Thinking Outside The Box Analysis

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

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

In today’s society video games have a large influence on people. We also might be driven to the point of where we are dependent on them. In fact, being so engulfed in video games could help children become more focused.In fact, parents would probably disagree and say that video games wouldn’t be essential to learning because it would probably be considered a waste of time for children and time-consuming. Parents would also disagree with the content of what is in the game, but there is a great possibility that video games could actually make us smarter. Steven Johnson explains that the games we are used to playing can improve our visual intelligence and that it would be good to learn new strategies through gaming. Video games should be an

What can be the effect of television on people’s lives? People living in these days are addicted to watching TV. However, it is true that watching too much television makes people lose touch with the reality of their lives; they start to see the TV “world” as the real world instead of the world they are living in. This situation divides their loyalties, and all of this is controlled by the people who control the media. Many examples exist in the world that we live and in the world of Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury. For example, the way the media lies people proves that people are not in the “real” world when they are watching TV and being taught to what had been told to them. Or, people are hooked on television so much that they neglect and

In recent discussions of watching an excessive amount of television, a controversial issue has been whether it is good or bad. On the one hand, some argue that it affects our mental and physical health. From this perspective, it is clear that heavy TV watching is not beneficial. On the other hand, however, others argue that a TV exposes you to important news and different cultures. In the words of Caron Andre, one of this views main proponents; “news, current events and historical programming can help make young people more aware of other cultures and people.” According to this view, Andre believes that TV can be beneficial to the watchers. In sum, then, the issue is whether TV has positive or negative effects on the viewers.

Television has been keeping me entertained for as long as I can remember. I have always been a big fan of watching television such as shows, movies, and especially sports. For movies and shows, I love how it forces me to make me use my imagination even though in the back of my mind I know that everything that’s happening is completely fake. It’s caused me to think deeper about things I never thought I would think about, and given me a lot of great memories. Even though television has been a very positive part of my life, there has also been some downside to it as well. Television has affected me in a negative way because it paints a picture reality that sort of tricked me into thinking it was true. When I was younger I was extremely gullible and easily influenced and really wanted to be able to live like some of the characters that I saw on the screen. An example was in about 7th grade I started watching this hilarious show called How I Met Your Mother. My parents refused to let me watch it but I would always find a way to watch it on my laptop without them knowing. There was this character name Barney Stinson who I really admired and was determined to be like when I grew up. In the show he was rich, well dressed, ladies man who seemed to have everything going for him. He was a total hound dog in the show who expressed the joy of constantly going to bars, sleeping with random women, and then never calling

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.

“Television is providing some sort of compensation for the social atomization that it itself has contributed to , and thus , all the simulated conviviality , while being a pleasant “dream,” is “pure wish fulfillment,” indeed, rather “phony,” and, perhaps, sad”(315).

Ray Bradbury 's Fahrenheit 451 shows a society where, similar to modern day America, technology and conformity are praised, but unique ideas are seen as taboo. Many have heard phrases to the effect of “Don’t watch so much TV, it’ll rot your brain!” But is there any validity to these claims? Ray Bradbury thought so when he wrote the novel, and he is not alone in these beliefs. Many believe that television can have detrimental effects on one 's intellect, as well as their individuality. Similarly, many people that have read Bradbury 's work believe that the intellectual toxins found in the veritable buffet of television is the prevailing theme of the novel. This paper is written in line with that same belief.

Fictional television shows were created to entertain the public. For some television is an escape from reality were someone’s imagination can get the best of them. For others, it’s just a fictional program that has no effect in their lives, or so they think. Watching fictional television can manipulate the mind into believing that something is good. For example, the TV show Dexter tell the story of a man who is a killer but the audience wants to see him succeed. Dexter Morgan shows viewers that murder can sometimes be justified because he only killing those who truly deserved it which keeps killers off the streets in the society.

Can T.V. shows be the reflection of our society or influence the behavior of the members of our community? Since 1936 when television broadcasting begin, it priority was to inform and to entertain our society; subsequently, a massive amount of rules and regulations were created to control the material presented in TV, which principal goal was to safeguard the moral and ethical standards of it time. Nevertheless, from its beginning to the present home entertainment television standards contents have change; likewise, the moral an ethics values of our society have change and continuing changing from generation to generation. TV shows from the 50’s, 80’s, and the present exposed many changes in the way human role are exposed, the language

Many parents deny or severely limit their children access to video games. This is particularly disturbing in the case of autistic children because video games can be helpful in multiple circumstances. Autism is a neurodevelopmental disorder marked by the difficulty of being able to communicate with others, form relationships and comprehend abstract concepts as defined by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Autism is currently one of the most prevalent developmental disorders in children affecting more than 3.5 million Americans. If parents took the time to evaluate video games they would see how effective they are therapeutically, socially, empathetically, creatively and visually at treating autism.

It could very well be true that over the past 20 years, television programming has developed in such a way as to demand more cognitive participation. However, watching TV is not the societal benefit Johnson makes it out to be. Johnson’s claim that TV is overall a beneficial societal force fails to account for the indirect effects of watching TV. It may be true that the cognitive demands of watching an episode of 24 do in fact stimulate brain function as opposed to diminish it. However, when a person sits down in front of the TV, he is choosing to do so instead of reading, studying, doing his homework, or exercising. These things are undisputedly beneficial to society. When one spends his time in front of the TV screen, it is time he is taking away from actually getting smarter.

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.