Watching Tv Makes You Smarter Analysis

Also on the contrary to Johnsons article, Stevens discusses the examples of television shows that Johnson mentions that he is convinced enhances brain function by making the viewers pay attention, make inferences, and track shifting relationships between characters. Some of these shows are The Sopranos, 24, Hill Street Blues, and others. The show The Sopranos, is a prime example because this show will “connect multiple threads at the same time, layering one plot atop another” (Johnson, 283). Therefore, The Sopranos require a lot more attention from their audience engaging them with complex characterization and intertwining multiple episodes, which is what Johnson calls the “Sleeper Curve.” But does engaging in television shows such as this benefit the brain in anyway? Stevens says no; she believes in watching shows like these, “watching TV teaches you to watch more TV” (Stevens, 296).

“Television has changed the American child from an irresistable force to an immovable object.” (Peter). There was a time when all children wanted to do was to run, play, explore, and be adventurous. As time evolved, children have found more interest in television. Statistics show that a child spends 900 hours per year in school,and they spend 1,200 hours per year watching television. When asked to choose between watching T.V. and spending time with their families fifty-four percent of four to six year olds voted they would prefer to watch television. Television has changed the mindset of children over the years it has been proven that the more programs they watch, the more harmful it is to their brain development. T.V.

“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.

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.

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

Much of what a viewer learns from television is incidental learning. Incidental learning is defined as, "learning that takes place when a viewer goes to television for entertainment and stores up certain items of information without seeking them" (Lowery & DeFleur, 1995, p. 252). Incidental learning suggests, "that constant exposures to a specific image of an object can lead to distorted beliefs about the object" (Gerbner, 1980, p. 15).

Diamond touches on the idea that passive entertainment, a type of entertainment in which there is little to no interactivity, such as television, may be effecting our ability to think critically. We seem to be more prone to experiencing this form of entertainment in America because as we grow more technologically advanced, our generation relies on these technologies to entertain us. It is found that in the average American household, the television is on for around 7 hours a day. Since stimulation and activity in the brain as a child are so important to mental development, as more and more kids are raised with less brain stimulation in their childhood, we are more liable to raising people incapable of thinking at high critical

96.7% of people in the United States own a television. The majority of those people have at least one show that they watch regularly. In some cases, it’s even more than that. It’s obvious, at least to me, that TV shows and their characters are incredibly important to people. They have become more than just a source of entertainment. TV shows are important to people because they encourage representation, give people something to look forward to, and dive into moral issues.

Does television make you smarter? Well, it does all but that unless you’re watching educational shows of course. Television is a large part of the American society and has influenced us tremendously. It unites others to watch, it helps commercialize for companies, entertains, it excites, it makes time go by, and even can make you obese. It is very hard to avoid and easily addicting.

In Steve Johnsons’ article, “Watching TV Makes You Smarter” he analyzes the shift in pop culture television over the time and how that transformation has affected the way viewers absorb what is on screen. He came to the conclusion that, contrary to popular belief; culture has grown to be more complex and mentally challenging throughout the years.

In his essay “Watching TV Makes You Smarter", Steven Johnson - an author specializing in media, pop culture and technology - claims that watching TV is actually healthy for the viewers ' mind as contemporary television requires more cognitive thinking than it did previously. Johnson supported his claim by explaining about his sleeper curve throughout the essay. “The most debased forms of mass diversion – video games, violent television dramas and juvenile sitcoms that we think is bad turn out to be nutritional for us after all” illustrates the meaning of his sleeper curve. (121) Nowadays, parents do not allow children to watch TV because they think that the TV shows are not helpful for their children, and they may be affected by the terrible scenes. Johnson argued that the shows from back then till now have improved greatly and beneficial for kids instead. Johnson may be right that watching TV makes us smarter and it shows us what really happens in life. However, people may sometimes get addicted to the TV shows, stay inside and watch ridiculous, pointless television shows instead of the shows that will benefit them. The good and bad sides of television shows depend on what kind of TV shows it is and completely up to the person who are watching it.

Steven Johnson makes an interesting assertion that the increased complexity of media over time, has led to an increase in viewers’ mental exercise and comfort. With regards to understanding and use of new technologies and media; increased information, subtleties, multiple themes and relatively complex threads, are said to have exercised and strengthened the human mind. (Johnson, 2005 p. 77 Kindle Edition) Johnson believes that gaming and media are incorrectly viewed as a cause for lack of human development. He believes that someone who reads books versus one who is an avid gamer, does not necessarily posse stronger intelligence. Through statistical research, Johnson suggests that games and other forms of modern media have added to a higher average IQ in humans over recent decades. According to Johnson, higher average IQs are related to

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.

Background: Watching television is a part of daily life for nearly all Americans and the world. Reality television has become a big part of programming. Objectives: To determine if reality television is less (or more) cognitively stimulating than non-reality television. In society it appears that it is mainly the younger viewers who prefer to watch reality television while it is older viewers who prefer to watch no-reality television shows. Method: Selecting 8 reality television shows (social cognitive theory) and 8 non-reality television shows, both selections were made randomly and determining if the show provided new lessons or inspiration to accomplish a new task, or to determine if the show was only for entertainment purposes. Results: The hypothesis was disproved as reality television was found to be cognitively stimulating to viewers of all ages.