Or so argues Steven Johnson in his newest book about media culture. He says we shouldn't discuss pop culture in terms of morality but rather in terms of cognition. And, his argument goes, today's media is actually making us smarter. IQs have been steadily increasing since WWII and according to Johnson media is the reason.
Media-junkie that I am, I want to accept his argument but I'm not entirely convinced. Perhaps I'm skeptical because Johnson spends so much time discussing video games. I'm not a gaming fan, and I find that while avid gamers are extremely skilled in whatever games they favor, I don't see how those skills apply elsewhere. Does a gamer's increased cognitive ability to make decisions in a gaming world apply to problem-solving in the real world? I don't think so. Even if a game requires a comlex, embedded problem-solving process, the process is still discreet with only a certain number of variables (and, if you can't figure it out on your own, you can buy a gaming guide to help you out). In real-world problem solving there are many variables and you can't always guarantee that those variables will remain the same. People who are good at video games aren't so immediately. They are because they move through the same levels (problems) over and over again. If I had the chance to revisit intellectual and emotional problems over and over again, I'd eventually get it right, but I don't think it would make me more prepared for the next cognitive puzzle.
Johnson also talks about how tv and movies (less so than tv) are becoming more cognitively challenging (no longer the chronological narrative, but a mix of narrative threads, multiple characters, unexpected structures). While I agree with his assessment that tv is changing in these ways, I don't know whether that cognitive shift means smarter people. Just like IQ measures a specific type of intelligence, any cognitive increase that we get from more-complex tv watching seems limited to a specific set of skills. If I am able to process a more complex narrative, does that mean I am able to process more complex ideas in all cases? Because Johnson doesn't consider applicability, I find myself skeptical. I think I am a more sophisticated tv-watcher than say my parents, but I don't really think that my tv-watching skills (if you can call it that) affect any other aspect of my life.
Even though I don't fully buy Johnson's argument, I'm glad he's making it as I always find arguments against tv, etc. to be sort of silly.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I think it makes sense that our minds adapt to new media and we become more adept--smarter--at navigating those media, plus, I would say, the world as it becomes more mediated. It also makes sense to me that, as we adapt to new media, we might become less adept, or less attuned, to other embodiments of knowledge. I remember reading an interview with Steven Spielberg decades ago in which, essentially, he said that he was "post-literate" (this, before people had colonized the term "literacy" to apply to anything at all). So I think it's possible, for instance, that people become more adept at hyper-media and less attuned to books. So I think the deal is, how do the new(er) media become forms of knowledge? In other words, will hyper-media just be video games, or will other new forms of knowledge come out of that gaming episteme? I like to think the latter will be true.
You are certainly a more sophisticated tv-watcher--anyone who fully engages with The Apprentice is building up the brain cells and surpassing their parents. :)
BTW why is Steve Johnson's book so out there? It seems like every where I turn, there's Steve. Is it just because of the suprise title/rhetoric he uses or is something more complicated? So, have you read the book? Are folks going to read it?
I read a big excerpt in the NYTimes Sunday Magazine, then an interchange on slate.com between Dana Stevens, aka Surfergirl, and Johnson. So now, I don't feel like I have to read it.
Of course I read it. It only took about 2 1/2 hours--not that complex of an argument, I thought. Johnson does mention The Apprentice--dismisses it, really, but he does highlight that it is more complex than other game shows, say The Price is Right.
I liked the exchange on Slate. I'm definitely more on Stevens' side than Johnson's on this one. I particularly liked her assertion that "Unless we broaden our understanding of what these technologies are doing—not just to our IQ scores, but to our language, our social networks, our bodies, our imaginations—we run the risk of falling into a tautological feedback loop, in which technology has nothing to teach us except how to be better consumers of that same technology."
That was exactly my reaction to Johnson's book. I love Surfergirl. I want to be Surfergirl. See http://www.slate.com/id/2118550/entry/2118588/
I heard this guy on NPR, and being the susceptible listener that I am, I found myself convinced. Think about some older tv shows: Threes Company, The A-Team, The Dukes of Hazzard. These are not shows that have withstood the test of time. But I think many of today's shows are smart. Of course, they must be so: I like them.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but his argument also seems to echo Kathleen Blake Yancey's argument at last years TYCA conference. (Note to self: still must actually write presentation for this fall's conference.) As teachers we need to get hip to new forms of literacy.
Post a Comment