6/28/2005
TV Making You Smarter? Plot-Heavy Programs, Some Video Games Exercise The Mind
By Franklin Harris DAILY Assistant Metro Editor fharris@decaturdaily.com ยท
Nearly 45 years after Newton N. Minow, then chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, said television was a "vast wasteland," plenty of critics still agree. You don't have to go far to find people eager to complain about television's supposed love affair with sex, violence and stupidity, be it in the form of "Desperate Housewives," "The Sopranos" or "Fear Factor."
But perhaps all isn't as bad as it seems. Maybe, in fact, television and all of American popular culture in general are better than they've ever been before. Could it even be that pop culture is now actually good for us?
In "Everything Bad Is Good for You: How Today's Popular Culture Is Actually Making Us Smarter," Steven Johnson argues just that. And he has the graphs to prove it.
Compare an episode of 1970s cop show "Starsky and Hutch" to a modern series like "The Sopranos," as Johnson does, and the difference is clear. TV shows today have more complex plots than those of the past. It takes more brainpower just to follow what is going on. And thinking about and integrating complex stories in one's mind, Johnson says, can make you smarter.
Johnson draws upon recent research into how the human brain functions. The adage about exercising one's mind is true. And some of today's TV programs are so dense with interrelated plots that simply watching TV can count as mental exercise.
Johnson cites dramas like "The Sopranos," "ER" and "The West Wing" and comedies like "Scrubs" and "Arrested Development" as shows that demand more of their audiences. (I would add the Sci-Fi Channel's revived "Battlestar Galactica" to that list; it's as smart as the 1970s version was absurd.) Sure, brainless entertainment like "Survivor" is still around, and smart shows like "M*A*S*H" are nothing new. But the ratio of smart shows to dumb shows is improving, and the smart shows are getting smarter.
Video games, D&D
Even more compelling, however, is Johnson's case for video games and role-playing games like "Dungeons & Dragons."
Games like D&D and "The Sims," he argues, require players to think long term and perform dozens of tasks in specific sequences to reach the player's goal. A game of D&D can make a game of chess seem simple, and you don't see parents worrying if their children want to play chess. And unlike chess, the basic rules of which are simple, video games demand that players learn the rules as they go along. Simply learning the mechanics of a game is another problem to solve.
Johnson speculates that the main reason people are critical of video games is their novelty. If video games had been around for decades and books were the new hot thing, he believes people would find reasons to complain that children were spending too much time reading: "Books are ... tragically isolating. While games have for years engaged the young in complex social relationships with their peers, books force the child to sequester him or herself in a quiet place, shut off from interaction with other children."
Of course, Johnson doesn't really believe books are bad. His point is simply that one could come up with as many arguments against reading as one could against video games. In both cases, you can't ignore the benefits.
While Johnson's case probably won't convert those opposed to sex and violence as a matter of principal, it may calm the fears of parents who worry that little Suzie is watching too much television and little Johnny is playing too many video games.
Nearly 45 years after Newton N. Minow, then chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, said television was a "vast wasteland," plenty of critics still agree. You don't have to go far to find people eager to complain about television's supposed love affair with sex, violence and stupidity, be it in the form of "Desperate Housewives," "The Sopranos" or "Fear Factor."
But perhaps all isn't as bad as it seems. Maybe, in fact, television and all of American popular culture in general are better than they've ever been before. Could it even be that pop culture is now actually good for us?
In "Everything Bad Is Good for You: How Today's Popular Culture Is Actually Making Us Smarter," Steven Johnson argues just that. And he has the graphs to prove it.
Compare an episode of 1970s cop show "Starsky and Hutch" to a modern series like "The Sopranos," as Johnson does, and the difference is clear. TV shows today have more complex plots than those of the past. It takes more brainpower just to follow what is going on. And thinking about and integrating complex stories in one's mind, Johnson says, can make you smarter.
Johnson draws upon recent research into how the human brain functions. The adage about exercising one's mind is true. And some of today's TV programs are so dense with interrelated plots that simply watching TV can count as mental exercise.
Johnson cites dramas like "The Sopranos," "ER" and "The West Wing" and comedies like "Scrubs" and "Arrested Development" as shows that demand more of their audiences. (I would add the Sci-Fi Channel's revived "Battlestar Galactica" to that list; it's as smart as the 1970s version was absurd.) Sure, brainless entertainment like "Survivor" is still around, and smart shows like "M*A*S*H" are nothing new. But the ratio of smart shows to dumb shows is improving, and the smart shows are getting smarter.
Video games, D&D
Even more compelling, however, is Johnson's case for video games and role-playing games like "Dungeons & Dragons."
Games like D&D and "The Sims," he argues, require players to think long term and perform dozens of tasks in specific sequences to reach the player's goal. A game of D&D can make a game of chess seem simple, and you don't see parents worrying if their children want to play chess. And unlike chess, the basic rules of which are simple, video games demand that players learn the rules as they go along. Simply learning the mechanics of a game is another problem to solve.
Johnson speculates that the main reason people are critical of video games is their novelty. If video games had been around for decades and books were the new hot thing, he believes people would find reasons to complain that children were spending too much time reading: "Books are ... tragically isolating. While games have for years engaged the young in complex social relationships with their peers, books force the child to sequester him or herself in a quiet place, shut off from interaction with other children."
Of course, Johnson doesn't really believe books are bad. His point is simply that one could come up with as many arguments against reading as one could against video games. In both cases, you can't ignore the benefits.
While Johnson's case probably won't convert those opposed to sex and violence as a matter of principal, it may calm the fears of parents who worry that little Suzie is watching too much television and little Johnny is playing too many video games.
