Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
29 of 31 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Much to recommend, but misses the big picture., June 28, 2005
Johnson highlights the ways in which some pop-culture is in fact more intellectually demanding than that of the past. He points to TV programs such as Hill Street Blues, The Sopranos, Seinfeld, and The Simpsons, with their continuous stories, multiple plot threads, and their references to other pop-culture. He also wrote a great deal highlighting the depth and intricacy of many computer games.
I could quibble on a few points. I think he gives cinema a little too much credit, basing his argument there primarily on a few intelligent films whose box office success ranged from weak to moderate. Strangely absent from Johnson's discussion is popular music, with no disclaimer nor any word of explanation for this. Since music is obviously a vast part of the pop culture landscape, its exclusion scores as a major omission.
But these caveats aside, I found that on the whole Johnson presented a very convincing case that a significant part of pop culture is in fact getting smarter. But regarding his premise that people are getting smarter as a result, that's where he got it very wrong.
For direct corroboration, the only hard statistic Johnson cites is the fact that IQ scores have been rising about 3 points per decade. By his own admission, they have been rising steadily at that rate for the last 70 years or so. Yet he perceives the smartening of pop culture as having started in 1981 (with the premiere of Hill Street Blues). So it seems a bit tenuous to claim the two phenomena are related.
Furthermore, IQ scores only measure a narrow range of intellectual abilities. What they measure is a rather mechanical, almost mathematical, sort of logical ability. They say very little about the more grey and nonlinear intelligence needed to comprehend, for example, literature or political science or comparative religion.
Aside from IQ score data, Johnson builds his case on anecdotal evidence, which in my view is easily refutable by other anecdotal evidence. Johnson presumes that since young people are the ones who soak up the most current pop culture, much can be gleaned from observing them.
That's a sensible rationale, so let's use it. Go into a fast food restaurant where young people work. See how many of them can make the correct change when the computerized cash register fails to work. Count how many teens you can find that can explain anything at length without stammering and peppering their sentences with like's and you-know's. And how long can a typical teen even watch TV without channel surfing?
Johnson acknowledges the studies that expose how embarrassingly little knowledge American students have of, for example, historical literacy. He claims that content is only secondarily important, that young people's skill at video games, computers, and general multi-tasking are skills that easily transfer to other sorts of tasks.
To some extent I would agree. But when significant percentages of young people can't even place the Civil War in the correct century, nor can they give a general description of what the Bill of Rights says, something fundamental and deep is lost. It's a bit simplistic to think that computer game agility is a skill that easily "transfers over" into a grasp of the subtleties of the philosophy of government. There are some intellectual capacities that can only be gained by studying certain things.
He also ignores the fact that these American young people seem to exhibit these skills primarily when something is lighting up, moving, and making noises. What about being able to study and learn when you don't know that there will be a definite reward, as there always is with a computer game? It's quite telling how rarely young people are willing to sit for an extended period of time in a quiet room with only paper and books and no electronic media.
The fact is, students in Russia and some European countries have consistently outscored US students on all sorts of scholastic tests. And they watch TV and play computer games less in those countries.
Johnson mentioned how every household today has a running joke about how the 9-year-old is the only one in the family who can set the VCR clock or figure out how to work the remote. True enough. But that could be for the same reason that any adult found it easier to learn music or a foreign language when they were children. That was always been true long before there was an electronic pop culture. Some skills by their nature are simply easier to learn the younger you start.
Though Johnson misses the point much of the time, I give him credit for attempting to answer a number of devil's advocate counter-arguments. He also writes in a plainspoken and engrossing style. Along the way in making his case, he gives some very readable exposition about other factual matters, such as IQ scores and the Flynn effect. However much or however little you'll agree with him, it's a captivating and enjoyable read.
|
|
|
96 of 117 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Eye opening, May 12, 2005
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.
|
|
|
30 of 35 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
A Leg Up for the Nerds, July 3, 2005
According to the Flynn Effect IQ scores have been on the rise since the end of World War II and nobody has any idea why. This trend was long overlooked because every few years the people who make the tests standardize them so that the average score is 100; this standardization has been gradually making the test harder and harder for years. Many find this national increase in intelligence baffling. With kid's growing fatter every year vegging out in front of the TV watching reality shows and playing video games it's hard to imagine that anyone is getting smarter. Steven Johnson, in his new book, makes a strong argument that it is because of our dedication to multimedia, not in spite of it, that we are getting more intelligent.
As is bound to happen, people have been overly skeptical of this theory; they cling to the outdated belief that reading holds a higher level of cognitive importance than any other form of entertainment. Leading child care experts like Dr. Spock urge parents to keep their children away from mind-numbing activities like television and video games and steer them towards recreational reading. Most people who attack this book show a clear lack of understanding for its thesis. They claim that Johnson doesn't understand that shows like 24 and The Sopranos are fiction and thus can offer no cognitive advantage over other mediums such as reading the classics. Unfortunately the classics are also fictions, so that argument isn't based upon any level of intelligence. What these people fail to realize is that whether or not something is real or fictitious doesn't matter, it's the mental work that one puts into sorting all of the details in their mind that counts, just as it's the mental work put into deciphering the out-of-date language of the classics that was once common-place but now requires a higher level of thinking to absorb correctly, as well as the true literary quality of such books, that places the classics in a literary realm of their own. These skeptics constantly attack Johnson for putting a higher value on "junk media" than true literature when in fact he claims repeatedly that reading is and should be an important part of cognitive development as is study of all fields from history to mathematics. The point he's trying to make is that popular culture is not something that causes "mental atrophy," but something that enhances us in ways that weren't possible less than 100 years ago. The saddest thing is that out of all of these smears not a single one provides an alternative explanation for why IQ scores are on the rise despite this country's addiction to mass media.
Johnson goes to great lengths to assert his belief that reading is important and necessary to cognitive development, but gives credit to so-called "junk media" for the work it does in helping us develop. He claims that the increased complexity of television shows, video games, and the ever-expanding resources available on the internet are aiding our brains in more ways than we know. Citing shows from 24 and The Sopranos to Seinfeld and Friends Johnson easily shows how programming has evolved from shows of self-contained, predictable plotlines to those of multi-episode plot arcs and deeply drawn characters that reward those who watch the show regularly. As for video games: he says that the exploration of the interactive environments helps develop pattern recognition, problem-solving, and easy adaptability to other platforms; the more you play video games, the easier it is to become familiar with a new one and the easier it is to pick up other things as well. In fact, while many more conservative people are constantly up-in-arms about violence in video games, Johnson points out that it is titles like The Sims, which contains no violence whatsoever, which top the bestsellers lists. People are looking for a cognitive challenge and it is the company that provides that challenge that wins out economically.
Johnson's most compelling argument states that it is the veritable cornucopia of accessible mediums that is most effectively improving us mentally. Simply being able to interact with several forms of entertainment on a daily basis and learning to switch effortlessly between them or engage in more than one at the same time has a dazzling effect on our mental capabilities.
Unfortunately for Johnson some of his points fall a little short of the mark. He claims that video games shine for their structure not their content: people look to books for interesting narratives and characters, they turn to video games for the sake of a good puzzle and the mental reward that comes with solving it. The problem with this argument is that it ignores games like the Final Fantasy series, which are heavily plot driven and character oriented. The reward inherent in games such as these is finding out what happens to the characters next. These titles often sell incredibly well because they are like visual, interactive books. Though the language, which is the most important and unique element of the book as a media form, isn't there the character and plot developments are the reward that players seek. They become emotionally attached to the characters and work for upwards of 40 hours just to find out how the story ends. Those who claim that completing such games requires no mental input have clearly never attempted to finish one.
Johnson also gives a bit too much credit to cinema. He cites intelligent quesi-mainstream films like Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, but fails to mention the rather lackluster box office performance of such films. While there are many examples of intelligent cinema, the public on a whole, it seems, would still rather see an easy action movie than a deep art film. The other glaring omission in this book is that Johnson never brings up popular music, a major part of the world in which we live. While the average level of intelligence present in today's popular music could be argued either way it looks like a cop-out to avoid the topic altogether.
The writing style of this book seems like it would fit better on a personal blog or on a message board, but its points come out surprisingly clear given the general rambling nature of the narrative. Johnson provides visual aides, charts and graphs, where appropriate to help illustrate his point. He steers clear of personal attacks even when it's glaringly obvious that he vehemently disagrees with the recorded statements of many others. While the delivery leaves a little to be desired, the content of this book stands strong. Thank you Steven Johnson for trying to prove to the rest of the world what we have held dear for many years: that our intelligent devotion to alternative media has value after all.
Ironically, personal reviews, like this one and all of the attacks on this book, and the ability to post them for the world to see is one of the things that Johnson cites as unique about the Internet. Being able to reach a wide audience almost instantly gives the general public a much greater incentive to publish original works than it ever had before: a fact that skeptics will implement, but refuse to appreciate.
The statistics don't lie. We are getting smarter, even by the skewed standards employed by most IQ tests. We are also reading less as a society; we are reading less novels anyway. We are filling the void with immersion into alternative forms of entertainment from reality shows to personal webblogs. This wide range of influences allows our brains to develop in a way that was never possible before, it's no wonder we are getting smarter. It's not surprising that this book is being mercilessly torn apart by many, new ideas are always strongly rejected by the status quo, but hopefully it won't be long before the world as a whole can appreciate this important development.
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
by James Paul Gee
by Diana Hacker
by Steven Johnson
by Henry Jenkins
See all Editorial Reviews
