Watching Tv Makes You Smarter, By Steven Johnson

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).

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 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).

“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.

Anthony Bourdain is a critically acclaimed chef, writer, and television star. He has appeared in shows such as “Anthony Bourdain: No Reservations”, “Anthony Bourdain: Parts Unknown”, and “Top Chef,” and published works such as “Don’t Eat Before Reading This”, “Medium Raw”, and “The Nasty Bits.” Trained at Vassar College the Culinary Institute of America, Bourdain is known for his love of food. In 2000, he wrote a book called Kitchen Confidential: Adventures in the Culinary Underbelly, and his first chapter is entitled “Food is Good”. In the chapter, Bourdain discusses his trip to France with his family, and how the trip transformed from hating the exotic food to loving it. Through his structure, descriptive language, and childhood stories,

‘’Food Is Good’’ written by a chef, author, and food critic, Anthony Bourdain reflects on his childhood experiences and his passion for food. According to Bourdain, food has more meaning beyond being a substance. Food is filled with stories and power that can change a life. In the article, Bourdain reflected on his family vacation to Europe, which piqued his curiosity for food and started his passion.

Although similar in many ways, Johnson and Stevens differ markedly in their approach on this topic. On one hand, you have Dana Stevens takes a more negative approach, devalues television programs based on how their narratives are making us dumber and plots being buried under too much useless information causing misunderstanding about a show’s content. However, Steven Johnson takes a positive stance, promoting the way shows like 24, The Apprentice, and The Sopranos have evolved their narrative and plots to balance out the influx of new information being given to the audience. Regardless, television programming has become a more complex product based on the success of better narratives and plot formatting that captures an audience’s

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

Some people seem to think that social media, television for example, makes you smarter. That perspective is sadly mistaken. Not everything on television is trustworthy, although there are several big time shows that help children to learn their alphabets and numbers, sometimes Spanish too. There is so much out there that you can learn from social media, however it is not wise to trust everything you see on television because it all for show and entertainment. These reality shows are made with more lies and drama to catch attention and keep their views high. It could be true to a certain extent and you could learn about many different things but that does not make you smarter, it makes you informed about a situation. You still need to research and learn some real facts to consider yourself smarter about a situation.

Poor language development among the infants has been a problem in the societies. The problems is attributed to many factors such as the parental influence, and environment of the child (Berk, 2012). Many researchers have argued that such problem is mainly brought by exposing the infant to the television programs On the other hands some researchers also argues that television programs can enhance proper language development among the infants. The above views from the researchers are clearly illustrated from the article Baby Einstein's Not So Smart After All" by Alice Park.

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

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

The sleeper curve, (cite) a system developed by Steven Johnson and detailed in his article “Watching TV Makes You Smarter.” (cite) This system is designed to track different characters and story arcs throughout an episode to showcase its complexity. Johnson argues that his system proves that television has become smarter, more complex, and is able to deliver more information to the viewer than ever before. Johnson says that modern television is a mental workout that should not only be enjoyed, but encouraged. (cite) Johnsons’ argument is false. His evidence is built entirely around a system that he developed, and all that his system does is prove that television has become more complex. The main

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.

An ongoing discussion about the value of Television has been whether it makes the watcher smarter or dumber. In a 2005 article about Television, Steven Johnson presented several arguments that Television makes the watcher smarter, contrary to some popularly held notions that Television is involved in the dumbing down of Television watchers. Johnson argues that Television makes you smarter for three reasons: multiple threads; fewer flashing arrows; and social networking. Johnson states that, unlike Television shows such as "Bonanza" in the "Golden Age of Television," modern Television shows such as "Hill Street Blues," "24" and "The Sopranos" carry multiple narrative threads about a number of major and minor characters. These multiple threads, according to Johnson, mean that the audience must