Buy it now from Amazon

Everything Bad is Good for You

Steven Johnson

Riverhead Hardcover

• List price: $23.95
• Lowest new price: $5.98
• Lowest used price: $5.57

Average customer rating:

Elitism Rules! OK?

This is a provocative book which warrants serious consideration. The author postulates that through the device of the sleeper curve, the various technological developments which pervade popular culture are not dumbing down America, but rather leading to development of a broader range of skills than credited by academic experts.

He sets out his view in sections devoted to video games, film, and very briefly, the internet, and explores the differing skills which are exercised during their consumption.

As someone who has exhibited a preference for aspects of popular culture as opposed to high culture for most of my life, the argument is very attractive at the outset. As one delves deeper into the subject serious questions arise as to whether there is a general case to answer.

Consider video games, where our author testifies to the skills required to play some of the more complex games such as Grand Theft Auto. There is a strong case to be made here but the issue is rather deflated when one considers that the vast majority of game players consume sports and other games which are considerably less complex and demanding.

Film also has a substantial longevity in the popular pantheon of leisure activities. It manages to portray a story and certain sophisticated complexities but still lacks by far the great leap forward that one achieves through reading a novel.

I would reject a notion that the use of the internet provides much of an intellectual challenge, given the degree to which internet consumers access porn sites and where much of the content is clearly aimed at the lower end of the spectrum

Having said all of this, I believe that there is something in the authors argument, but in a more narrow sense. For myself I consider that there are a minority of people within our society who exhibit skill and knowledge improvements as a result of immersion in the complexities and sophistications of certain games, or movies or whatever. The question of whether they are smarter is debatable. I would suggest that the elite to whom I refer demonstrate aptitudes of learning from external stimuli whichare far greater that those of the general populace. This tends to suggest to me however, that those aptitudes are inherited and/or learnt from an environment and upbringing where parents encourage skills of learning and exploring, encouragement and direction etc.

All in all, a worthwhile book subject to some of the caveats which I have alluded to above.

BECAUSE I COULDN'T GIVE ZERO STARS

This is just a feel good book for the people who do not pursue any worthwhile intellectual pursuits. Arguments are weak, and to even suggest that reality shows show a rise in culture is ludicrous, in my opinion. Those who watch reality shows basically are sitting around, watching strangers on television, and in the process not doing anything with their own lives.

My theory and my opinion is that this author may know his arguments are invalid, but he knows that so many people want justification for their inactive lifestyles that they will buy this book.

Save your money on this one and read any fine piece of literature..or if not that, then go outside and do something...do not let your life be controlled by screens (tv, computer, cell phone, etc...)

Define "good"

The author made a pretty good case that some pop culture is not bad, but he does not make a strong argument it is good. I didn't read the notes section but I felt that there was a lack of supporting data in the main text for many of his statements and arguments (though he mentions a few times that "studies should be done"). He dismisses counter arguments with a few sentences: Yes, test scores in academic subjects are down, but problem solving ability is up! Yes, the content may be violent, but problem solving ability is up! I wonder just how this problem solving ability is being applied to non-entertainment situations, if at all. Does it translate into anything that leads to "good"? The book is really about video games - the other topics, TV, movies, etc. seem like padding.

Interesting but choppy

Interesting, food for thought, hard to get into and not so convincing after all. Could be a much shorter book.

"Everything Bad" is Pretty Good!

Video games that actually improve our decision-making skills and not just give our thumbs a workout? TV shows that give our brains exercise, not just develop our zoning out skills? Is it possible? In today's society, the typical American watches over four hours of television a day (NielsonMedia.com), surfs the Internet around 14 hours a week (MediaLifeMagazine.com), and gives the software/gaming industry upwards of $30 billion a year in revenues (FOXNews.com). With all of this media surrounding us, how do we know whether these mediums are helpful or harmful? In his best-selling book, "Everything Bad is Good for You: How Today's Popular Culture is Actually Making Us Smarter", Steven Johnson seeks to solve that question.
Split into two parts, this book attempts to build an argument for what Johnson calls "The Sleeper Curve": an idea that many of the entertainment mediums today actually "turn out to be nutritional after all" for cognitive development. While he doesn't advocate that the mediums of video games, television, film and the internet are necessarily better than other forms of education, namely reading (a media that many think suffers in the current generation), he looks to say that these outlets are showing that they are growing more "intellectually demanding".
When assessing the long debated topic of video games--which is the author's largest argument by far, in terms of both length and the depth of his analysis--Johnson contends that individuals who play video games are building decision-making skills in a world where you don't know the rules as you play and are actually playing to figure them out (he points out that this is more like reality than most books). Johnson develops the idea of working through a game to figure out the rules and figure out your objective into a theory known as probing. It is this probing, he says, that is a "core part of the experience" for gamers (42). Another core part of video games is that today's games are extremely deep in plot and objectives. There are so many things going on that gamer must be able to handle several ideas at once. Johnson calls this telescoping. As he explains, telescoping is the "mental labor of managing all of these simultaneous objectives" (54). It is these cognitive theories that give the book its strongest arguments. Additionally, in response to the common claim that video games help build violent behavior in players, Johnson points out that the highest selling video game of all time--The Sims--has close to no violent aspects at all.
In his analysis of the Internet, television, and movies, Johnson begins to lose depth in his analysis simply because what he thinks is so good about video games--the interactive element--begins to disappear. While he does note that many of the typical TV shows of today (Home Improvement, for example) have come no further in challenging the brain than shows of the past (i.e. Three's Company), Johnson analyzes those shows that have been able to attain not only popular acclaim, but critical praise as well. He praises shows like ER and The West Wing for their ability to bring the audience into the show--adding back in a little bit of that interactivity--by forcing them to figure out what is happening in the show versus laying it all out on the table and by creating "multiple threads" of information that an audience member has to train their brain to follow. Johnson also tries to make the argument for reality television, not about its value, but about the ability of the shows to create audience participation. Reality television, he discusses, gives the audience something to analyze after the episode has ended (example: on last night's episode of Survivor, how would I have played that game or who would I have created an alliance with?), hence increasing cognitive demand.
For movies, Johnson sees this same type of thing, but not to quite the same level. He notes that, when looking at the complexity of the plot lines in films now versus thirty years ago, the growth in the ability to demand more cognitive activity from the audience is limited by the three hour maximum time slot (i.e. storylines that, on television and in video games, are developed over multiple seasons and hours, must be squeezed into two to three hours for film). While films have struggled in this way, Johnson does recognize several films for being able to increase their complexity. These films include: Pulp Fiction, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Magnolia, and Big Fish. Their storylines require focus and question-asking, their list of characters is long, and you can never catch everything the first time you see them. Because of this, these films tend to succeed more once released on VHS or DVD, because the complexity reveals something new to the audience with each viewing.
Johnson's analysis of the Internet is focused around the idea that the Internet brings back in the participatory element that is prevalent in video games, but lacking in television and film. When people play games or watch a TV show, they head to the nearest fan website to discuss it. E-mail and blogging are common methods of communication in today's society. Through participation, Johnson feels that people are flexing their cognitive activity. He also points out that people are using the Internet to seek further knowledge and are learning to connect to people in new ways. While he didn't dive as far into this medium as into the other three, Johnson notes that the Internet is still growing and that the possibility for it to continue pushing cognitive function in its users is still great.
In the second part of the book--which, it should be noted, only comprises about a quarter of the reading--Johnson seeks to find backup data for his video game-movie-television-Internet analysis. As is probably no surprise, Johnson delves into how IQ scores have been going up steadily across all sectors of the population--despite media impact--and how, as many have realized over the past fifty years or so, IQ has a lot more to do with environmental factors than the originally thought of inherited ones. Additionally, Johnson points out that several factors are influencing the growing complexity of entertainment mediums, those factors being economic, technological, and neurological (157). For example, economically speaking in the television business, reruns are more lucrative than original airings. Consequently, original airings must be more complex so an audience will be able to learn more with every viewing. In the technological world, Johnson again revisits the idea of repetition. Items like VCRs, DVD players, and TiVo have been created simply for the luxury of replaying your favorite shows. In addition to that, the development of the Internet has given audiences a way to dissect and analyze the show or game or film they've seen. Both of these developments have led to advancement in neurological and cognitive functioning.
All together, "Everything Bad is Good for You: How Today's Popular Culture is Actually Making Us Smarter" is an excellent read, if only to evaluate an alternative opinion to the "kids spend too much time playing video games/watching TV/surfing the Internet" argument. He makes sure to point out that all of these mediums are best in moderation and that too much of anything is never a good thing. I would recommend it to anyone that is a fan of the discussed mediums of popular culture, whether that is gamers, TV watchers, or Internet users.