They are not beholden to the network executives and their thrice-dammned focus groups.

    For those that say that video games are not good entertainment, I would offer up a few of the rather inventive RPG's I've seen lately, "I of the Dragon" and "Fable". I'd also offer the whole "SIM City" series , as well as the "SIMS" and "SIMS2" since they pretty much redefined the "Simulation" category. The direction that some of the MMORG's are going in is becoming interesting because the players have the ability to revamp the world around them as well as interact with the other players, becoming sort of a group consentual hallucination. Given that some of the religious elements have been "forcing" conversions to their faith in on-line games by threatening lower level players with virtual violence, can you imagine what would happen if you got one of those yahoos in a focus group on say, "City of Villans" or GTA?

    2 cents,

    Queen B

     
  • This whole article assumes of course that it's even possible to define or benchmark 'intelligence'.
  • and I felt it was an interesting, thought-provoking read but it left me feeling like I'm being manipulated. The book almost reads like a college project or thesis in that is rhetoric and logic is very formulaic and "textbook" in its execution. Set up a hypothesis, mention a negative aspect of idea x, mention several positive aspects of idea x, conclude idea x is overall positive, and move on to idea y.

    Overall though he does bring up some interesting points that would be fun to debate with friends over a d
  • Comment removed (Score:3, Informative)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Friday October 28, 2005 @03:01PM (#13899238)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • by StressGuy ( 472374 ) on Friday October 28, 2005 @03:13PM (#13899336)
    I have a nearly 5 year old son that plays video games. One that he used to play (until the wife got nervous about it) was Rayman II. I could see that the games draw was the problem solving elements, it really captured his interest. Plus, the spoken text portions were motivating him to learn how to read - which was, in turn, motivating me to look for computer games that taught reading skills. So, OK, I can see how popular media can be used as a tool to stimulate intellectual development.

    Also, I can recall a few years ago reading a study about how children that read a lot of comic books tended to have better reading skills than those that didn't. I believe that, comic books often don't "dumb down" the language. I recall learning a lot of complex words as a child by reading comics. I also understand that a "graphic novel" recently won a Hugo Award ("The Watchers", I think).

    On TV, shows like Mythbusters seen to have achieved some popularity. Shows like "The Simpson's" and especially "Futurama" sneak in some pretty sophisticated stuff from time to time as well.

    Sadly, TV by and large is still prone to the lowest common denominator. Things like news channels that cycle the same 10-15 minutes worth of stories over and over throughout the day, or so-called "Reality TV" which is really just encouraging the worst in human behavior. In fairness, "Faking It" was cool because it allowed people to explore new experiences and "No Opportunity Wasted" was, in my opinion, the best of the lot, but it didn't make ratings apparently....too bad. Reality TV has gotten so pervasive that there are parodies of it ("Drawn Together", etc.).

    So, I guess like everything else, there is good and bad - even in so-called "Reality TV". All the same, the next time someone wants to do "He's a Lady", perhaps we can make it more about what it takes to successfully pull off the role as opposed to simply pandering to gender sterotypes?

    Enough pontificating...in the end, I suppose it's how you use the medium/art form that ultimately matters.

  • I read this book while vacationing in the woods outside of Yosemite. Pretty fitting place to read it, actually. I posted a review to my blog [blogspot.com] (shameless pimpin') and was pretty shocked when Steven Johnson himself (or a poser, I suppose) posted a complimentary comment. Gotta love the web.

    Anyway, I thought his point about gaming being brain candy, and the stimulating complexity of modern TV programming were well done -- and a welcome antidote to CW. But he gets way ahead of himself on a lot of points. And
  • This too easy.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by brundlefly ( 189430 ) on Friday October 28, 2005 @03:23PM (#13899425)

    His main evidence is the increase in the number of characters to be found in "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy compared to the original "Star Wars" trilogy. The other main evidence is the development of a sub-genre of films he calls "mind-benders" typified by Kaufman works like "Being John Malkovich".

    No. "The Lord of the Rings" is complex because it was a trilogy of books first. Almost 2000 pages of complexity, compared to the flimsy "she's your sister Luke" of Star Wars. Blech. Star Wars by comparison is like the O.C. in space, give me a break.

    And if "Being John Malkovich" is in a sub-genre of films called mind-benders, you would have to be very ignorant of the history of movies not to at least in part attribute the history of the genre to Hitchcock.

    • by m1a1 ( 622864 )
      It always sounds easy to destroy an argument you don't understand.

      It is irrelevant whether Lord of the Rings was was a book first. It is irrelevant whether that book was written yesterday or 1000 years ago. The thrust of the idea is that movie plots and characters are becoming more complex. Whether those plots and characters are entirely new or lifted wholecloth from another art form is moot.
  • but.... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by srsrsr ( 926712 )
    Did he ever mention that the shows of today which are more complex, were made by people who grew up with less "complex" shows in their time?
  • This reminds me of Woody Allen's 1973 movie "Sleeper", in which he plays a character who wakes up from a deep cryonics sleep and finds himself in a futuristic society in which "everything that used to be considered bad for health, such as smoking and eating red meat, is now considered good for you."

    I'm sure the author of "Everything Bad Is Good for You" is serious, but I think the correct way to approach this book is with a sense of humor. Before video games, people played chess for brain exercise; befo
    • Einstein never played "Doom", never watched "Sopranos", never surfed online, but we can all agree that 50 years after his death we have yet to find anyone smarter.

      Actually, no we can't. There's a long standing debate among physicists on whether Einstein was a genius or whether he merely took the next logical step.

      In addition, in the modern era we have many physicists as intelligent as Einstein, they just aren't being used as wartime propaganda.
  • A means to no end? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by bleckywelcky ( 518520 ) on Friday October 28, 2005 @03:27PM (#13899468)
    Unfortunately, being intelligent about completely useless topics is still completely useless. So some teenage girl spends age 13 through age 19 reading every issue of Elle, Cosmo, People, US Weekly (that's "US" weekly, not "U.S." weekly ... I know, it sounds like a legitimate magazine but it is just a celeb-stalking magazine), etc ... what good does it do her? Sure, she's developed her ability to collect and retain oodles of information, but right now her resources are all filled up with useless crap about what celeb is dating what other celeb and the latest fall fashions.

    And who's not to say that her ability to collect and retain information is not catered to these useless data types (ie, the data type of "fall fashions"). Just because she can retain tons of information about fall fashions does not mean she can understand field lines for differential equations.

    This topic ticks me off in particular because I have some young girl cousins (13, 14) and their families do nothing but feed them this useless crap. Instead of getting them a subscription to Popular Science or something (maybe even the for kids version), they shower them with Elle and Cosmo Girl. Then they reinforce the whole idea of turning themselves into objects for the boys to chase around by giving them makeup kits, little pink purses, high-cut baby tees, and accessories covered in bling. I try to talk to them about basic science and math, but they just go "huh, really?" and move on to something else. It's depressing because most of their families are non-technical types, and basically they (mainly their female relatives) are playing 'doll dress-up' with their younger siblings/kids/cousins/nieces. This wouldn't be as bad if they would reinforce some intelligent topics as well, even if it were just generic earth science or basic astronomy. Take them on some nature hikes and point out the different types of trees, look at specific plant structures and try to think how each unique plant has adapted to its environment. Take them out into some rural area in the middle of the night and take a gander at the stars. Show them how our solar system is constructed. Look at a globe and point out interesting geographical points on Earth ... Anything ... Just give them a chance. Right now they are being doomed to a life of pop culture, consumerism, and thoughtless dribble.
    • Right now they are being doomed to a life of pop culture, consumerism, and thoughtless dribble.

      My 13 year old daughter was caught as the only student in class who knew the answer to the teacher's question on so many occasions, that it started to have a negative effect on her social situation. She was always the only one raising her hand. She told us that she's decided to act dumber at school so that she can fit in better.

      Her social studies teacher referred to Arlington National Cemetary as "that cemetary
  • by Markus Registrada ( 642224 ) on Friday October 28, 2005 @03:28PM (#13899476)
    The biggest problem with this guy's claims is not his observations; certainly pop culture is more receptive to "difficult" material than it once was. However, he's way out on a limb claiming that it's the difficult material itself that makes people able to handle it.

    150 years ago, practically every city-dwelling 14-year-old in the U.S. was obliged to read and understand literature that is beyond today's typical college graduate. What changed? Plenty. It's impossible to say how much degradation should be attributed to generations of pervasive lead poisoning, how much to the deliberate demolition of the successful educational system of the time, how much to the more complex physical culture, and how much to better communication technology.

    Pervasive lead poisoning is only now in decline; most Americans still live in lead-painted houses. Unleaded fuel doesn't just make oil, and engines, last many times longer. We should expect continued dramatic improvement on that basis alone.

    The replacement of education with an indoctrination system, derived from India's method for keeping its lower castes in line, is one of the great crimes of the last century. Hallmarks of this system include segregation by age, sudden, arbitrary abandonment of activities, pervasive surveillance, petty authority, and enforced meaningless group exercises. (It was installed in the decades after the red scares of 1848 to make any repetition literally unthinkable.) Only in the last decade or two has there been any motion away from this goal, and most people still think of all these oppressive techniques as normal.

  • I'm actually beginning to think that the best TV is better than the best movies, particularly miniseries. With a miniseries, they can take the time to develop characters and situations, and not be a slave to the "two hour plot" where everything has to be wrapped up.

    One miniseries I watched not too long ago that absolutely excellent was HBO's Deadwood.

    It makes me wonder if one of the reasons that movies are perceived to be not as good these days is that TV is making it look it bad.

  • He kinda has a point with plots getting more sophisticated. Just look at the plot and writing of the current Battlestar Galactica compared to the original, the difference in quality is like between night and day. That said, there are plenty of classic movies that stand the test of time very well, although film is a different medium.
  • by Hosiah ( 849792 ) on Friday October 28, 2005 @03:55PM (#13899739)
    increasingly complex over the past several decades, which corresponds to an increase in average IQ scores in the U.S.

    In other news, global warming has caused temperatures to soar into the 200's, which naturally means that humans grew a thick leathery hide to protect against burning, and all the crops have died, corresponding to human's recently developed ability to live without eating.

  • The synopsis is pretty idiotic... there is a lot of cherry picking of the best content available (Sopranos for TV, Kaufman films for movies, etc) which probably are not all that representative of pop culture as a whole. The mainstream of movies nowadays is Spiderman - not Adaptation. Sopranos? More like Everybody Loves Raymond and American Idol...

    Johnson gives a "qualified yes" to the proposition that movies have undergone the same transformation as television. His main evidence is the increase in the nu

Business is a good game -- lots of competition and minimum of rules. You keep score with money. -- Nolan Bushnell, founder of Atari

Working...