How Today's Popular Culture is Actually Making Us Smarter

Steve Johnson brings upon the argument in this book that modern pop culture is vital to today's society. He defends the idea that video games are a way to stimulate the brain through the invitation for one to explore and challenge one's brain to continue; reality television shows display the hardships in human socialization; television with holds intricate details that piece together into a complex structure. He brings into the equation multiple examples of television programs such as the Sopranos, Seinfeld, The Simpsons and more. He displays the multiple examples of his argument through the diagramed plots in these shows and how each chronological episode pieces together. In this book it shows how Johnson feels that these elements in our society are vital to one's way of development in a life of the constant addition to knowledge. I feel that his argument on the subject is supported through certain tests that he has documented, such as one that deals with the responsive actions of video gamers. Although he brings forth this type of support and his own knowledge on the subject, it may not be enough to certain individuals who seek the greater details on this subject. I agree with his argument because I do play video games, including the example of the Legend of Zelda Series, and I know it does take a lot of logic and strategy solving skills to get through. Although people say that Legend of Zelda and games related are attractive to gamers because they desire to see what is further, I feel it is more than that. In my own opinion, pop culture is important to learn about key factors in a social environment. We have to socialize everyday in order to get somewhere through life's courses. So through learning all about Johnson's argument in this book does explain how pop culture is not bad for a community but good for you. Which is how he presents the title of his book.

Agree or disagree, you must read this book if you wish to have insight into the culture in which you now live and the ways in which technology and emerging forms of digital media are changing things, for better or worse.

Steven Johnson demythifies the modern media experience in layman's language. Debunking the idea that video games, television, the internet, and other forms of media are "dumbing down" culture, Johnson presents a clear and well supported argument for just the opposite, showing how modern media contribute to a measurable increase in congnitive function and intelligence.

As Johnson puts it in his preface, "The sky is not falling. In many ways, the weather has never been better. It just takes a new kind of barometer to tell the difference." Drawing on economics, cognitive science, media criticism, cultural theory, and sociology, to name a few, Johnson attempts to examine popular culture in a multi-displinary mode where he looks at things in a more holistic manner than a particular discipline would ordinarily afford.

Undoubtedly, Steven Johnson's editors thought the title "Everything Bad is Good for You" would be provocative, but unfortunately, it serves to reduce a thoughtful and insightful look at culture and learning to a sound bite. Johnson's book, much like his previous effort, "Mind Wide Open" explores the connections between popular culture and how we learn. His conclusion, reduced to shorthand as "The Sleeper Curve" (a Woody Allen movie reference) is actually a serious look at the influences of culture as expressed on television and video games on our cognitive abilities. The book's central thesis is that rather than a race to the bottom, TV shows like "24" or "Survivor" and children's movies like "Finding Nemo" are actually challenging us and our children in more complex patterns of thought and problem solving. Even the tasks involved in a video game like "Grand Theft Auto" (sexual opportunities aside) are tapping our problem solving abilities in new and challenging ways.

Few writers today have Johnson's ability to take complex social trends and make them understandable to the layman. Like Malcolm Gladwell's "Blink" and "The Tipping Point," Johnson is able to provide a glimpse into the newly developing field of Consilience: the mapping of concepts from different disciplines such as economics, media, sociology and neurology. A must read for parents, teachers and anyone old enough to remember what Marshall McLuhan actually wrote in "Understanding Media."

Although he's hit on a catchy counter-intuitive position in this book Steven Johnson's breezy, entertaining book has all the substance of a daisy clock - at the slightest rigorous inquiry it disintegrates and floats away on the breeze. His claims are essentially hunches and poorly conceived lines of thought which when followed to their logical conclusions are self defeating. One of his central ideas that though the content of pop culture is often crude and inane their interactive and multi-referential nature gives them brain strengthening qualities, bestowing "intellectual or cognitive virtues," and demanding more cognitive engagement... making minds sharper."

This claim is self defeating because his opening gambit is to admit that most televisual and video game offerings are banal and simplistic in content and then to make the leap to the idea that it is their decision making elements that are more important for increasing mental alacrity. This claim is both facile and unsupported by scientific research. Are the types of decisions demanded by Grand Theft Auto completely divorced from the moral and intellectual content? From values and social virtues? It is a bold claim. If so then of course the logical conclusion of his argument is to throw out two and a half thousand years of Western cultural development because the content doesn't matter only how quickly you make a decision whether to blast the guy with the shotgun or to steal his car. The moral complexity of Greek Tragedy or a Philip Roth novel are reduced to an either or zero sum game. What a world of autistic, empty people Johnson's Utopian prescription for self improvement would leave us with. The content is absolutely central to any work of art - life is not just strategic puzzle solving except to moral imbeciles.

As a teacher I face every day roomfuls of kids who may have awesome decision making powers in the realm of video games but whose skills do not transfer to the academic or social realm in any discernible way. This is anecdotal of course and I won't make any doomsday claims based on them. However, many scientific studies have been done on the technological habits of young people and the results of the internet age on their minds seem to be at worst strongly negative and at best inconclusive. Yet seemingly every day I am battered by education experts to make my classes more "multi-modal" for the burgeoning crop of "digital natives" before me and advised to rid myself of my digital immigrant/refugee? status and join in the campaign for more hours online for kids instead of less in order see them develop their minds fully. Where is the evidence? Why are these people not given a moment for pause by the damning qualitative and quantitative studies that contradict their claims? I strongly suspect that it the action of powerful P.R. wrangling and the drive for profit of the megacompnies involved rather than any belief in what they say spurs them on. I am absolutely certain that if one wants to make a lot of money, one needs to become a wholehearted digital age booster, to get hired as a consultant by the relevant tech companies and flown around the world and be feted at 'Education/Wisdom/Intelligence/Learning (insert the positive sounding word of your choice) 2.0' conferences. Or failing that one should write a vapid boosterish book like Steven Johnson's making all sorts of clever sounding but empty claims guaranteed prominent distribution and visibility but this does not make the claims therein an iota more true. In fact it should warn us that whereever the big money is people's best interests often lie in the other direction. I'm sticking by my contention that the net is a handy tool but if kids want to learn about life, the world and themselves then they're infinitely better off cracking a copy of To Kill a Mockingbird, 1984 or War and Peace and unplugging their computers for a while.

My headline should say it all. I can see arguments for why all of these things are SOMEWHAT "good" for you--after all, things are usually have two sides to them--but this particular presentation of the argument is too full of logical fallacies and faulty premises to pull it off. All kinds of sleights of hand are employed here.

Just to give one example. The author sets out to debunk the popular idea that video games are nothing more than instant gratification. As evidence that they are not instant gratification, he points to the fact that many video games are very difficult and frustrating to complete--so difficult that one needs a guide to solve them. He compares these guides to the Cliff's Notes one uses to help understand a novel.

First of all, while this argument shows that SOME video games, such as Sim City, are not forms of instant gratification (the author simply ignores the types of games that would work against this thesis), it simply raises another problem about such games--the kind of complexity Johnson describes is an entirely mechanical one--taking certain steps to earn your character money so he can buy a house so he can buy another house so he can own a whole block...etc. The "complexity" described in these video games is no more complex than the process a bird goes through to build a nest. It's a big assembly line.

The comparison of video game guides to Cliff's Notes is deeply flawed. Cliff's Notes tell you certain things about a book, but they do not necessarily give you a "key" to help you "solve" the book--and of course, they could not hope to do that, because books are much more complex than cardboard puzzles. In fact, as any English teacher knows, Cliff's Notes are often nothing more than a poor substitute for independent thinking about literature. Video game guides, on the other hand, are in fact evidence of the entirely mundane reality one encounters in video games. Essentially, these guides help you cheat. There is no way in a lot of these games to find certain things that you need (magic keys, etc.)--and being smart has nothing to do with whether you find them or not--it's simply a matter of looking long enough and remembering where you've already gone. Again...takes a long time, sure, and you have to push the button over and over. But in the end, it's no more "complicated" than an Easter egg hunt.

There are similar sleights of hand employed in the following chapters of the book, not really worth enumerating.

I was very disappointed by this book, because, although I am no fan of popular culture by any means, I'm no old-fashioned old geezer either, and I do think it is always interesting to question our basic assumptions about things.

If anything, this book does exactly the opposite of what it sets out to do. It shows the kinds of totally flawed comparisons and arguments that often spring up when people try to defend popular culture. This creates the impression (probably false) that somehow, this popular culture is CAUSING people to think that their poor reasoning passes for wisdom.

Wouldn't it have been more interesting to include the dark side too? Most things are both "bad" for you in some ways and "good" for you in others--this seems a more enlightening way to discuss popular culture.

A fan of Neil Postman's critiques of pop culture, I was hoping for Johnson to make a more convincing case that video games and television are building critical thinking skills. The chapters on television will try the patience of anybody who has already dismissed that medium as a frivolous time waster. Johnson builds his argument through lengthy references to current prime time shows, the plots of which he asserts would stupefy earlier generations of viewers. So what? Maybe the content is more sophisticated now, but it's still TV. His discussion of video gaming's connection to critical thinking is a bit more convincing, but not by much. At least he never suggests that people should stop reading. After all, that's the medium he chose to reach his audience.

Every parent should wonder what is best for their child. There are no easy answers. This book gives some good arguements to allowing your children to have a wide range of experiences, yes, including video games and television.

Children are smart and learn fast. I have an advanced engineering degree, but my 5 and 9 year old can figure out the rules of video games faster than I can. They have great problem solving abilities, and yes they also like to read. Books are very important in our house.

Saying popular culture is all bad is close minded. Read with your childen, but also don't be afraid to play video games and watch challenging television with them as well.

The book is a little dry, but worth the effort.

This was an excellent book that provided a fresh look at the ways that popular culture affects us all. Steven Johnson isn't afraid to take on the generally accepted notions of what popular culture does to us, nor to use one of the strongest voices against the "dumbing down" effect of culture, Neil Postman. He provides added value to his insights by referencing well-known pieces of popular culture (i.e. Grand Theft Auto, Sims, 24, The West Wing) and illustrating how they add to the cognitive ability of us all. His Sleeper Curve goes a long way toward unmasking the increasing complexity of even the most mundane shows such as The Apprentice without resorting to ad hominem attacks on those that pronounce today's popular culture a destruction of the mind.

While his use of IQ and g tests to move his theory deeper into the cognitive effects is lacking some support, it is worthwhile to note that there is a real trend that he is referencing. Maybe Survivor isn't making us smarter on scales that the IQ or g tests can measure, but it also isn't making us into mindless automatons as Huxley and Postman would lead us to believe.

I think the true strength in this book is providing a new paradigm from which a person can view today's popular culture.

Johnson lost me. He seems to confuse thinking with reflexive action, following the maddeningly simple but lengthy chains of logic needed to play video games with the application of the intellect to reading and critical thinking. And the fact that "Hill Street Blues" plots were more complicated than "Dragnet" does not qualify either show as good or bad, nor does it make any case that the viewer of one is brighter or more engaged than the viewer of the other. The fact that game 'experience' teaches his nephew to conclude that a tax cut is needed to revive an industrial area in Sim City only shows me that the nephew has learned that certain rules or tricks work in video fantasy games, and he thinks that managiung a city is just another form of fantasy. It may be fun to learn rules by repeated mistakes in man interactive simulation, but he could have just as easily read this rule and learned it without repeated mistakes.

Woody Allen's "deep fat" joke from "Sleeper" was funny for what it was, satire from a man who has made his life out of ridiculing conventional thinking among Park Avenue liberals. To suggest that we have learned or may soon learn the "deep fat" is good for you, or that reading is "bad" for you, simply defies the imagination.

Reviewer Saperstein hit the nail on the head: This book is designed to make those who feel guilty to feel good about themselves. These people will give this book four- and five-star reviews. In fact, "Everything bad" reads like an overwritten thesis by a precocious college senior whose professor wants to be so hip that he goads the students along, mistaking erudite language substitute for clear, meaningful analysis. Where Johnson might be right is that reading books such has his can give good writing and engaging reading a bad name. My daughter could install software on her Mac when she was two years old and she still enjoys interactive games at age nine, but give her choice and a good book wins her attention every time.

First of all, Johnson leaves little doubt that today's entertainment is more sophisticated than, say, the entertainment in the 1970s. That's a reasonable claim and he makes his points convincingly. However, other sections of the book brought questions. Allow me to explain.

Is someone who is quick to absorb the visual stimulation of pop-culture a 'smart' person? It seems the intelligent person not only digests ideas, but produces them. Thinking creatively and originally is different than merely reacting to and retaining data - whether that's data from a text book, a movie, or a video game.

Here's the point Johnson seems to gloss over, mental stimulation is not a virtue in itself. To build on that, is all learning (knowledge) 'good'? More specifically, is there a difference between wisdom and trivia? See, that's the huge question Johnson misses. If he proves all 'facts' are equal in their importance then his thesis becomes much stronger. However in the real world some knowledge is far less important than other knowledge.

Let me use an example. Say we have two kids - aged 10. One kid can tell you the title, manufacturer, plot-line, and year of every video game ever produced. The other kid can recite the Declaration of Independence, tell you who signed it and why it's important. I'd suggest while both kids may be equally 'smart', both are not equally intelligent.

Here's the point. Johnson is so focused on defending the media forms of today that he ignores the messages they send us. At the same time he uses the term 'good' in the title of his book. That's a term of value differentiation. Is he implying some things are 'good' and others are not? That's a moral distinction. If that's what he's saying, then what would be the 'bad' that could be promoted via today's media? ... a preoccupation with murder? sex? hedonism? Are those things bad? I wish he would have at least attempted to deal with the content (messages) of pop-culture.

Here's the bottom line. Let's assume pop-culture is making us smarter. A different question would be, is it also making is better? Is it actually good for us? Is it building character, courage, heroism, altruism, and charity? I remain unconvined that it is.

Wheather you agree with Mr. Johnson's premise or not you will not for long be able to avoid the discussion this text will create.

The architecture of his argument portents the structure of the popular cultural discussed which seems to be that if it is exciting it will go.

Many of my profession, education, are not prone to accept the fact that knowledge, as well as information (if there is a difference), travels at the speed of light.

The analogies Johnson posits are thought provoking, metaphorical, and above all stimulating. It is easy to see why this book was reviewed the same week by the New Yorker, and the NY Times then a few days later he was on the Daily Show and stood up to Mr.Stewart quite well.

I am looking forward to playing this work like a "video game" again and again. Afterall learning is addictive be it formal, collateral, incidental or unauthorized. Thanks Steven for a great read.

When I first learned to drive, my parents sent me to the grocery store to pick up a few things. When I got back to the car I put the bag of groceries on the roof to find the keys, and then I got in and started to drive home -- with the groceries still on the roof! Several drivers honked their horns to get my attention as I meandered through the rows of parked cars. But I ignored them, until, just as I was about to pull out into traffic, some guy in a truck shouted: "Hey! Your groceries are on the roof!"

Embarrassed, I reacted with typical teenage vigor: "I know!" I shouted back, as if the other driver was the idiot in that conversation. "I wanted them there!"

And that is how I would summarize the main arguments in Everything Bad is Good for You: "We know a lot parts of American society are way out of whack. But don't worry -- we wanted them there."

Intense television watching? Better than no TV at all. Video games? Practically an Ivy League education. A lack of face-to-face social interaction among young people? Perfect!

The only significant valid point in the book is that entertainment today is much more complex than it was 30 years ago. Television show and film plots are more complicated, games require quicker decision making, and so on. I don't quarrel with that. But author and alleged social scientist Steven Johnson appears to misunderstand what intelligence is, confusing it with mental stimulation. It would be like saying someone is a better athlete because he moves around a lot, no matter what the results of the actual athletic competition.

The book implies some very basic questions: Is all learning of equal value? Is there a difference between trivial knowledge and real wisdom? Does memorizing data automatically spark creativity? For each of those questions, Mr. Johnson's answer seems overly simplistic, troubling, and aimed to reassure a non-thinking readership.

Obviously, some kinds of learning and information are more valuable than others. And there is more to wisdom or creativity than connecting neurons in the brain through high mental stimulation.

To wit: imagine one youngster who memorized all the differences between the last ten versions of some hit video game, the processor speed needed to play the game, and the engineering team that built it. And another young person has read and understands Shakespeare: he can recognize the original plot elements, puns, wordplay, character types, and poetry of the bard's works. Based on this limited information, both kids have great memories and are both are likely to have natural smarts. But which would you rather spend an afternoon with? Which is more likely to grow up to be a worthwhile adult? Whose morals and ethics would you be more likely to trust?

If pop culture really is making kids smarter -- based on some very limited definition of that word -- is it making them better? Does pop culture build character? Does it teach morals? Integrity? Work ethic? Those things are what we need more than a generation of people skilled at walking through a virtual labyrinth and shooting everything that moves, or imagining themselves the featured star of Juventus or the Dallas Cowboys.

The book is well written and well researched enough to earn 3 stars under normal circumstances, despite some rather obvious flaws. But in this case the central argument sorely tests the limits between simply being a weak and actually being dangerous. Beware.

Just because you think more or concentrate on more negative aspect than in the past doesn't make you a better person, only a little smarter. Intelligence is not the end all and be all of being human. Basically the author proclaims that today's media makes us more like computers. Yesterday's scientists understood there are far more aspects to human existence than the ability to calculate. I completely agree that today's tv makes you think more. But that's where the author ends his point. In reality, there are so many more parts to human existence that the author doesn't even touch upon... perhaps he doesn't even know. What about morality? In the past, men of science understood that their work had moral and ethical implications. Today it's a "that's for them to figure out, i'm just doing my job". This attitude has permeated other fields, especially MEDIA. Now it's a matter of the bottom line, regarless of how it affects the psyche. So watching the worst humans act their worst today is better than 30 years ago? Cluttering your mind with thoughts of selfishness and depravity today is better than watching Lucy try to get on Ricky's show yesterday? But the author doesnt even CONSIDER this point. He simply stops at "we think more now", not "We think more now so we are better or worse people", simply "we think more now". There is very little point to this book.

There has always been a strain of "good old days" nostaglia. Now, this includes outdated technology. There needs to be a distinction between ability to handle a technical, manipulative probelm and ability to deal with basic values and discernment. Whie I do not doubt that in some ways we are smarter, but when ever I view fox news, I see how we as a people can be very, very lacking

Socrates said the unexamined life is not worth living. Johnson examines our 21st Century in a new light where he shows that our popular culture-i.e., video games and television can improve our mental processes and make us a better person!! Read this and Mind Wide Open but make sure your kids do their homework and do not watch violent games.

As a media psychologist, I'm intrigued with Steven Johnson's suppositions of the positive influence and increased cognitive demands of our current media (television, electronic games, and the Internet). It is an interesting read.

This is one hell of a thought-provoking book that decimates the oft-repeated phrases that have become cliches. Video games make you stupid, TV makes you stupid, society's going down the drains. The author knocks each of these ideas off their pedestals in clear, convincing prose that entertains while enlightening the reader. In terms of how this book affected me, personally, I would say that it makes me want to go buy a television and a Playstation 2, but honestly, I doubt I would take its' conclusions that far.

I value this book immensely because it highlighted that my generation had not wasted away on computer games, formulaic film and TV content. Indeed, we had evolved, and to keep up, the content providers were evolving too. It's as if the table was turned on popular culture -evolution in entertainment - and our minds were profiting by exercising to a new level. "Everything Bad Is Good for You" also came in handy when I was writing "The Art of Office War" - the workplace, thanks to new software, is not that mundane. We are moving along at an extraordinary pace and life, thanks to technology, is not getting simpler. Sometimes I wonder when everything good for us might be too much.

Johnson's argument that pop culture and entertainment pretty much all has a good side is one I've been believing for years. His arguments are clear and concise and make a lot of sense. Plus, the book is fun to read. It's a lot more than just a rationalization for TV junkies.

For a book with such a lousy title, the erudition of the content and argument contained was a real surprise. For those interested in the development of popular culture, an historical perspective of its valuable educative processes in a finely articulated argument this is hard to beat. It goes on to my blog as a must read!!!

Very good book, written from the perspective of a teenaged gamer made good.

Johnson played games as a kid, baseball strategy games, as well as Dungeons and Dragons, and one can detect a certain bias in his outlook. However, his statistical references and footnotes make this book a scholarly look at popular culture - in particular movies, TV and videogames - and is a nice refutation of the "our culture is going into the toilet" crowd.

Johnson argues - to me, convincingly - that even though modern mass market entertainment may appear "dumbed down", it really isn't, and that at a basic physical level, our brains are being made to work harder, get more exercise if you will, and develop higher cognitive functions as a result.

A very complex book written in easy to read language with convincing data to back up the arguments - disguised in a very palatable dialogue that doesn't seem like science at all. He even takes Marshall McLuhan to task on at least one of his conclusions - very daring, and in this case, pays off.

Johnson does miss out on one or two things - the ascendance of message boards is glossed over, or perhaps incorporated into "Internet" "email" and "IMs" in the discussion of why males watch about 1/5 as much TV as they did as little as five years ago.

As a fellow who grew up playing Advanced Squad Leader (arguably a set of rules even more dense than AD&D), I could relate to his argument that kids will learn horribly complex procedures in the name of fun (as he did with his baseball games and D&D sets) and may very well be better for it.

Overall, even if one disagrees with Johnson's arguments or conclusions, the book is fun to read; brings back memories for those who grew up in the 70s and 80s, presents logical arguments, well constructed, easy to understand, and supported by corroborating evidence - including scientific testimony about how the physical (hi Shannon) human brain works. Would love to read a rebuttal, though Johnson has personally sold me over hook, line and sinker. If nothing else, a comforting book amidst doom and gloom prophesies about the fate of our intellect in the hands of TV producers. Well done, Mr. Johnson.

I was a little bit disappointed with this book.
There are two reasons for that.
1This book mainly consists of innuendos and depictions about modern cultures. And there are only a few scientific evidences, which back up his theory.
2,Contrary to his assertion, there are already many scientific researches about modern culture. And those researches don't necessarily back up his theory. But it seems he ignored them. I don't think it's fair.
When we talk about this kind of controversial topic, what we need last is innuendo. But this book was made of that! Especially speculations about the brain had been terrible historically. A lot of scientists made the speculations about the brain and the real life, and they turned out to be garbage during the brain-imaging era. This book isn't different from the critics of modern culture, which he time and again criticized.
Maybe I expected too much. There are lots of researches and articles and reports about effects of modern culture to the brain. But there are few books,especially about the game. So I thought this book would surely offer people a lot of scientific knowledge
But instead the evidences he cited were the Flynn effect (if you call it evidence), and a few other researches (some games' positive effects to spatial ability and gamers' positive character). which included NONE of the researches about films ,TV ,comics...
But as far as I know, there are tons of researches, which scanned the brain activity, which was related to modern culture. And it's surprising that he didn't cite any of those in this era I suspect that's because they usually don't support his theory.
For example, when people play games, their brain activities vary. But usually frontal lobe, which is thought to be the most important part of the high level brain, doesn't work. And even when it does, their activities decrease as players get used to the game. (Though one research indicates parietal lobe, which is related to spatial ability, is activated very much during some games, and that back up the positive effect of games to the spatial ability).
Other researches don't necessarily support his theory, either. Hard-core gamers show bad grades whatever the cause. Hard core gamers are worse at a circuit task, maze tests. Gamers are less logical than others, they don't show higher ability to use information, they aren't more social, aren't more creative (contrary to the research he cited) though they have more audio-visual skills.. And in my country students' academic ability is worsening. The Flynn effect is O.K. but don't forget that the children's performance of "GO or no GO task" is significantly worsening.

And researches about TV? Comics? Don't get me start it.
So the conclusion is this. This book consists of innuendos and depictions and a few evidences, which are convenient for him, and ignored all the evidences, which are not convenient for him. And clearly he is exploiting the readers' ignorance in his field.
What he wanted to show was that most modern cultures were good for the overall high level brain function, but the only thing what he showed was that some games were good for the spatial ability. Don't be deceived by his eloquent depictions. This book is a waste of time, if you want fact, not opinions.

Steven Johnson claims that TV is making us smarter. (Explicitly in his New York Times article and implicitly in his book.)

In support of this bold claim, he offers absolutely no scientific evidence. Yet his book is so skillfully written that he has managed to convince a huge number of people that he is correct. (It helps that so many people want to be convinced.)

How does he accomplish this sleight-of-hand?

In his book, he references a number of studies showing that video games improve various types of thought processes. The number he cites for TV. Zero.

On the other hand there are numerous studies showing that kids who watch excessive TV (over 1 to 2 hours per day), tend to do worse in school, don't concentrate as well, have problems with language and reading, etc...

By describing in loving detail the complexities of both video

games and various TV shows, and then referencing these scientific studies (for video games) he gives the impression that both have a similar effect on the brain. This couldn't be further from the truth. Playing Video games involve effort and concentration, while watching TV actually slows down the viewers' brain waves, hence the zombie look.

For more on TV's effects on the mind, see the Scientific American cover story (Feb 2002) "Television Addiction Is No Mere Metaphor".

The arguments he uses to support his contention are that TV is becoming more and more complex and the Flynn Effect. The Flynn Effect is the fact that IQ's in the U.S. and other countries have been rising about 3 points per decade. What Mr. Johnson fails to mention is that this effect in the U.S. started in 1918. TV wasn't even invented until the 1940s, and didn't become commonplace until the 1950s. Mr. Johnson also fails to mention the fact that SAT scores have fallen substantially over the past 40 years.

Even if TV shows are getting more complex (which is entirely plausible considering the amount of time and money invested in TV) there still is no evidence that that translates into smarter viewers.

On the subject of violent TV causing increased aggression, Mr. Johnson is completely dismissive. He argues that because violent crime has gone down over the last 10 years, that that proves there is no real connection. Never mind that the U.S. has the highest incarceration rate in the *entire* world. Also never mind the over 1000 scientific studies done over the past 30 years showing a link between violent TV and aggression (for both children and adults).

The editorial review describes him as a science writer, but for my money, PR hack would be much more accurate.

The guy is bright. His analysis of pop culture complexity increases is well done, and makes me want to watch some of it. Useful for giving to custody evaluator morons when they say that children should not.....

There's been a bubble of books lately by mainstream media "science and technology writers." Some gentleman who writes about "science" for The New Yorker (his name escapes me at the moment) and who recently penned something or other about trusting your mind comes to mind: pure pap and not science.

Steven Johnson follows in this vein. His thesis is that the generations of video and computer gameplayers and other fun-seekers are really expanding their intellects in a 21st Century way. For example, Johnson tells us that intellectual inquiry is alive and well because millions watch "24 Hours" and "West Wing" and then scrutinize and annotate each episode on online forums with "an intensity usually reserved for Talmudic scholars."

Uh, I don't think so. Consider that "24 Hours," "West Wing" and their ilk are totsl fiction, fluffy entertainment, dealing with make-believe. The Talmud deals with issues central to faith, morality and in no small way with the history of at least one part of civilization. Johnson doesn't seem to understand the difference.

Essentially this is a feel-good book for dummies. It tells people who know nothing that they know something, for example all the tricks to playing an adventure-style video game. The National Constitution Center surveyed teenagers and found that while only about four in 10 could name the three branches of the federal government fully six in 10 could name all Three Stooges. Johnson does not apparently understand that while playing a videogame may lead to your becoming an expert in playing that game, it does not necessarily lead to your acquiring practical knowledge or the ability to think intelligently about real-world issues.

Johnson creates some laughable theses. For example, he exclaims that "[o]ver the last ten years - a period of unprecedented _fictional_ violence . . . the country simultaneously experienced the most dramatic drop in violent crime in its history." First of all, for most of its history, the United States did not maintain comprehensive statistical records of violent. The FBI comprehensive crime reports are of relatively recent origin. Second, Johnson's assertion is flawed because of other factors: demographics and mandatory sentencing. There are fewer violent crimes because the age group that committs most of them became smaller and more felons were imprisoned than ever before in our history. Finally Johnson, had he checked any facts whatsoever, would have learned that it is indisputable that today's violent criminals start earlier and are far more vicious than in earlier eras. So the overall rate of violent crime has dropped, but the nature of the crimes has grown more severe with the perpetrators growing younger.

So Johnson praises someone who has written and posted on the Internet a 164-page "walk-through" of a videogame, "an authoritative guide to one of the most popular games of all time." So what? That doesn't mean the writer of the guide has any practical knowledge or even a well-developed intelligence. A major computer "hacking" case was perpetrated by an idiot savant who spent his entire life taking scripts and tools written by others and using them to trespass computer systems. Johnson seems to be praising this kind of activity as a form of genius.

Somehow I suspect that Johnson holds those teenagers who know the names of the Three Stooges in higher regard than those who know the three branches of government or, worse yet, can describe them and their functions intelligently.

Jerry

There's been a bubble of books lately by mainstream media "science and technology writers." Some gentleman who writes about "science" for The New Yorker (his name escapes me at the moment) and who recently penned something or other about trusting your mind comes to mind: pure pap and not science.

Steven Johnson follows in this vein. His thesis is that the generations of video and computer gameplayers and other fun-seekers are really expanding their intellects in a 21st Century way. For example, Johnson tells us that intellectual inquiry is alive and well because millions watch "24 Hours" and "West Wing" and then scrutinize and annotate each episode on online forums with "an intensity usually reserved for Talmudic scholars."

Uh, I don't think so. Consider that "24 Hours," "West Wing" and their ilk are totsl fiction, fluffy entertainment, dealing with make-believe. The Talmud deals with issues central to faith, morality and in no small way with the history of at least one part of civilization. Johnson doesn't seem to understand the difference.

Essentially this is a feel-good book for dummies. It tells people who know nothing that they know something, for example all the tricks to playing an adventure-style video game. The National Constitution Center surveyed teenagers and found that while only about four in 10 could name the three branches of the federal government fully six in 10 could name all Three Stooges. Johnson does not apparently understand that while playing a videogame may lead to your becoming an expert in playing that game, it does not necessarily lead to your acquiring practical knowledge or the ability to think intelligently about real-world issues.

Johnson creates some laughable theses. For example, he exclaims that "[o]ver the last ten years - a period of unprecedented _fictional_ violence . . . the country simultaneously experienced the most dramatic drop in violent crime in its history." First of all, for most of its history, the United States did not maintain comprehensive statistical records of violent. The FBI comprehensive crime reports are of relatively recent origin. Second, Johnson's assertion is flawed because of other factors: demographics and mandatory sentencing. There are fewer violent crimes because the age group that committs most of them became smaller and more felons were imprisoned than ever before in our history. Finally Johnson, had he checked any facts whatsoever, would have learned that it is indisputable that today's violent criminals start earlier and are far more vicious than in earlier eras. So the overall rate of violent crime has dropped, but the nature of the crimes has grown more severe with the perpetrators growing younger.

So Johnson praises someone who has written and posted on the Internet a 164-page "walk-through" of a videogame, "an authoritative guide to one of the most popular games of all time." So what? That doesn't mean the writer of the guide has any practical knowledge or even a well-developed intelligence. A major computer "hacking" case was perpetrated by an idiot savant who spent his entire life taking scripts and tools written by others and using them to trespass computer systems. Johnson seems to be praising this kind of activity as a form of genius.

Somehow I suspect that Johnson holds those teenagers who know the names of the Three Stooges in higher regard than those who know the three branches of government or, worse yet, can describe them and their functions intelligently.

Jerry

This book reminds me of parents who say, "Wow - my 3 year old has a great attention span; he can watch TV for hours already!" What is ignored in that statement is the fact that TV programming is produced to hold your attention and watching the programs requires little or no effort.

Many will find Johnson's view of the human intellect as misunderstood at best. He seems to see it as something you "plug in" like a computer rather than a muscle you exercise. Most of the concrete evidence shows that these skill games only sharpen what I'd call "specialist intellect" rather than provide some type of well-rounded intellectual development which would come from reading the classics or learning about world history and culture.

The idea that somehow playing games is equal to hard work is probably very attractive to the adolescent mind which is found in many adults, unfortunately. The "elephant" in the living room which Johnson fails to treat is that kids spend arguably too much of their time and energy playing and mastering video games. Even many like myself who do not believe the gross generalization that "society is going down the drain" have trouble believeing the benefits from playing games for hours on end can equal those from the same amount of time spent on serious study.

This book will gather many "Amen, brothers" from those who are tired of the fire and brimstone preachers prophesying doom on our society. But the lack of substantive research will ensure this book fails to convert the skeptical who have a hard time believing the word "smart" and the phrase "reality show" or "popular culture" belong in the same sentence.

Steven Johnson's book Everything Bad is Good for You is a book that will make any reader's eyes burn. As I read this book, I almost fell asleep many times. However, when I was awake, I noticed many details that make Johnson's book so discombobulating. On many occasions, I found myself flipping back through pages trying to figure out what the author was talking about. For me to reread is very rare. I have a high reading level, and I comprehend very well.

Johnson's intellectual vocabulary is a main reason why his book is so confusing. I have never even heard of some of the words he uses. For example, in a sentence on page seventy three when Johnson is talking about parodies, he says, "Genre conventions function as flashing arrows; the Student Bodies parody works because the 'door unlocked' text is absurd overkill--we've already internalized the rules of the slasher genre enough to know that nubile-babysitter-in suburban-house inevitably leads to unwanted visitors". All those uncommon words in his book make the difficulty level rise very high. On page forty five, when Johnson is explaining about how gamers must really analyze the game and the surroundings, he uses the word probing. This is not the common use of the word. Johnson puts his own meaning to it. Reading this book is like trying to read it in a foreign language because of his vocabulary. His enlarged vocabulary is not just on these few pages. Throughout the book, Johnson uses his absurd vocabulary to "explain" each topic.
Johnson writes his book in an unusual order. He tends to skip around a lot rather than going in sequential order. The skipping around leaves out important information, and this just confuses the reader even more. As Johnson is talking about the realism of video games, he goes off on a tangent getting the reader hooked on the power ups you can get in Zelda. Later, Johnson goes back to talking about video games, and the reader is forced to spend extra time making sense of the information. So, the reader goes flipping back through pages until he finds were this topic began. This will only make the reader frustrated and not focused on the book. Most readers tend not to care and don't pick up the facts needed, and they just get lost and give up.

In my opinion, very few readers would have an interest in this book. This book does not address an often talked about subject. The reader has no reason to read the book, Everything Bad is Good for You, does not give the reader any prominent information. The book was written on a subject that hardly anyone cares about. Steven Johnson says that the technology is good for you. So who cares that technology is good for you. Even if you do care and think that technology is good for you, you don't need to read the book to be convinced of it because you already are. Also, the book is not at all interesting. Because the book is less interesting, it is harder to comprehend. It is more difficult because the reader looses focus easier, and so they do not pick up on all the necessary information. For instance, on page seventy five, Johnson talks about the plot of the show "West Wing". This is a show from the 1960's. The younger reader would not even be able to relate to the "West Wing". I didn't even care about the "West Wing". All the information about the "West Wing" is not needed to understand his point. This unnecessary information distracts the reader. If the reader gets distracted, they do not comprehend the book, and they just think the book is too hard,put it down and start a different one. This book offers no suspense. You have no desire to move on. There is no action and nothing to look forward too. You will never hesitate to put this book down, however you will hesitate to turn the page.

Everything Bad is Good for You is a very difficult book. Due to this fact, I recommend you should not go out and buy it or read it. This book is just not worth your investment of time or money. You have been shown that the reader does not benefit from this terrible book. It is just way too confusing. Unless you feel way too relaxed and want to feel like you are performing hard labor, do not read this book. Everything Bad is Good for You will stress you out so far that you might go insane. The only reason I might recommend this book would be to help a person with insomnia.

Do yourself a favor an experiment with a challenge!
Start by allowing this experiment 1 month (3 months) best!
Absolutely have zero contact with Any social media from self and or others over shoulder. Do not even listen to the gossip of someone's social feed. Put away all video games and consoles. Stay away from others who play around you and opt for real games with real interaction ( twister anyone, Yahtzee or even some good old chess ) As for television, go without completely along with the radio or CDs and MP3s for you car and portable devices. Let nothing come into contact with your ears, eyes, hands and feet, mouth (stand firm on this challenge)!
We live in an age were anyone and everyone is growing and becoming more and more about the benefit of self! This world sees how much impact on being a self driven society, it's very scary and saddening. You see know more parents with there children meet up with other parents with their children and many more of these groups gather in the middle of there own neighborhood to have cookouts and socialize with one another while they play games with their children together and their children grow real bonds of friendship to have security.
With family night being once the center of get out this board game or outdoor recreations, now with the hit of technology have went straight into zombie like personalities among the family members or roommates of their own homes. Distant lives lived yet so close to each other. Babies raised on only a hope to see mommy and daddy sit next to each other to hold hands and snuggle and show love, something that is so very crucial to their development and now never if rarely is displayed . All we are creating is a world that is all about what each individual wants.....selfishness to the core.
Everything struggles and eventually dies because of this quality that has been spoon fed since birth with no moral or value or consequence which now in return breeds nothing but hopeless, helpless, self absorbed people, prideful and greedy, and lack of real intelligence....you know the ones which help you from dying in the wilderness, basic instincts???? Gone
Relationships....what is that ? I do not even speak to my spouse who is sitting right beside me. My children are all over at practice for sports and staying with a friend.
My smartphone stays glued to my person at all times . I do not own a smartphone, it owns me!!
See the problem and wake up world !!!
Technology is only beneficial if we use in very minor minor minor uses here and there and never for our own beings but for reasons to use it like : learning
Bible lessons, prayers, connect only for outreach and gathering of ones group later to meet up for and with.
history which is really a big lesson/s needing to be learned through real hand held books on our entire life from beginning to now. Bible is also a great history book!
Literature that is not past 1980's and even better try 1950 and below