Watching Tv Makes You Smarter 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

“Watching T.V. Makes You Smarter” by Steven Johnson is an idea that if we watch T.V, it will make us smarter. In order to support his idea, Steven is comparing the different television shows shown in different time period in the United States television history. Steven is trying to prove, what is good for our children and what is not. Steven believes that television is a tool of brain enhancement. Steven states that instead of keeping the kids away from violent shows or tawdry content, the real challenge for the parents should be whether a given show engages or sedates the mind.

Today, Film and Television are among the most internationally supported commodities. Financially, their contributions are enormous: both industries are responsible for the circulation of billions of dollars each year. Since their respective explosions into the new media markets during the mid-twentieth century, film and television have produced consistently growing numbers of viewers and critics alike. Sparking debate over the nature of their viewing, film and television are now being questioned in social, political, and moral arenas for their potential impact on an audience. Critics claim that watching films or television is a passive activity in which the viewer becomes subconsciously

Watching television is such a common part of contemporary society, that most Americans adopted it as a part of their daily routine and watch television for at least an hour a day. Stanley Crouch, a poet, music and cultural critic, writes: “Whenever people pretentiously and proudly announce, “I don’t watch television,” they should follow it up with “I don’t look at America either”” (Masciotra 79). Television has become a part of many people’s lives. When the mass population watches the same television shows, movies, etc. they can all relate to each other, and thus unite them as an American. We look to TV shows to see how other people like us act on-screen. Aaron Morales, the author of American Mashup: A Popular Culture Reader states: “We watch movies, visit websites, and scour online profiles, all in an effort to glean from a variety of sources those traits that we feel best suit how we identify ourselves” (Morales 65). Movie characters can change the personalities and point of views in our society. Movies can inspire and motivate a society to change its social norms. For example, The Harry Potter Series is a well-known book that is popularized over the years through television advertisements. The reason Harry Potter is special is because he is like everyone else, but he is dealing with different problems. People can relate to the aspect of the characters and

Modern Television has become much more complicated according to Johnson. For example, Johnson writes, “Draw an 5 outline of the narrative threads in almost every Dragnet episode and it will be a single line” (66). However “A Hill Street Blues episode complicates the picture in a number of profound ways. The narrative weaves together a collection of distinct strands- sometimes as many as ten” (67). Johnson uses these examples of older and newer television shows to support his claim of the increased complexity of modern TV as opposed to the old simplistic formula used for shows prior to the groundbreaking show Hill Street Blues. Johnson’s argument is that if our brains have become accustomed to following increasingly complex plotlines as TV has matured, then television has actually had a positive impact on our brains. Walter Kirn writes in regards to Johnsons persuasiveness “ Johnson’s argument isn’t strictly scientific, relying on hypothesis and tests, but more observational and impressionistic. Its persuasive anyhow. When he compares contemporary hit crime dramas like ‘The Sopranos’ and ‘24’, --with their elaborate, multilevel plotlines teeming casts of characters and open-ended narrative structures – with popular numbskull clunkers of yore like ‘Starsky and Hutch.’” The point is, this, Johnson’s approach to his argument may not be strictly scientific, however, it sure as hell is

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.

Also, Television attacks more the unconsciousness rather than the consciousness. Hamill says that, similarly to drugs, television is a consciousness-altering instrument (64), but this is not true. First, television cannot do more than depictions of sensations. Hamill explains how television can provide several moods and scenarios with the simple touch of a button (64). He says so because he is looking for a proof to support the power over the mind that television is meant to have, but rather this shows how television works on the unconsciousness and how difficult it is to alter the

John Jurgensen’s article asks us an interesting question: how many TV series can our brains take? As television series expand to grandiose levels, it gets harder to follow what is happening: who people are, and what their place in the overall story is hard to follow for a large number of viewers. Jurgensen attempts to address this within his article, and it has some interesting points.

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 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

Postman is well credentialed to speak about the effects of television on the literary world. He founded the graduate program in media ecology at NYU and chaired the Department of Culture and Communication. Postman provides many statistics regarding his subject. Postman quotes recognized authorities in television statistics, the Nielson Report. Postman uses familiar language that assert his expertise and familiarity in the subject. Words such as “arguments”, “hypotheses”, “abstract” and “expositional” are contrasted to “amiability”, “imagery”, “quick tempo” and “a good show.” Postman’s knowledge of both subjects is clear. The author addresses the sentiment that television is entertaining and even educational. It provides an avenue to

Popular Culture has always been, and will continue to be, stereotyped. Authors of articles such as Watching TV Makes You Smarter by Steven Johnson and Extra Lives by Tom Bissell, on the other hand, work towards proving a counter argument. Both men assert facts and opinions meant to influence their readers, critics, and perhaps each other. Specifically, Bissell influences Johnson in that he provides an example of Johnson’s idea of increasing intellect in mass media, shows insight into video games through emotion while Johnson uses reason to address broader topics, and also provide corresponding opinions on storytelling in general. Through Fall Out Three and imagery of plot lines in shows such as Hill Street Blues, their arguments compliment

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.