clampe writes "In Everything Bad Is Good For You: How Today's Popular Culture is Actually Making Us Smarter, Steven Johnson tries to convince the reader that video games, television and the Internet are good for us, despite critics who talk about "vast Wastelands" and "infantilized societies". The book raises interesting questions, but in the end is a lightweight analysis that is better for engendering sound bites on NPR and The Daily Show than for convincing serious readers. Read on for Clampes' review. Everything Bad Is Good For You: How Today's Popular Culture is Actually Making Us Smarter author Steven Johnson pages 238 publisher Riverhead Books rating 7 reviewer clampe ISBN 1-57322-307-7 summary Popular culture may have a role in making people smarterIn "Everything Bad Is Good For You" Johnson argues that major forms of entertainment like television, video games, films and the Internet have grown increasingly complex over the past several decades, which corresponds to an increase in average IQ scores in the U.S.The introduction to the book summarizes cultural criticisms about the growing banality of entertainment, focusing mostly on television. Johnson uses this springboard to state his thesis: that popular culture is not only growing more complex, but that the complexity is making consumers of pop culture more intelligent.The main content of the book is divided into two main parts, with the first arguing that video games, television, the Internet and movies have grown more complex in recent years, and the second part outlining the relationship between those forms of entertainment and increased intelligence.Johnson claims that the complexity of problem solving and exploration involved in current video games help players learn critical thinking skills. He amusingly asks the readers to consider a world where video games have been around for centuries and a new technology called the book is all the rage. The cultural critics currently bagging on video games would claim books are static, isolating and understimulating. Johnson is the first to admit he's usng hyperbole here, and books obviously have value, but the point is made. Video games, he points out, cannot be directly compared to books in terms of the types of intelligence they encourage. Video games, according to Johnson, are valuable because they force players to make choices, solve problems, keep track of varied situations and in some cases cooperate with others.Criticizing television is a popular straw man activity for cultural critics. The boob-tube, the idiot box, the vast wasteland. Johnson argues that while the general thinking is TV has gotten worse over the past 30 years, it in fact has become much better. Current shows have more complex narratives, trust viewers to catch subtle references and have denser social networks. Johnson compares "Dragnet" to "Starsky and Hutch" to "Hill Street Blues" to "The Sopranos" to show the evolving complexity of narratives in television dramas. Even reality TV, the easiest target around, is more complex compared to it's historical antecedent, the game show.The Internet is valuable in three ways according to Johnson: by virtue of being participatory, by forcing users to learn new interfaces and by creating new channels for social interaction. Johnson provides a laundry list of online interactions that bring people together and make them smarter.Johnson gives a "qualified yes" to the proposition that movies have undergone the same transformation as television. His main evidence is the increase in the number of characters to be found in "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy compared to the original "Star Wars" trilogy. The other main evidence is the development of a sub-genre of films he calls "mind-benders" typified by Kaufman works like "Being John Malkovich".In Part 2 of the book, Johnson associates research that shows American IQ scores have risen over the past several decades (the Flynn Effect) with the increased complexity of popular culture. He looks at alternative explanations for this trend, such as nutrition and education, dismissing each in favor of the popular culture explanation.The Good:There is something about people who say they never watch TV that makes me want to punch them. I'm also a little tired of having to explain at dinner parties and family gatherings that my playing video games does not mean I went ahead with the lobotomy. Johnson seems to have tapped into a real feeling that television and games are not the worthless pastimes that popular media decries them as. The book raises interesting and important questions, while providing a tonic against cultural nay-sayers.As in previous works like Emergence, Johnson has an engaging and approachable writing style. He blends personal experience and decent explanations of the literature to craft his arguments in an engaging manner.The Bad:The main problem with this book is the strength of the claims made in Part 2. Human intelligence is a complex mechanism affected by a blend of genetic and environmental factors. It is possible that games and television play a role in positively affecting intelligence, but Johnson has not strongly made that case here. The data he presents, while intriguing, are correlational at best and arbitrary at worst. Johnson is actually careful to qualify the populations he considers to be affected by popular culture, and the kinds of intelligence he is talking about. However, the arguments still hang together on fragile strings of "It could be" and "it's not like because of this".For example, it could be that his selection of television shows to compare biases his analysis. What Johnson says about the increased complexity of television narratives seems intuitively true, but there's danger in the kind of analysis where shows are plucked with no clear selection mechanism from the past and we draw such sweeping conclusions from them.There are also several alternative explanations to the trends pointed out in this book. For example, let's assume that there is more worthwhile television than there used to be. However, the real comparison should be between worthwhile television compared over the total amount of television available. Given the explosion of television programming since Starsky and Hutch, it's not surprising that better shows are available. Another explanation might be the maturation of the media. Literature is the gold standard here to some extent, but the novel is an older media form that has had many opportunities to attract good authors than television and video games. Over the centuries that we've had novels, we accumulated some talented authors, and those luminaries attract other talented individuals. Television and video games are a newer media, and consequently haven't accumulated as many giants. Some of Johnson's examples of the new complexity in television and film are really examples of a couple of special individuals, like Aaron Sorkin and Charlie Kaufman, attracted to an increasingly mature art form.The above counter-examples show some of the dangers of this case based argumentation at the center of this book. By using pseudo-case studies, there isn't really a basis by which the data presented by Johnson is stronger than "because I said so." Work that would help his argument has been done in communication studies, developmental psychology and cognitive psychology, but those fields are largely ignored here. Instead, cranky old guys like Marshall McLuhan and Neil Postman are set up as straw men. This disconnect reminds of how well Howard Rheingold incorporates current research into popular press efforts like this book. Johnson does use some decent resources like James Paul Gee, and seems to be widely read in several cogent fields, but it doesn't seem reflected as well as might be expected in the actual text.The sections on the Internet and movies are clumsy and seem almost to be afterthoughts to the other sections. The section on video games is stronger, and the book would have been better by concentrating on that element of the story alone. May not have had as cool a title though.Final recommendation:This book is fun, light reading. It's not bad as a catalyst for discussion at parties, but as a serious polemic argument it doesn't hold up. Still, the book is a good airplane read, or something for the hammock. But you're better off playing a video game." You can purchase Everything Bad Is Good For You: How Today's Popular Culture is Actually Making Us Smarter from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page. Everything Bad is Good for You Log in/Create an Account | Top | 261 comments (Spill at 50!) | Index Only | Search Discussion Display Options Threshold: -1: 261 comments 0: 254 comments 1: 210 comments 2: 134 comments 3: 42 comments 4: 19 comments 5: 7 comments Flat Nested No Comments Threaded Oldest First Newest First Highest Scores First Oldest First (Ignore Threads) Newest First (Ignore Threads) The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way. Wait a second... (Score:4, Informative) by LeonGeeste (917243) * on Friday October 28, @03:30PM (#13898960) (Last Journal: Tuesday October 04, @10:13PM) Is this the same Steven Johnson that wrote this load of crap two years ago?http://slate.msn.com/id/2085668/ [msn.com]His argument (and I use that term advisedly) was that when you use Google, really stupid searches (like for "flowers" alone or "steven" alone) get bad results, so good searches must be getting bad results too. To see how badly he got roasted on that article, you can go into their "fray"http://fray.slate.msn.com/?id=3936&tp=webhead&nav= navof [msn.com]and do a search for articles before 07/17/03 (the day after the article was put on the web) to see the comments of the people around that time. (I'd link the search, but it doesn't seem to let me.)Now, I know Johnson had a point, and after tons of criticism he eventually put one together, but that hastily thrown-together-argument should have been in the article the first time around. You can see his pitiful attempts to defend this earlier article here, which is the list of his posts on the Fray:http://fray.slate.msn.com/?id=3936&tp=webhead&acti on=morebyuser&m=8603692 [msn.com] [ Reply to ThisRe:Wait a second... by GoatMonkey2112 (Score:1) Friday October 28, @04:00PMDefine "intelligent". by khasim (Score:3) Friday October 28, @04:08PMRe:Wait a second... by RandomPrecision (Score:1) Friday October 28, @04:26PMRe:Wait a second... by Surt (Score:2) Friday October 28, @04:26PMRe:Wait a second... by jfengel (Score:3) Friday October 28, @04:45PMRe:Wait a second... by Surt (Score:2) Friday October 28, @04:53PMRe:Wait a second... by Cassanova (Score:1) Friday October 28, @04:51PMRe:Wait a second... by Veinor (Score:2) Friday October 28, @04:54PMRe:Wait a second... by timeOday (Score:2) Friday October 28, @05:58PM2 replies beneath your current threshold. Quick, please help (Score:5, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 28, @03:31PM (#13898977) don't have time to read articlepls send synopsis, gmail in profileor IMk thxno time to login [ Reply to ThisRe:Quick, please help by Golias (Score:3) Friday October 28, @04:17PMThe Imprint?? by PinkPanther (Score:1) Friday October 28, @04:50PMRe:Quick, please help by shinma (Score:1) Friday October 28, @04:52PMRe:Quick, please help by APDent (Score:2) Friday October 28, @07:31PMRe:Quick, please help by krewemaynard (Score:1) Friday October 28, @04:27PM2 replies beneath your current threshold. for a good defense of popular (mass) culture... (Score:5, Informative) by vena (318873) on Friday October 28, @03:32PM (#13898981) i still find Herbert Gans' Popular Culture and High Culture [amazon.com] to hold excellent arguments and recommend it for anyone interested in the broad scope of this discussion.(no referral code in amazon.com link, i promise) [ Reply to ThisOh My God, Ive been transported to 2003! by charlie in the trees (Score:1) Friday October 28, @03:33PMa bolt of lightining! by uberjoe (Score:1) Friday October 28, @05:00PMGet Down by Metostopholes (Score:1) Friday October 28, @06:21PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Shiny! by Stanistani (Score:3) Friday October 28, @03:34PM San Andreas..... (Score:4, Funny) by wpiman (739077) on Friday October 28, @03:34PM (#13898997) Beating up bitches and killing cops definitely helps on the IQ.People crapped on pool halls when they first came out. Fact is- they kept kids out of trouble. When there was no TV- kids collected comic books. There is always going to be distractions-- they are just growing to be more complicated. [ Reply to ThisRe:San Andreas..... by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Friday October 28, @03:55PMCorrection! by PCM2 (Score:1) Friday October 28, @05:36PMRe:San Andreas..... by pthisis (Score:3) Friday October 28, @04:04PMRe:San Andreas..... by ifwm (Score:1) Friday October 28, @04:04PMRe:San Andreas..... by ifwm (Score:1) Friday October 28, @04:07PMRe:San Andreas..... by Senzei (Score:1) Friday October 28, @04:28PMRe:San Andreas..... by ifwm (Score:1) Friday October 28, @04:44PMRe:San Andreas..... by Senzei (Score:1) Friday October 28, @05:11PMRe:San Andreas..... by jimbolauski (Score:1) Friday October 28, @04:32PMRe:San Andreas..... by killkillkill (Score:1) Friday October 28, @04:52PM2 replies beneath your current threshold.How it works for me: by Black Parrot (Score:3) Friday October 28, @03:35PMRe:How it works for me: by Jherek Carnelian (Score:2) Friday October 28, @04:27PMRe:How it works for me: by Blakey Rat (Score:2) Friday October 28, @06:37PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Suprisingly, I thought kids are becoming dumber by hadj (Score:2) Friday October 28, @03:35PM Re:Suprisingly, I thought kids are becoming dumber (Score:4, Insightful) by voice_of_all_reason (926702) on Friday October 28, @03:47PM (#13899117) How is this a "problem?"Kids are changing the language, yet still seem able to communicate sufficiently with each other. Sounds like an optimization to me.Perhaps you meant to add "...and get those dang varmints off mah lawn!" too? [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Suprisingly, I thought kids are becoming dumber by utexaspunk (Score:2) Friday October 28, @03:51PMRe:Suprisingly, I thought kids are becoming dumber by jettoki (Score:2) Friday October 28, @03:54PM Re:Suprisingly, I thought kids are becoming dumber (Score:4, Insightful) by Jekler (626699) on Friday October 28, @04:07PM (#13899288) Kids aren't changing the language, but an all-consuming pursuit for validation and individuality lead them to passionately believe that every act of self-expression is far more important than it really is. Slang and poor usage don't evolve the language. 50 years from now, the rules of formal grammar will most likely be identical. Kids will have adopted new slang, a new way to compose sentences so they sound "cool" to their ears, and even then they'll argue that they're helping evolve the language. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Suprisingly, I thought kids are becoming dumber by ionpro (Score:3) Friday October 28, @04:44PMRe:Suprisingly, I thought kids are becoming dumber by P3NIS_CLEAVER (Score:1) Friday October 28, @05:08PMRe:Suprisingly, I thought kids are becoming dumber by ionpro (Score:2) Friday October 28, @07:05PMRe:Suprisingly, I thought kids are becoming dumber by lawpoop (Score:3) Friday October 28, @05:30PMRe:Suprisingly, I thought kids are becoming dumber by lgw (Score:2) Friday October 28, @06:22PMSufficiently? by Spy der Mann (Score:2) Friday October 28, @04:08PMRe:Sufficiently? by Blakey Rat (Score:2) Friday October 28, @06:20PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Suprisingly, I thought kids are becoming dumber by Trolling4Columbine (Score:1) Friday October 28, @04:17PMRe:Suprisingly, I thought kids are becoming dumber by voice_of_all_reason (Score:1) Friday October 28, @04:26PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Suprisingly, I thought kids are becoming dumber by jadavis (Score:2) Friday October 28, @04:44PMRe:Suprisingly, I thought kids are becoming dumber by voice_of_all_reason (Score:1) Friday October 28, @05:47PMPhysics class by Simonetta (Score:2) Friday October 28, @06:14PMRe:Suprisingly, I thought kids are becoming dumber by blackmagic1982 (Score:1) Friday October 28, @06:35PM2 replies beneath your current threshold.Re:Suprisingly, I thought kids are becoming dumber by Rize (Score:2) Friday October 28, @03:52PM Re:Suprisingly, I thought kids are becoming dumber (Score:5, Funny) by DigitalRaptor (815681) on Friday October 28, @03:55PM (#13899186) (http://brianallen.isagenix.com/) Spend an hour reviewing the average job applications at any small business, or especially a fast food chain.It's hard not to lose hope in the future of humanity when faced with such evidence.I'm half joking, but only half. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Suprisingly, I thought kids are becoming dumber by cpeterso (Score:2) Friday October 28, @04:01PMI'd want to look back further. by khasim (Score:3) Friday October 28, @04:14PMRe:Suprisingly, I thought kids are becoming dumber by PGC (Score:1) Friday October 28, @08:22PMRe:Suprisingly, I thought kids are becoming dumber by mctk (Score:3) Friday October 28, @04:20PMRe:Suprisingly, I thought kids are becoming dumber by centizen (Score:1) Friday October 28, @05:04PMRe:Suprisingly, I thought kids are becoming dumber by Blakey Rat (Score:2) Friday October 28, @06:23PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Suprisingly, I thought kids are becoming dumber by enjahova (Score:2) Friday October 28, @03:56PMRe:Suprisingly, I thought kids are becoming dumber by hadj (Score:1) Friday October 28, @04:08PMRe:Suprisingly, I thought kids are becoming dumber by enjahova (Score:1) Friday October 28, @04:11PMRe:Suprisingly, I thought kids are becoming dumber by KoolyM (Score:1) Friday October 28, @04:44PMRe:Suprisingly, I thought kids are becoming dumber by 6*7 (Score:1) Friday October 28, @08:49PM Re:Suprisingly, I thought kids are becoming dumber (Score:4, Funny) by just_another_sean (919159) on Friday October 28, @03:57PM (#13899201) OK I hate grammar/spelling Nazis and I *did* note you said "In the Netherlands..." but a post on correct use of language that fails to use the plural of youngster correctly and uses a phrase like "more easy" instead of easier does not deserve to be moderated insightful. There are definitely times when using proper language, to the point of being obsessive about it, are important. A post about proper language is one of these times.Oh well, good karma was fun while it lasted... [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Suprisingly, I thought kids are becoming dumber by cpeterso (Score:1) Friday October 28, @04:06PMRe:Suprisingly, I thought kids are becoming dumber by Pius II. (Score:2) Friday October 28, @04:17PMRe:Suprisingly, I thought kids are becoming dumber by jejones (Score:2) Friday October 28, @04:10PMRe:Suprisingly, I thought kids are becoming dumber by thehun101 (Score:1) Friday October 28, @04:24PMRe:Suprisingly, I thought kids are becoming dumber by Captain Scurvy (Score:2) Friday October 28, @04:27PMRe:Suprisingly, I thought kids are becoming dumber by ifwm (Score:1) Friday October 28, @04:29PMRe:Suprisingly, I thought kids are becoming dumber by Hard_Code (Score:2) Friday October 28, @04:42PMRe:Suprisingly, I thought kids are becoming dumber by shinma (Score:1) Friday October 28, @04:56PMRe:Suprisingly, I thought kids are becoming dumber by Mad_Rain (Score:2) Friday October 28, @05:21PMRe:Suprisingly, I thought kids are becoming dumber by beowulfy (Score:1) Friday October 28, @05:39PMRe:Suprisingly, I thought kids are becoming dumber by booch (Score:2) Friday October 28, @05:56PMRe:Suprisingly, I thought kids are becoming dumber by thehun101 (Score:1) Friday October 28, @04:30PMRe:Suprisingly, I thought kids are becoming dumber by booch (Score:2) Friday October 28, @05:17PMRe:Suprisingly, I thought kids are becoming dumber by VJ42 (Score:1) Friday October 28, @05:24PMRe:Suprisingly, I thought kids are becoming dumber by lgw (Score:2) Friday October 28, @06:28PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.2 replies beneath your current threshold.Comedy has certainly improved by Seska (Score:2) Friday October 28, @03:36PM Re:Comedy has certainly improved (Score:4, Funny) by wpiman (739077) on Friday October 28, @03:39PM (#13899041) I have to say the 1980's show Dukes of Hazard was the ultimate in sophistication. It has been all downhill from there. [ Reply to This | Parent"Family Guy" and "sophistication" in the same... by StressGuy (Score:1) Friday October 28, @03:43PMRe:"Family Guy" and "sophistication" in the same.. by xilmaril (Score:2) Friday October 28, @04:37PMLet's be honest here by StressGuy (Score:2) Friday October 28, @04:44PMRe:Let's be honest here by blackmagic1982 (Score:2) Friday October 28, @06:45PMRe:Comedy has certainly improved by Le Marteau (Score:1) Friday October 28, @03:46PMRe:Comedy has certainly improved by Le Marteau (Score:2) Friday October 28, @04:16PMRe:Comedy has certainly improved by lgw (Score:2) Friday October 28, @06:34PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Comedy has certainly improved by Jeff DeMaagd (Score:2) Friday October 28, @03:54PMRe:Comedy has certainly improved by Belial6 (Score:2) Friday October 28, @04:52PMRe:Comedy has certainly improved by Damvan (Score:1) Friday October 28, @06:22PMRe:Comedy has certainly improved by sunwolf (Score:1) Friday October 28, @04:10PMRe:Comedy has certainly improved by EvilBudMan (Score:2) Friday October 28, @04:50PM2 replies beneath your current threshold.Consumerism by P3NIS_CLEAVER (Score:1) Friday October 28, @03:38PMRe:Consumerism by drewxhawaii (Score:1) Friday October 28, @04:32PMShit is Good For You by Taco Cowboy (Score:1) Friday October 28, @11:09PMPlease let me be the first to say... by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Friday October 28, @03:39PMRe:Please let me be the first to say... by mattACK (Score:2) Friday October 28, @04:14PMRe:Please let me be the first to say... by Captain Sarcastic (Score:2) Friday October 28, @04:36PMRe:Please let me be the first to say... by blackmagic1982 (Score:1) Friday October 28, @06:50PMWhile we're throwing out cute book titles by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Friday October 28, @03:40PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. Well... (Score:4, Interesting) by Sheetrock (152993) on Friday October 28, @03:42PM (#13899070) (http://slashdot.org/...y&uid=442574&id=4236 | Last Journal: Friday October 28, @04:59PM) Johnson claims that the complexity of problem solving and exploration involved in current video games help players learn critical thinking skills.Six months ago I bought a computer game that has been broken in nearly every sense (fun, speed, function) for $50. A couple of patches have been offered for the game that barely touch the problems, and a patch is going to be offered "real soon now" for at least two months.The reaction in the gaming forum I visit to see if the patch is finished is absolutely and totally depressing to me. Any suggestion that this is was a ripoff is immediately torn apart by forum members, a couple of which have actually bought brand new computers to try to get their computers to run this game.So I'm going to go ahead and disagree that critical thinking skills are being enhanced by video games. Every indication I see is that as fun as they are they're like a digital form of huffing glue for "game enthusiasts". [ Reply to ThisBid=1 anecodote? I call. by Quinn_Inuit (Score:2) Friday October 28, @04:03PMRe:Bid=1 anecodote? I call. by Quinn_Inuit (Score:2) Friday October 28, @10:58PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Well... by iceperson (Score:1) Friday October 28, @04:26PMRe:Well... by slackmaster2000 (Score:2) Friday October 28, @04:46PMRe:Well... by maxume (Score:2) Friday October 28, @05:16PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Maybe the IQ scores are raised only in Dumb people by P3NIS_CLEAVER (Score:2) Friday October 28, @03:42PMRe:Maybe the IQ scores are raised only in Dumb peo by AndersOSU (Score:2) Friday October 28, @04:04PMRe:Maybe the IQ scores are raised only in Dumb peo by MemoryAid (Score:2) Friday October 28, @04:54PMRe:Maybe the IQ scores are raised only in Dumb peo by lgw (Score:2) Friday October 28, @06:39PMRe:Maybe the IQ scores are raised only in Dumb peo by shawb (Score:2) Friday October 28, @05:37PMRe:Maybe the IQ scores are raised only in Dumb peo by pthisis (Score:2) Friday October 28, @04:11PMIn his defense... by Otter (Score:3) Friday October 28, @03:43PM Re:In his defense... (Score:4, Insightful) by guaigean (867316) on Friday October 28, @03:50PM (#13899141) Those people seem not to understand that the clichedness of bragging about not watching television outweighs any positive impression it makes.Why does one have to brag about not watching TV? I watch rented movie once a month maybe, other than that I avoid it like the plague. It's not that it's bragging, its that I fin that watching TV results in me learning less, and getting less done. It's too easy to zone out on the preview channel for hours, and I just end up tired. Instead, I find programming or interacting with my family in my spare time to be much more enjoyable and stimulating. I have serious doubts about the validity of this author's points. I think as previous posters have mentioned, it has far more to do with the idea that perhaps many people would not have this intellectual stimulation at all without TV, and therefore something is better than nothing. [ Reply to This | Parent Re:In his defense... (Score:4, Interesting) by xappax (876447) on Friday October 28, @04:26PM (#13899457) People have hostile reactions when you say you don't watch TV because they assume that you're trying to prove something, or show how cool you are, or convince them of some political analysis. When the subject comes up and I say "No, I haven't seen that commercial - I don't watch TV," many people respond as though I had said "TV is for the weak-minded. You watch it too much." Why do people interpret a simple statement about personal behavior as a loaded criticism? I suspect it's because on some level, they feel sort of guilty and/or criticize their own TV-watching habits, and are therefore quick to interpret discussion on the subject to be directed towards them. I get the same thing when I say "Oh, the soup has bacon in it? No thanks, I don't eat meat." Suddenly I'm subjected to an extended monologue on why they eat meat and how they don't really eat as much as most people... dude, eat what you want, watch what you want - I don't care, I just don't want to adopt all your habits so that you can feel comfortable. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:In his defense... by UtucXul (Score:1) Friday October 28, @04:37PMRe:In his defense... by P3NIS_CLEAVER (Score:1) Friday October 28, @05:19PMRe:In his defense... by MemoryAid (Score:2) Friday October 28, @05:03PMRe:In his defense... by miyako (Score:2) Friday October 28, @05:30PMRe:In his defense... by alien_tracking_devic (Score:1) Friday October 28, @04:02PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:In his defense... by P3NIS_CLEAVER (Score:1) Friday October 28, @04:02PMRe:In his defense... by Otter (Score:1) Friday October 28, @04:08PMRe:In his defense... by P3NIS_CLEAVER (Score:1) Friday October 28, @04:12PMRe:In his defense... by P3NIS_CLEAVER (Score:1) Friday October 28, @04:31PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:In his defense... by Jonboy X (Score:3) Friday October 28, @05:53PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.My question really is this.. by kinglink (Score:3) Friday October 28, @03:43PMU watch too much TV, must have affected ur brain! by MS-06FZ (Score:1) Friday October 28, @04:01PMRe:U watch too much TV, must have affected ur brai by kinglink (Score:2) Friday October 28, @05:31PMEmpty television by nerdup (Score:2) Friday October 28, @03:44PMRe:Empty television by funaho (Score:2) Friday October 28, @04:29PMRe:Empty television by Reality Master 101 (Score:2) Friday October 28, @04:32PMRe:Empty television by Fallingcow (Score:3) Friday October 28, @04:50PMRe:Empty television by Reality Master 101 (Score:2) Friday October 28, @05:06PMRe:Empty television by Fallingcow (Score:2) Friday October 28, @06:04PMRe:Empty television by Blakey Rat (Score:2) Friday October 28, @06:49PMRe:Empty television by Fallingcow (Score:2) Friday October 28, @09:41PMRe:Empty television by Bryansix (Score:1) Friday October 28, @05:03PMRe:Empty television by Senzei (Score:1) Friday October 28, @05:04PM Bad argument (Score:4, Insightful) by Spy der Mann (805235) <spydermann,slashdot&gmail,com> on Friday October 28, @03:47PM (#13899120) (Last Journal: Wednesday October 12, @02:42PM) "video games, television and the Internet are good for us".In the first place, I didn't know videogames (tetris, pacman, Grand Tourismo), Television (Junkyard wars, animal showdown, Wolf's Rain), and the Internet (wikipedia) were bad for us.And I can't think of ANYONE (except extreme fundamentalists) who thinks that ALL videogames, ALL Television and ALL the internet are bad for us. [ Reply to ThisRe:Bad argument by MisterLawyer (Score:2) Friday October 28, @06:20PMOh no... by Blue-Footed Boobie (Score:2) Friday October 28, @03:48PMRe:Oh no... by An Onerous Coward (Score:2) Friday October 28, @05:11PM I'm with Einstein... (Score:5, Insightful) by DigitalRaptor (815681) on Friday October 28, @03:49PM (#13899135) (http://brianallen.isagenix.com/) "It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity."Albert EinsteinI tend to agree with this poem:We are all blind until we seeThat in the human planNothing is worth the makingIf it does not make the manWhy build these cities gloriousIf man unbuilded goesIn vain we build these citiesUnless the builder also grows.And of course:"To educate a man in mind and not in morals is to educate a menace to society."Theodore RooseveltOur society is plagued with menaces, and I highly doubt that will change, except to increase. If it ever does change it will start at home with better parenting and at church (yeah, yeah, don't even start). [ Reply to ThisI'm with Leto II by myowntrueself (Score:2) Friday October 28, @04:48PMRe:I'm with Leto II by myowntrueself (Score:2) Friday October 28, @06:49PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:I'm with Einstein... by Slashdiddly (Score:1) Friday October 28, @10:40PMStalin by Dire Bonobo (Score:2) Friday October 28, @08:01PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Ob Woody Allen by HungWeiLo (Score:3) Friday October 28, @03:50PMRe:Ob Woody Allen by MemoryAid (Score:2) Friday October 28, @05:17PM Average IQ increase. (Score:4, Funny) by adam31 (817930) <adam31@gmaiDALIl.com minus painter> on Friday October 28, @03:53PM (#13899164) which corresponds to an increase in average IQ scores in the U.S.Ah yes, the fabled "increase in average IQ score"... Apparently, we just cracked 100!However, I predict that a plateau for the foreseeable future. [ Reply to ThisRe:Average IQ increase. by grimJester (Score:1) Friday October 28, @04:39PMRe:Average IQ increase. by maxume (Score:1) Friday October 28, @05:23PMMedia or Technology by ajnsue (Score:3) Friday October 28, @03:54PMMain evidence? by Flopy (Score:3) Friday October 28, @03:54PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. More channels are better (Score:5, Insightful) by G4from128k (686170) on Friday October 28, @03:55PM (#13899184) I grew up with 3 commercial broadcast channels and 1 public broadcast station. It sucked compared to what's available today on basic cable. Sure there's more junk on TV, including public TV and the old commercial stations. But channels with 24 hr news (of varying leanings), home-and-garden, science shows, outdoor/exploration shows, independent films, food, etc. TV has more hours of quality per day than it did in the past.Yes, total TV crap is up by a factor of 50X and the crap-to-quality factor is worse by a factor of 10, but that still means we have 5X the available hours of quality programming compared to 30 years ago. [ Reply to This Ironic... or is it? (Score:5, Informative) by Wannabe Code Monkey (638617) on Friday October 28, @03:55PM (#13899188) The book raises interesting questions, but in the end is a lightweight analysis that is better for engendering sound bites on NPR and The Daily Show than for convincing serious readers. Hmm... sound bites on NPR... That's interesting, it sounds like you probably never listen to NPR [npr.org]. The breadth and depth of their coverage far surpasses any other news source I've found. For example On Point [onpointradio.org] is a two hour program, each hour consists of: An opening news debrief from a reporter or journalist on the biggest stories of the day. An in-depth conversation on a single topic with newsmakers, thinkers and callers. And the end of the hour segment that allows for more personal reactions to news and important issues, including radio diaries, excerpts from speeches, or special series segments.They almost always have two or three experts in the relevant field during the discussion segment. Topics are explained and discussed with logic and level-headedness. Most of the time the topics are shown to be complicated with more sides than just the conservative vs. liberal slant you get from other news sources.In fact I was listening when Morning Edition held a seven minute interview with the author of "Everything Bad is Good for You" back in May. I just googled for it now and it's available to listen to for free on their website: Morning Edition, May 24, 2005: Everything Bad is Good for You [npr.org]. [ Reply to ThisRe:Ironic... or is it? by Bob Hellbringer (Score:1) Friday October 28, @04:11PMRe:Ironic... or is it? by Blakey Rat (Score:2) Friday October 28, @06:27PMRe:Ironic... or is it? by Wannabe Code Monkey (Score:1) Friday October 28, @10:55PMRe:What do you have against The Daily Show by Wannabe Code Monkey (Score:1) Friday October 28, @10:41PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Huh? This guy sure is defensive.. by Pudusplat (Score:1) Friday October 28, @03:58PMFocus Groups Ruin Everything by queenb**ch (Score:3) Friday October 28, @03:58PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Intelligence by baadger (Score:2) Friday October 28, @03:58PMI read this book about four months ago by ferrocene (Score:2) Friday October 28, @04:00PMOops. by DrEldarion (Score:3) Friday October 28, @04:01PMRe:Oops. by cens0r (Score:2) Friday October 28, @06:18PMEverything bad is good... by aepervius (Score:1) Friday October 28, @04:03PMSo, then,... logically... by notnAP (Score:1) Friday October 28, @04:10PMGiving the benefit of the doubt by StressGuy (Score:3) Friday October 28, @04:13PMRe:Giving the benefit of the doubt by cens0r (Score:2) Friday October 28, @06:21PMGetting way ahead of his blockers by Bernal KC (Score:1) Friday October 28, @04:19PM This too easy.... (Score:5, Insightful) by brundlefly (189430) on Friday October 28, @04:23PM (#13899425) His main evidence is the increase in the number of characters to be found in "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy compared to the original "Star Wars" trilogy. The other main evidence is the development of a sub-genre of films he calls "mind-benders" typified by Kaufman works like "Being John Malkovich".No. "The Lord of the Rings" is complex because it was a trilogy of books first. Almost 2000 pages of complexity, compared to the flimsy "she's your sister Luke" of Star Wars. Blech. Star Wars by comparison is like the O.C. in space, give me a break.And if "Being John Malkovich" is in a sub-genre of films called mind-benders, you would have to be very ignorant of the history of movies not to at least in part attribute the history of the genre to Hitchcock. [ Reply to ThisRe:This too easy.... by m1a1 (Score:3) Friday October 28, @05:08PMbut.... by srsrsr (Score:2) Friday October 28, @04:23PMEinstein Never Played "Halo" by Sundroid (Score:2) Friday October 28, @04:25PMErrr... Not really. by porkchop_d_clown (Score:2) Friday October 28, @05:03PM1 reply