Gift Idea: "Everything Bad Is Good For You"

[evenwolf]

"Everything Bad" is a non-fiction book which I only heard about because of a TV interview  (possibly Colbert Report)  When I saw it in the bookstore I compulsively picked it up even though I rarely buy new books.   

Well so I finished the book and I have to hand it to this guy, he makes a convincing argument.  All the crap you hear from Andy Rooney types, and your parents when they see you playing video games...

this guy argues the opposite -  that most of the stuff we like to do (watch TV, play video games, movies, surf the internet)  does not "make us dumber" but rather has very positive effects on our intelligence.  That every few years the TV narratives become more complex (from Hill Street Blues to the Sopranos & 24), and that young people more than ever are learning how to use new software and interfaces, and other seldom mentioned skills.

He uses the example of how most parents laugh at the fact that little Johnny is the only one in the family who knows how to program the VCR.    He says theres a very good reason why!   Well anyways, you're going to have to read the book.  There's great ties into neuroscience in there, as well as the economic market Blah Blah Blah.   He points out that the most successful games (World of Warcraft, Sims, etc ) actually are not all that "fun" when you examine people working 60 hours to collect minerals just to make their armor etc.  (even games like GTA have very tedious goals that reward the player)  People play video games due to built in reward systems in the human brain.  Fascinating stuff!

And what a great gift to give to your most receptive parent!  Especially if you're a kid like me who had to deal with parents bitching for every five minutes I tried to escape to the computer or Playstation.  The old "its rotting your brains" lecture.   

Now let's wait for everyone to read the book so we can begin debating.  Talk about adventure games being a prime example!   I learned to think in such wonderful ways thanks to Monkey Island and its puzzles and inventory logic!

[Radiant]

Take that, Jack Thompson.

[ildu]

Yeah, this was actually presented on The Daily Show some 6 months ago. Seemed like an interesting read (well, almost every book that's presented on The Daily Show is that) and I'd really like to read it.

I don't think this is very new though, unless the book goes into the most extreme counter arguments of the old waste-your-time-rot-your-brain mindset. I think we young people can all agree that the stuff we do, albeit might seem wasteful and useless, actually has had a positive effect on us. I mean, I know people who basically learned the English language from playing computer games. And if I think about myself, I've learned enormously from games, be it in the field of history, language or even art. I would even argue that our skillsets are way larger than the skillsets of our parents. I can still chop wood, fill in my tax return, drive a car, write essays, but on top of that I'm able to program playlists on tv receivers, convert various media file formats, create advanced programs, and navigate, process and generate content much faster than the generation before me. With easier access to all information (web dictionaries, encyclopedias, tutorials, schooling), we receive loads more, prompting for example a new debate between traditional teacher-student learning and independent e-learning.

Studies have shown that kids nowadays need to process, filter and absorb much more information than their parents did when they were young, resulting in a wider database of information, but less memory to recall that information. So we end up knowing a little about everything. There have also been a lot of studies supporting positive aspects in games and entertainment, for example the correlation of FPS games to the processing speed of shapes seen with the eye and reaction speed, and the adaptation speed to various technical interfaces.

[The Inquisitive Stranger]

He points out that the most successful games (World of Warcraft, Sims, etc ) actually are not all that "fun" when you examine people working 60 hours to collect minerals just to make their armor etc.Ã,  (even games like GTA have very tedious goals that reward the player)Ã,  People play video games due to built in reward systems in the human brain.

Sadly, I can never get into those kinds of games. Does that mean my brain is rotting?

[Redwall]

I think it means you like games that are fun, not games that make you feel superior.

[DGMacphee]

Great book, Evenwolf! One of my favourites!

One part of the book I found most fascinating and mind-blowing was where he makes a convincing case showing how reality TV shows and Pokemon are proof that our society is becoming smarter. Sure, we regard it as crap, but the crap has gotten smarter compared to similar shows from the 50s. In other words, the crap has gotten more complex.

Also, check out the author's blog: http://www.stevenberlinjohnson.com/

Studies have shown that kids nowadays need to process, filter and absorb much more information than their parents did when they were young, resulting in a wider database of information, but less memory to recall that information. So we end up knowing a little about everything. There have also been a lot of studies supporting positive aspects in games and entertainment, for example the correlation of FPS games to the processing speed of shapes seen with the eye and reaction speed, and the adaptation speed to various technical interfaces.

One of the thing the book discusses is that it's not the information as such, but the mechanisms used to present the information and engage the reader.

For example, books used to be the main textual medium. But now people are engaging with the internet because the way it presents information (Johnson uses intertextuality, such as hyperlinking, as an example) is more engaging.

Like Evenwolf said, he also compares the narratives of TV Shows over the last few decades and demonstrates how TV plots have become more complex. Take a show with a single narrative, such as Dragnet, and look at the evolution to Starsky and Hutch to Hill Street Blues to something with several narratives happening at once, like The Sopranos or 24.

[evenwolf]

ildu:   the argument certainly isn't new but look at how many critics argue that mass entertainment is heading for an all-time low.   Johnson argues that so far -  mass entertainment has been becoming more and more intelligent with each passing decade.   And what's incredible is not the claim that he's making but the rhetoric and the basis in science he uses to prove his point.   

One passage that I found extremely insightful was the evolution of mainstream TV.  In the seventies, Johnson argues, TV execs pushed for shows that were the Least Objectionable to the most people.   Shows like Laverne and Shirley, the Brady Bunch, and Mork and Mindy were big hits with mass audiences.  These shows were extremely simple and never pushed the limits as far as morality or indecency or gore.....

Today's popular shows COMPETE with the most complexity, violence, etc.  They have to push the envelope with more and more to gain their market.    And Johnson argues that these shows do not attempt Least Objectionable content but rather Most Repeatable content (Sopranos, 24 etc.).   Viewers have to cling to the TV to catch what just happened in 24, or go online to read fansites, or rewind on their Tivo,   or ultimately buy the DVD and search through the bonus features.

Without going into much detail (for fear of garbling Johnson's argument) I think this makes TONS of sense for any sign of moral decay or "dumbing down" of television.  It s not the case that TV execs avoided complex, violent, scandalous shows in the seventies because our moral standards were higher back then.     Its that mass audiences could not keep up with those stories because of a lack in technology and therefore:  a certain kind of intelligence.    Audiences could not rewind or read those websites etc.   Today's mass audiences yearn for layered stories that utilize multi-threading narratives due to the technolgy that has grown alongside us.  His best example of this was Seinfeld and its tendency to refer back to previous scenes or episodes.


DG: you're my kind of guy.  Thanks for pointing out that even the crap is better.  That's a really important point in the book.   Oh!   I love Johnson's scenario of "imagine a world where video games had been invented before books."  Johnson writes his own critique of books and their disadvantages to video games for kids' spatial intelligence etc.

Great stuff!

[Ali]

I don't totally wholly disagree with what you're saying, but I must dispute a few things.

Viewers have to cling to the TV to catch what just happened in 24, or go online to read fansites, or rewind on their Tivo,Ã,  Ã, or ultimately buy the DVD and search through the bonus features.

I watched the first series of 24 without rewinding, or reading fan-sites. I also followed the story without remaining clinging to the TV (that is to say, I spent a good few minutes making fun of Jack's whispery voice during each episode). More significantly, Twin Peaks gave us a layered, fractured narrative in very much the same way, before fan websites, DVDs and Tivo.

It s not the case that TV execs avoided complex, violent, scandalous shows in the seventies because our moral standards were higher back then.Ã,  Ã,  Ã, Its that mass audiences could not keep up with those stories because of a lack in technology and therefore:Ã,  a certain kind of intelligence.Ã,  Ã, 

I can think of a number of violent, 'scandalous' and complex films from the 1970s, perhaps fewer TV programmes. I won't dispute the notion that a modern viewer is more attuned to fast, dynamic editing and fractured narrative structure, but I don't think that's necessarily a good thing, nor do I think it's been driven primarily by technology.

[Kweepa]

I disagree entirely with the premise that TV is getting smarter.

Take a look at any recent programme about science. It presents what meagre facts it contains in as flashy a way as possible to avoid "losing the audience", and recaps over and over as if you didn't get it the first time. I watched an episode of Stan Lee's "reality" show recently. Recap, recap, recap.

As for people getting smarter, just go downtown on a Saturday afternoon and listen to a few conversations (or mobile phone half-conversations). Or don't - it'll depress you.

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

Filling people's brains with a ton of buzzwords they barely understand and half-truths is hardly improving their intellect, nor does showing them increasing amounts of violence and garish, offensive behavior.  How can the Sopranos possibly be argued successfully to improve the human intellect?  Looks like the snake oil salesmen are back in town, Sheriff!

[ildu]

Yeah, I'm not gonna get on the tv-is-smarter-makes-smarter bandwagon just yet. I think the complexity and uniqueness of television broadcasting is a result of competition and the greater importance of the tv in our lives. In the 50-60's people would gather around the tv for an hour a day to watch simplistic broadcasting, because it was novel as well as standard. But nowadays people live through television to a larger degree, and they demand more complexity. And as the demand is greater, so is the supply with the many channels and shows to choose from, which really laments the producers to make broadcasting more and more 'cutting edge', to not, god forbid, let the viewer get bored.

CSI may be more complex than I Love Lucy in context, but it doesn't mean people who are watching are any smarter.

Regarding my earlier post, I was agreeing more with the notion that kids' lives are becoming more complex than those of earlier generations, and they have a need to adapt to the new world order. Sorry, if I sound a bit washed out. It seems that I only respond to these threads when it's nighttime and I'm tired.

[FieryPhoenix]

I taught school for several years.Ã,  Trust me- this book get it wrong.Ã,  TV is not making anyone smarter.Ã,  I worry about the world- Are we going to produce the great scientists, humanists, thinkers, economists, writers, etc. if weÃ,  buy into this harmful nonsense.Ã,  Ã, 

[jetxl]

People like to blame things on others.
Makes ya think.

[Ali]

I refuse to read that, jet, seeing as comic books cause brain rot and delinquency.

Actually the words are too small.

[Chicky]

Drag and drop into the url bar foo'!

[Andail]

I've never doubted that computers makes you more intelligent, it's more the cultural competence I'm afraid people are missing out. Reading books and magazines, historical, cultural or fictional, adds a dimension to your mind that soap operas or shoot 'em ups probably don't.
Learning stuff and developing takes a certain amount of effort, whereas the passtime of too many people, especially young people, tends to be rather effortless, in the direction of the vegetable.
I just know that when I read great novels, I get a particular kind of inspiration that is more or less vital for my survival. I become encouraged, provoked, to think, instead of just catered for my immediate desire to make the time go faster. I sincerely believe, with the risk of sounding like your fathers, that reading good literature and taking long walks will make experience a magic flow inside of you that can't be compared to 24/7 playing of WoW.

[ildu]

I completely agree with Andail and I would have completely agreed with him 10 years ago.

[DGMacphee]

First of all, I think a lot of people are disagreeing without considering what's really being discussed here. I'll get to my reply to certain individuals in a moment, but first....

Everyone, see Johnson on The Daily Show: http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/media_player/play.jhtml?itemId=15541

And see him discuss his new book The Ghost Map:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3P8shnNEXb4

I don't totally wholly disagree with what you're saying, but I must dispute a few things.

Viewers have to cling to the TV to catch what just happened in 24, or go online to read fansites, or rewind on their Tivo,   or ultimately buy the DVD and search through the bonus features.

I watched the first series of 24 without rewinding, or reading fan-sites. I also followed the story without remaining clinging to the TV (that is to say, I spent a good few minutes making fun of Jack's whispery voice during each episode). More significantly, Twin Peaks gave us a layered, fractured narrative in very much the same way, before fan websites, DVDs and Tivo.

But this only just highlights the evolution of how TV has become more complex. 24 is pretty much a higher step in complex narrative from Twin Peaks, especially since you now have a "real-time" element. What Evenwolf (and Johnson) is saying is that now we live in a world of greater interactivity and intertextuality. The Internet functions adjunct to current multi-narrative stories. It's an extension of the evolution of all our popular culture.

As another example, consider also that there is now a 24 video game.

It s not the case that TV execs avoided complex, violent, scandalous shows in the seventies because our moral standards were higher back then.     Its that mass audiences could not keep up with those stories because of a lack in technology and therefore:  a certain kind of intelligence.   

I can think of a number of violent, 'scandalous' and complex films from the 1970s, perhaps fewer TV programmes. I won't dispute the notion that a modern viewer is more attuned to fast, dynamic editing and fractured narrative structure, but I don't think that's necessarily a good thing, nor do I think it's been driven primarily by technology.

Whether or not it's a good thing is not what's being argued here. As Johnsons says in the book, it is not his position to debate the morality of such culture. What is being argued is that the technological aspects and progression of narrative has made us smarter.

A case in point that Johnson makes in regards to reality TV is that now you have people voting via mobile phones and the internet on who stays and who leaves. You also have internet forums devoted to such shows where fans can discuss the social dynamics/contestant technique/etc of such shows.

Likewise, compare the best films of the 70s (and I'm a big afficianado of films from the 70s, mind you -- Taxi Driver, The French Connection, The Godfather 1 and 2, etc) to the best films of today: Pulp Fiction , Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Memento, The Usual Suspects, Lord of the Rings, Fight Club, etc. The way of telling such stories has become more complex.

Johnson also backs up his findings with empirical evidence too.

I disagree entirely with the premise that TV is getting smarter.

Take a look at any recent programme about science. It presents what meagre facts it contains in as flashy a way as possible to avoid "losing the audience", and recaps over and over as if you didn't get it the first time. I watched an episode of Stan Lee's "reality" show recently. Recap, recap, recap.

But compare this to the type of documentary about science from the 50s.

Here's an example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeqIY1Venfk

It basically presents the same meagre facts using the best engagement techniques of the 50s.

But also, today we have shows that act as an intertext to this. Take, for example, the Look Around You series, which acts as a parody of educational documentaries:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LqYBncyKpM

Parody is a type of intertext that Johnson talks about. It references not just the facts but the style of educational documentaries. And we understand this because we can make connections between such media.

No one would have even dreamed of making shows like this in 50s.

it's kind of like how The Daily Show's "America (The Book): A Citizen's Guide to Democracy Inaction" parodies civics textbooks.

Filling people's brains with a ton of buzzwords they barely understand and half-truths is hardly improving their intellect, nor does showing them increasing amounts of violence and garish, offensive behavior.  How can the Sopranos possibly be argued successfully to improve the human intellect?  Looks like the snake oil salesmen are back in town, Sheriff!

First of all, Johnson isn't a snake oil salesman and his books don't read like they were written by a crazy old man in a bar. He is a major science writer and a Distinguished Writer In Residence at New York University.

Second: I'm not too sure how "cognitive" and "mass communication" constitute buzzwords. My University professors all used the same words that Johnson used, so maybe they're snake oil salespeople as well. Better watch out, they might try and con you into buying the Brooklyn Bridge!

Third: the violence and offensive behaviour is more to do with the morality of such media, not the capability to enhance cognitive ability.

As for the Sopranos, consider all the connections people have to make to watch the show. 1) The way it uses several narratives that weave in between each other, 2) the way it calls back to information from previous episodes, 3) The way it incorporates psychology, 4) the way it makes references to external media, like numerous gangster films, 5) Consider also, how people can reference the show, such as the intro being parodied in Harvey Birdman and The Simpson.

In other words, people need enhanced cognitive ability to process the shows more so than people of 50 years ago. Try getting your 65 year old grandpa to follow what's happening in The Sopranos. I guaran-fucking-tee you he'll prefer Matlock.

For more information, consult the Intertestuality section of The Sopranos article on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sopranos#Intertextuality

Yeah, I'm not gonna get on the tv-is-smarter-makes-smarter bandwagon just yet. I think the complexity and uniqueness of television broadcasting is a result of competition and the greater importance of the tv in our lives. In the 50-60's people would gather around the tv for an hour a day to watch simplistic broadcasting, because it was novel as well as standard. But nowadays people live through television to a larger degree, and they demand more complexity.

Why do people demand more complexity?

Johnson says because their cognitive functions are more enhanced.

I taught school for several years.  Trust me- this book get it wrong.  TV is not making anyone smarter.  I worry about the world- Are we going to produce the great scientists, humanists, thinkers, economists, writers, etc. if we  buy into this harmful nonsense.   

How can I trust you with you opinion when you've got NOTHING to demonstrate why the book has got it wrong?

But you want to talk great writers of today influenced by popular culture? Consider my friend B. Thompson Stroud, who is my favourite writer on the Internet. He has also written a book entitled Seven Hill City. He grew up on a steady diet of professional wrestling, baseball, and TV. A lot of this culture has influenced his works in major ways, especially the impact of professional wrestling on his book. Also, take a look at the online comic he co-writes, The Dugout, which is based upon his knowledge of baseball.

He is a great writer influenced by popular culture.

Consider Quentin Tarantino, writer and director of Pulp Fiction, who basically attributes the video store he used to work at as his film education.

Consider Jon Stewart, Emmy and Peabody-winning writer and presenter of The Daily Show, who uses a lot of pop cultural references to mock the politics of the day.

Consider Matt Stone and Trey Parker, who do the same thing.

Consider the creators of The Simpsons.

Consider Sasha Baron Cohen.

I just know that when I read great novels, I get a particular kind of inspiration that is more or less vital for my survival. I become encouraged, provoked, to think, instead of just catered for my immediate desire to make the time go faster.

But what you've described is pretty much what reality TV's voting system encourages people to do. It encourages them to think upon what they've seen and provoke them to make a decision. It's pretty much the same as you using the internet -- there are complex cognitive functions happening that force you to make decisions when you surf the net.

Also, you mention literature of the past as inspirational. Consider current day literature, such as Geoff Ryman's "253", which is a hypertext novel.

http://www.ryman-novel.com/

Consider how this is uses more complex functions than literature of the past.




---------------

I'd like to point out to everyone that Johnson doesn't disqualify novels and media from our past -- such has their benefits. But what he is saying is that there is a negative association (TV and video games are making us dumber) with today's popular culture that is false.

And, for a good defense against the moral arguments against our popular culture, see this video of a debate between Bernie Goldberg and Jon Stewart:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/07/13/3541

Best quote:

Bernard Goldberg: Once upon a time... a drunk in a bar wouldn't use the F-word. Now... Chevy Chase goes to the Kennedy Center in Washington DC, at a gala where people are wearing gowns and tuxedoes, and calls the president of the United States a dumb-blank.

John Stewart: And once upon a time, Thomas Jefferson fucked slaves. I guess what I'm saying is yes, Chevy Chase used a bad word on TV .... but segregation no longer exists, slavery is gone. That's REAL culture and REAL vulgarity. This is just words.

I've also said time and time again that I reckon the violence on TV, video games, films is merely a reflection of society. Compare this to films and TV of several decades ago where apparently violence didn't exist much and black people and white people got along together in harmony during the 30s. Also, according to films of the 30s, slavery and the subjugation of black people was a good thing.

I mean, are people going to condemn a violent film like Spike Lee's Do The Right Thing on purely moral objections to "violence in films" when it presents a fairly accurate representation of tense race relations?

The problem is that our nostolgia for the past clouds our eyes to what's happening now. While I don't think we should disqualify past culture, I think we can't condemn present popular culture on purely moral grounds. And while I can't say that all our culture is perfect, I do think it has become more honest and more advanced than several years ago.

[Andail]

Also, you mention literature of the past as inspirational. Consider current day literature, such as Geoff Ryman's "253", which is a hypertext novel.

http://www.ryman-novel.com/

Consider how this is uses more complex functions than literature of the past.

Literature of the past? I meant contemporary literature as well. As long as it's "good"

Also, sure, that hyper-text novel seems nifty and all. But seriously, is that a modern-day, mainstream media among people of today? I'm not against new media, I'm against young people wasting away watching and reading popcorn pulp shit crap. If people can find alternatives to reading books, then be my guest. But that link of yours seems a tad far-fetched imho.

[jetxl]

Comic books. They have words and pictures; you can do everything with words and pictures.