Are Todays Tv Shows Making Us Smarter?

As television viewers, we tend to slouch in front of this electrical box after a long day’s work, many of us don’t think or know about how much television programming has changed since our parent’s childhood. In “Thinking outside the Idiot Box” by Dana Stevens and “Watching TV Makes You Smarter” by Steven Johnson, both writers give their thoughts and opinions about how television programming has evolved over the last three decades. These gentlemen recognize that the days of slap-stick comedy were over and replace by more sophisticated stories. This new brand of programs have provide a step stoning for the evolution of television to gain momentum.

found, for example, that only 3.5 percent of viewers were able to answer successfully twelve true/false questions concerning two thirty-second segments of commercial…”(Postman 152). Postman goes in depth of this experiment which established that Stern had found that 51 percent of viewers could not recall any news from watching the t.v. program. Around an average of 20 percent could not recall any information from watching a 1 hour show . This supports his claim of television being a disruptive resource. Watching television doesn’t increasing learning like a printed

In Steven Johnson's persuasive essay “Watching Tv Makes You Smarter,” he defies what our culture teaches us about television. Our society teaches that television is making our youth “dumb” and that our culture enjoys the “simple pleasures” so that is what the media companies are feeding us with. But, Johnson states that based on what the show “24” suggests, the “exact opposite is happening: the culture is getting more cognitively demanding, not less” (1). The growing interest of TV programs with complex mental faculties involves three primary elements: multiple threading, flashing arrows and social networks (2).

My response to “Thinking Outside the Idiot Box” by Dana Stevens is that he is so correct, the world today is full of people surrounded by technology they do not know how to actually function without it. The author says “Johnson defines intelligence strictly in quantitative cogsci terms (“ attention, patience, retention, the parsing of narrative threads,” etc.), his case may seem solid”. When it comes to this study of so called intelligence that coordinates with the television and technology itself, then yes the many who are consumed into those fields will be “intelligent” but I fear that just because someone isn't tech savvy that people will label them as illiterate unlike themselves. The author also says “Wait a minute - isn't a fictional

Consider the cognitive demands that televised narratives place on their viewers. With many shows that we associate with ''quality'' entertainment -- ''The Mary Tyler Moore Show,'' ''Murphy Brown,'' ''Frasier'' -- the intelligence arrives fully formed in the words and actions of the characters on-screen. They say witty things to one another and avoid lapsing into tired sitcom cliches, and we smile along in our living rooms, enjoying the company of these smart people. But assuming we're bright enough to understand the sentences they're saying, there's no intellectual labor involved in enjoying the show as a viewer. You no more challenge your mind by watching these intelligent shows than you challenge your body watching ''Monday Night Football.'' The intellectual work is

A highly debated topic that has recently appeared in the headlines is the question: Do TV shows stimulate cognitive development? In his article, Watching TV Makes You Smarter, author Steven Johnson vouches for the acceptance of TV as an effective cognitive enhancement for both children and adults. His main contention hinging on the fact that TV story lines have increased in complexity and ambiguity over the years, Johnson argues that watching modern shows like 24 and The Sopranos challenges our minds to track multiple threads and stimulates our thought processes to connect the dots between story lines. In other words, vegging in front of a TV screen has now become an intellectually stimulating activity because keeping track of modern plot lines requires mental expenditure. However, I think Johnson is mistaken because he fails to adequately acknowledge that modern TV has dulled our minds to the increasing violence and gore, lowered our standards of right and wrong, and encouraged an addiction-like obsession to the gripping

The article Watching TV Makes You Smarter by Steven Johnson gives insight on how different shows with mystery solving backgrounds, puzzle solving problems, and medical related shows helps boost knowledge. Johnson breaks down his opinion by relating modern tv that does nothing to help the brain to shows like “The Sopranos”, to show that you can gain substance from watching tv (Johnson,173). TV today has shows like Family Guy and American Dad which are just for pure comedy and nothing more. Shows like “The Sopranos” help people better understand and gain knowledge. People view TV has something that will kill brain cells, however, there are a variety of shows that make people think and use their brain to solve the mystery in the shows.

In Steven Johnson’s “Watching TV Makes You Smarter”, he argues the growing complexities of contemporary TV shows through time. Johnson explains, because of the developing intricacy of TV plot lines people are having to spend more time paying attention to the TV episodes. To show this, Johnson compared shows from the past and more recent shows to display how on screen intelligence and off screen intelligence of shows have developed to become more challenging and realistic. I believe contemporary TV shows need to have complex plot lines that are continuously developing with each episode of the season to make a person smarter. Johnson does believe contemporary TV makes you smarter, but I also think he is missing

The main claim is that television is beneficial on a more social level. By following the intricate storylines, television viewers are able to learn how to decipher social cues, while honing analytical skills in order to keep track of what’s happening. The cognitive labor of television, according to Johnson, is why it’s so alluring for the viewer. The mental progression of society is marked in the complexity of the shows we watch. An example given is the difference between I Love Lucy and Friends. The former is all about short, uncomplicated humor, while the latter calls on the necessity for rapid informational recall. Old fashioned comedies relay their jokes within the span of thirty seconds, whereas modern comedies are a series of inside jokes within the show, illusions to other things, pop culture references, as we as puns and sarcasm. The social complexities change with the mental level of the viewers. Television is all about collateral learning, rather than the actual content of the program; much like gaming. We have to trach quick time happenings, social connections, and other such important ideals that we need to have a handle on to operate smoothly in social situations. Johnson is suggesting that not only does television watching progress our mental prowess, it benefits our social conduct and understanding as

Many people love to look back older movies and television shows. Shows like The Mary Tyler Moore Show, Murphy Brown and Frasier that we consider “quality entertainment” may not be as good for us as we once thought (Johnson 2005). This is not bad news though— just because quality entertainment of the past may not be that good for our minds, television shows today have more cognitive benefits than we think. Using the “Sleeper Curve” theory, media theorist Steven Johnson effectively argues for a change in what people consider “cognitive junk food” and what is “nourishing” for our minds (Johnson). Johnson’s formal diction and contemplative tone helps the audience understand his theory.

The evolution of today’s tv shows is greatly reflecting the way society views themselves. While the main character in the past would have most likely always been a man, relating to the importance of having a father figure in the family, and the importance of masculinity, nowadays, it has become a much more psychological connection. As a person with low social skills, it has been rather difficult to understand the world around and ultimately the world inside me. Growing up with little to no friends, I found sanction in the characters that would appear on the screen of our family television. Gradually, I began to understand the similarities I shared with many of the “people” I grew up with.

There is no doubt that television holds a purpose in our society today, but is that purpose brain-numbing or actually beneficial to our brain development? The television, also known as: TV, the boob tube, the idiot box, as well as many other nicknames, has been around for almost a hundred years. Ever since cable TV became popular in the 1950’s, there has always been a worry that people watch too much TV. Most people believe that with exorbitant exposure to the popular media both dumbs us down as well as makes us more likely to tolerate acts of violence. Dana Stevens’ “Thinking Outside the Idiot Box” argues that television does not make you smarter, directly

In Watching TV makes you smarter, published in "The New York Times" on April 24, 2005, Steven Johnson argues for the multiple threads, fewer flashing arrows and social networking that make modern Television nourishing cognitive food. In answer to Johnson's article, "Carrie" posted Does watching TV make you stupid? on May 1, 2005. Carrie presents further blogs on May 3rd and May 7th, 2005; however, the gist of her arguments are contained in her first blog. Comparing the logic of Johnson's argument for and Carrie's argument against Television as cognitive food, I believe that Johnson presents the more convincing argument.

In the article “Watching TV Makes You Smarter," Steven Johnson argues why and how television can make you smarter. In another article, “Thinking Outside the Idiot Box," Dana Stevens contradicts everything Steven Johnson said in his article about television making people more intelligent.

To begin with we will look at the issue of how modern TV can enlighten the audience. The author Stephen Johnson makes the argument of how TV is more complex, therefore it makes you smarter, in his article “Watching TV