Gift Idea: "Everything Bad Is Good For You"

[DGMacphee]

Also, you mention literature of the past as inspirational. Consider current day literature, such as Geoff Ryman's "253", which is a hypertext novel.

http://www.ryman-novel.com/

Consider how this is uses more complex functions than literature of the past.

Literature of the past? I meant contemporary literature as well. As long as it's "good"

Also, sure, that hyper-text novel seems nifty and all. But seriously, is that a modern-day, mainstream media among people of today? I'm not against new media, I'm against young people wasting away watching and reading popcorn pulp shit crap. If people can find alternatives to reading books, then be my guest. But that link of yours seems a tad far-fetched imho.

But the case could be made that people 50 years ago had their own popcorn pulpy shit and that the popcorn pulp shit had actually gotten smarter over the last 50 years.

As for hyper-text novels, no, there aren't that many hypertext novels. But consider how hypertext has transformed textual mediums. I now read most of my information online. I haven't disqualified books, mind you, because I still think there is value in literature. But my point was that our future seems to be evolving more to hypertext mediums.

As another example, consider how news blogs are becoming more popular and how newspaper readerships are in decline.

So, I don't think it's too far-fetched to say the medium is changing to something more complex and smarter.

[evenwolf]

DG:   careful with the argument that film has become complex.   Sure there are the exceptions: the occassional mind bender like Memento.  But overall Johnson stated that the medium has plateaued long ago.



EVERYONE ELSE:

What your arguments come down to, whether you are saying TV is not making anyone smarter, or that books are much better for intellectual stimulation..... is that all in alll-  you refuse to read A BOOK!

Please check out Johnson's book in a library and follow it from beginning to end.   I cannot adequately describe the "Sleeper Curve" which is the basic backbone to his argument.

You are stating well thought out opinions and facts,  but you have not allowed the author to flesh out his case with details, evidence, and rhetoric.   Try out the book and then come back and argue the examples he uses.   Not the generalities you'd rather make.   Is it because you are too busy with TV, video games, and internet forums that you can't read a book?   Or is your suggested reading list all ready too long?

We can all agree that the argument is worth discussing.  It's certainly worth a read.

[Kweepa]

Nah.
I'm so convinced the premise is nonsense that I'm not going to encourage him by buying or borrowing his book.
I'll get back to "The Areas of my Expertise" instead. That'll make me smarter.

DG,
Hypertext novel? That's old:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Warlock_of_Firetop_Mountain

[evenwolf]

It's so odd that you should say that.   The area of my expertise happens to be film/television.

[DGMacphee]

DG:   careful with the argument that film has become complex.   Sure there are the exceptions: the occassional mind bender like Memento.  But overall Johnson stated that the medium has plateaued long ago.

Good point. I do reckon TV shows have become more complex than movies these days. I prefer watching shows like Huff or Arrested Development or The Office to 99% of what's at the cinema these days. In fact, it's very rarely I go to the movies or buy film DVDs. I'm more likely to buy a whole season of a quality TV show.

DG,
Hypertext novel? That's old:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Warlock_of_Firetop_Mountain

It's interesting that you bring this up because Johnson uses the example of how he created pen-and-paper fantasy baseball games when he was a kid. Now there are programs that enable you to compile such statistics in an easier way. Likewise with the evolution from roleplaying/choose-your-own-adventure gamebooks to online hypertext novels like Ryman's work.

[Ali]

In other words, people need enhanced cognitive ability to process the shows more so than people of 50 years ago. Try getting your 65 year old grandpa to follow what's happening in The Sopranos. I guaran-fucking-tee you he'll prefer Matlock.

If the ability to follow a complex, fractured narrative has brought with it impatience and a diminished attention span then I don't think it should be considered an enchancement, particularly is thoughtless acceptance is riding alongside. The question should not be whether my Grandpa likes the Sopranos. We ought to be asking if our grandchildren will be prepared to watch The Big Combo or The Maltese Falcon. If their attunement to fast-paced mutli-threaded narratives blinds them to the value of a measured, atmospheric story then it will be a terrific shame.

I was sloppy to use the word 'good' in my earlier post. I should have said 'progressive'. I dispute the notion that the format of modern popular culture represents a significant progression.

[DGMacphee]

If the ability to follow a complex, fractured narrative has brought with it impatience and a diminished attention span then I don't think it should be considered an enchancement, particularly is thoughtless acceptance is riding alongside. The question should not be whether my Grandpa likes the Sopranos. We ought to be asking if our grandchildren will be prepared to watch The Big Combo or The Maltese Falcon. If their attunement to fast-paced mutli-threaded narratives blinds them to the value of a measured, atmospheric story then it will be a terrific shame.

You're missing Johnson's point. He's not out to say that this culture is supposed to replace past culture. He's saying that there's proof that such culture doesn't "rot the brains" like so many critics of TV would have you believe.

But following the logic of your post, are you saying that The Maltese Falcon has an atmospheric story and something like say The Sopranos or 24 doesn't? If you really do think this, I'll lend you my shovel so you can dig your head out of the ground.

I mean, you seem to think that a multi-track narrative sacrifices good plotting. It doesn't. You can have both, and shows like The Sopranos, 24, Six Feet Under, Lost, Arrested Development, The Office (both UK and US versions), The West Wing, Weeds, Scrubs, Deadwood, etc, etc are proof of this.

[Ali]

But following the logic of your post, are you saying that The Maltese Falcon has an atmospheric story and something like say The Sopranos or 24 doesn't? If you really do think this, I'll lend you my shovel so you can dig your head out of the ground.

I agree that both 24 and the Maltese Falcon are atmospheric. The former establishes an atmosphere with an frenetic and intense interweaving of images and narratives, the latter with an understated lugubrious pace. You're right that for multi-track narratives to work they don't sacrifice good plotting, they demand good plotting.

Frenetic pacing, fractured storytelling and layered narratives can be very effective, as in the examples you gave. They are not, in and of themselves, the marks of intelligent and effective drama. They can also be observed in the best and the worst modern films and the most and least imaginative television.

I'm not arguing that we've lost anything since the Maltese Falcon, I'm simply not convinced that we've enhanced our cognitive abilities. I don't believe that MTV or xXx are making people cleverer simply because they are fractured, frenetic and follow multiple threads.

[DGMacphee]

Frenetic pacing, fractured storytelling and layered narratives can be very effective, as in the examples you gave. They are not, in and of themselves, the marks of intelligent and effective drama. They can also be observed in the best and the worst modern films and the most and least imaginative television.

I'm not arguing that we've lost anything since the Maltese Falcon, I'm simply not convinced that we've enhanced our cognitive abilities. I don't believe that MTV or xXx are making people cleverer simply because they are fractured, frenetic and follow multiple threads.

In a way, they are. Compare 50 years ago to MTV's equivalent, which is something like American Bandstand, which seems very simplistic to watch these days.

You see, it's not the multi-track threads of a narrative themselves that increase cognitive functions. That much is certain. But more so it's how our brains process these narratives.

So you have all these multiple tracks in MTV happening at once and our brains piece them together. Where as something like Bandstand takes lesser effort to process.

I admit, MTV and xXx are crap. But compared to equivalents of the 50s, I'd say they take more brain power to process.

And keep in mind, Johnson devotes a section to empirical research.

[Ali]

By comparing the machine-gun pace and disjonted themes of The Goon Show with the langurous pace and domestic scope of Everybody Loves Raymond, I could make the case that media output is becoming easier to follow.

Of course, The Goon Show is exceptional. It doubt it represents the majority of 1940/50s radio comedy, but it still makes it difficult to establish a trend from the simple towards the complex in the last half decade.

More significantly, I'm doubtful of this notion of MTV taking more brainpower to process. I'll agree that it takes a degree of mental agility to follow MTV, but I'd question to what degree MTV viewers actually process information.

I suggest that the capacity to patiently dwell upon and consider a subject should be considered a valuable skill, after a fashion.

I think it would be a mistake to celebrate the exchange of this skill for the mental agility of MTV viewers. If there is a trend towards the complex in the mass media, it does not necessarily represent progress, nor an increase in the sophistication of our minds.

[DGMacphee]

By comparing the machine-gun pace and disjonted themes of The Goon Show with the langurous pace and domestic scope of Everybody Loves Raymond, I could make the case that media output is becoming easier to follow.

I don't think that's a fair comparison, though. Everybody Loves Raymond isn't a sketch orientated show, it's a sitcom. Compare The Goon Show to something along the lines of Mr Show with David Cross and Bob Odenkirk. Or The Daily Show. Or Wonder Showzen.

Meanwhile, Everybody Loves Raymond is a pretty mid-level sitcom. The producers have even admitted it's very much in the style of an old fashioned sitcom. Look at something a little more advanced like, say, The Office (UK or US versions), Arrested Development, Curb our Enthusiasm or Entourage.

Even Seinfeld, although cancelled, represents an advanced form of sitcom.

Of course, The Goon Show is exceptional. It doubt it represents the majority of 1940/50s radio comedy, but it still makes it difficult to establish a trend from the simple towards the complex in the last half decade.

Sure, it's exceptional comedy. But I think the complexity has been outclassed by similar sketch-style shows. See examples above.

As for which is funnier, it's subjective. I prefer David Cross and Bob Odenkirk or John Stewart to the Goons. But that's a personal preference. You might think otherwise.

More significantly, I'm doubtful of this notion of MTV taking more brainpower to process. I'll agree that it takes a degree of mental agility to follow MTV, but I'd question to what degree MTV viewers actually process information.

I'm talking in comparison to American bandstand in the 50s. The degree is significant.

I suggest that the capacity to patiently dwell upon and consider a subject should be considered a valuable skill, after a fashion.

I think it would be a mistake to celebrate the exchange of this skill for the mental agility of MTV viewers. If there is a trend towards the complex in the mass media, it does not necessarily represent progress, nor an increase in the sophistication of our minds.

I disagree. I believe the comprehension of such complex and evolving culture is a testament to the development of our minds. Consider Johnson's example where he gives evidence of the average test scores increasing over generations. Now I'll state that you can't attribute these test scores just to TV shows -- that would be madness. However, they ARE attributable to the complexity of our culture as a whole. This includes all media, such as (and not limited to) TV, films, the internet, and computer games.

[EagerMind]

Consider Johnson's example where he gives evidence of the average test scores increasing over generations.

Not having read the book, I don't know what Johnson's methodology is, but rising test scores hardly proves anything. I suspect grade inflation would be the biggest explanation for rising test scores, unless he somehow managed to account for this. Take the American SAT, which for those who don't know, are standardized tests commonly used as a part of the college admissions process. They've always curved their grading to offset declining scores, and completely re-standardized the grading scale in 1995 to give higher results.

And of course, using test results to make claims about intelligence begs the question of whether or not tests can even accurately measure intelligence (see here and here). Even defining intelligence is tricky business. What exactly do we mean when we claim that people are more intelligent?

Certainly the explosion of IT has made available an unprecedented wealth of information available to just about everyone, and of course there's always the joke about getting the youngest kid in the family to get the home entertainment center and computer working, and then there's the example of today's teen listening to music, watching tv, surfing the web, and carrying on IM conversations all at the same time. But just because we've become more accustomed to a greater decibel level of background information doesn't mean we've gotten any better at processing it. I've heard (although I don't have any numbers to support) that continuously jumping from one task to another degrades intelligence - and performance - since the mind isn't given the opportunity to ever focus on one thing. I've also read articles about using computer technology to filter out extraneous information to aircraft pilots and army soldiers so they can improve their focus and performance. Hardly evidence that we're able to better process an ever-growing complexity of information.

I don't think there's anything remarkable about claiming that the average bloke adapts to whatever "tech level" they grow up in. Sure we can program our cell phones, navigate complex mass-transit systems, and easily look up movie showtimes on the internet. But does that mean we're any smarter? Look at all the comic skits about people being able to sing various commercial jingles but not knowing the words to the national anthem, or not being able to point out their state (or country) on a map (or a popular variation in America where people can't point out Iraq). Or drop somebody in a radically unfamiliar environment - put a city slicker on the farm, or since we're making comparisons with the past, put today's teen in the 50's or early 20th century - and I don't know that you'd see any greater capacity to adapt or outperform someone native to that environment.

I definitely think the resources that are available for people to educate themselves - whether we're talking TV and film, the internet, or video games -  are greater than they ever have been. But it still requires an active effort to take advantage of them. I think that somebody that just passively exists in their environment - watching prime-time television, playing the video game of the month, catching the latest Hollywood "blockbuster" - doesn't necessarily benefit from any increased complexity or intelligence in the content they take in. One would only expect that, as a human race, our "base" level of knowledge and understanding of the world has grown. But taking into account that baseline, I'd be hard pressed to argue that our mainstream media is any less derivative or mind-numbing than it has been in previous generations - and perhaps even moreso.

[DGMacphee]

EagerMind, it's interesting that you mention all that because Johnson also takes into account most of what you talking about especially the question of whether test scores can actually measure intelligence. What Johnson says, however, is that studies have shown that average results for problem-solving skills, abstract reasoning, pattern recognition and spaital logic have all increased.

He also states there are some intelligences ignored by these tests, such as emotional intelligence. However, studies have shown a general advancement in the areas I meantioned above.

[Ali]

What Johnson says, however, is that studies have shown that average results for problem-solving skills, abstract reasoning, pattern recognition and spaital logic have all increased.

I won't argue that we've advanced in these areas. You acknowledge that there are areas of the mental process that these studies haven't engaged with.

I'm not aware of such a thing as a savoir-faire test, nor do I have people's attention spans on record for the last century. Forgive me if Johnson deals with this issue, but without assessing these areas surely it is impossible to identify progress overall rather than isolated change.

[DGMacphee]

Granted, I agree an in-depth assessment of our advanced cognitive abilities can provide a clearer picture on this issue. I'm all for more data on this topic as much as anyone interested in this topic is. But I do side with Johnson on this one. He linked the empircal evidence extremely well to his thesis. And I was pretty skepitcal prior to purchasing the book. In the end he convinced me.

[EagerMind]

studies have shown that average results for problem-solving skills, abstract reasoning, pattern recognition and spaital logic have all increased.

The other side of this is that, even if you can show a correlation between more intelligent television (and I don't know how, or if, Johnson makes a quantitative assessment of this) and higher intelligence, that hardly goes to cause-and-effect. Are we getting smarter because of better television, or is television getting better because we're smarter?

But as I pointed out in my earlier post, I remain skeptical that mainstream media has gotten any smarter, or even that we as humans have gotten more intelligent. I think the advance of technology-driven media provides unprecedented opportunities for people to educate themselves and develop themselves personally and professionally, but to take advantage of it I think you have to look outside the mainstream and actively pursue the useful content.

[DGMacphee]

studies have shown that average results for problem-solving skills, abstract reasoning, pattern recognition and spaital logic have all increased.

The other side of this is that, even if you can show a correlation between more intelligent television (and I don't know how, or if, Johnson makes a quantitative assessment of this) and higher intelligence, that hardly goes to cause-and-effect. Are we getting smarter because of better television, or is television getting better because we're smarter?

You're going to hate my answer.

This is the same thing they posed about The Daily Show in many studies. Like, an Annenberg study from a year or two ago showed that people who watched The Daily could recall more information about the 2004 US election that people who just watched regular cable news channels. This led to the question: is The Daily Show educating people better, or is The Daily Show just attracting a more educated audience.

Here's where you're going to hate me.

I did my honours thesis on this.

What did I discover? Well, I found 1) News satire had the same educational value and regular news, and more interestingly 2) there was a mutual relationship between News Satire and Regular News -- people who watched regular news could understand News Satire better and people who watch News Satire were encouraged to watch regular news. Both work in tandem, fueling each other.

Why did I bring this up? Because I reckon the question you pose has a similar answer. I reckon we are getting smarter because of better television and, at the same time, television is getting better to keep up with our level of desired engagement.

I think the advance of technology-driven media provides unprecedented opportunities for people to educate themselves and develop themselves personally and professionally, but to take advantage of it I think you have to look outside the mainstream and actively pursue the useful content.

Not necessarily because if you even look at the mainstream, it's become more complex yet people are able to follow it. Consider, for example, news programs. News programs of the 50s usually involved a newscaster sitting behind a desk reading headlines. But now you're got split-screen interviews with talking heads, a scroll bar down the bottom, occasional pop-ups, and other fancy touches. It's become more advanced -- the level of required engagement has multiplied -- and yet we're still able to keep track of it all.

[EagerMind]

people who watched The Daily could recall more information about the 2004 US election that people who just watched regular cable news channels.

I don't find anything surprising about this result. People tend to remember stuff better if the person trying to remember it is engaged in the information. Think of the bottom-of-the-class student who can't remember any of the lessons but can ramble off years of sports stats with ease. I'd expect the Daily Show, which engages its audience with laughter - a very positive, memory-building stimulus - to be much more interesting and memory-enhancing than the regular news.

News satire had the same educational value as regular news, and ... people who watched regular news could understand News Satire better

Of course. Satire requires understanding of the subject being satirized.

people who watch News Satire were encouraged to watch regular news.

I'll admit, this is surprising. I have no desire to watch the regular news after watching the Daily Show.

if you even look at the mainstream, it's become more complex yet people are able to follow it.

See, this is where I disagree. People point to the explosion of shows with long story arcs (Lost, 24, Alias, etc.) as proof of "growing complexity." But I disagree for several reasons:

1. Shows like this (endless, constantly-evolving story arcs) have existed for quite a long time, in the form of afternoon soap operas, prime-time soaps (anyone remember Dallas?), and arguably even professional wrestling (which is usually more about the story arcs than the wrestling, and frequently referred to as "soap opera for men"). And if you look at other media - comic books spring to mind, but also old radio serials and saturday matinee sci-fi serials at the movie theaters - this form of story-telling has existed for decades, and traditionally been directed at kids!

2. I don't think the explosion of shows like this is evidence of the studios' commitment to boost complexity and intelligence. As DVD sales of television series has taken off, I think it's more likely a commitment to boost profits. I don't normally watch Lost, but I caught an episode recently. I thought it was interesting, and I was able to piece together some of characters' motivations, but ultimately I really didn't know what was going on. I don't think it means I'm dumb or that the show was unusually complex, I think it means the studio wants me to go buy the previous seasons to get caught up on the story.

3. I think the complexity within an individual show is much more important than a series-wide storyline. Lost may have a complex storyline stretching back to the beginning of the show, but what happens in each episode? The one I saw was relatively simplistic - a rescue mission, with a couple flashbacks to explain motivation. But look at shows like West Wing (well, when the original writers were on it) and Law & Order. Minimal tie-ins between each episode, yet individually each one raises questions about and debates issues of public policy, law, and ethics. West Wing obviously puts a liberal/Democratic spin on it, Law & Order generally makes a convincing arguement for both sides and usually doesn't provide any answers (leaving the viewer to form their own conclusions, or learn more about the issue themselves).

News programs of the 50s usually involved a newscaster sitting behind a desk reading headlines. But now you're got split-screen interviews with talking heads, a scroll bar down the bottom, occasional pop-ups, and other fancy touches. It's become more advanced -- the level of required engagement has multiplied -- and yet we're still able to keep track of it all.

Again, I disagree:

1. Let's not confuse advance in technology with increased complexity. In the 50's, you didn't have live satellite feeds. Now you do. And cutting to a poor reporter standing in the middle of a hurricane or riding on a tank in the middle of a battlefield is much more compelling television than someone in a studio talking about the devastation. It's all about visual stimulus.

2. As I mentioned in an earlier post, I think the perception that we're better able to process this "glut" of information is a huge fallacy. I hope you don't mind if I quote myself:

... just because we've become more accustomed to a greater decibel level of background information doesn't mean we've gotten any better at processing it. I've heard (although I don't have any numbers to support) that continuously jumping from one task to another degrades intelligence - and performance - since the mind isn't given the opportunity to ever focus on one thing. I've also read articles about using computer technology to filter out extraneous information to aircraft pilots and army soldiers so they can improve their focus and performance. Hardly evidence that we're able to better process an ever-growing complexity of information.

Fundamentally, we are still only able to process one subject at a time. When I'm reading the ticker at the bottom of the screen, I'm not focusing on what the announcer is saying, and vice-versa. There may be more information on the television screen, but I'm still only following one thread. Furthermore, our minds require a certain amount of dwell time to absorb a particular subject, comprehend it, and remember it. Jumping erratically from subject to subject doesn't improve our intelligence, but instead degrades it. In the end, maybe all that information on the screen isn't helping us!

Finally, let me just say that I think this is a really interesting discussion. I've come to learn that tone can be easily misinterpreted through the written word, so I hope you don't think I'm trying to pick a fight with you. I don't want to see this discussion end in an unintentional flame war because of some falsely-perceived insult!

[MillsJROSS]

I think that the bottom line is that Games/Television aren't as bad for you as people think. Regardless of the complexity of television today, which I think has more to do with an increase in technology that allows more things to be filmed and edited faster than in previous years, as well as better word processors. Regardless of the discussion of whether tv is smarter or not, I do agree that it and video games aren't destructive. That said, too much of anything isn't good. You can't just watch tv all day and say your learning, if all you ever do it watch tv.

-MillsJROSS

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

Tell that to all the armchair historians out there educated by the History Channel!