Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Does watching TV make people smarter
Impact of television on education
Impact of television on education
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Does watching TV make people smarter
A TV Education “For decades, we’ve worked under the assumption that mass culture follows a path declining steadily toward lowest common-denominator standards, presumably because the “masses” want dumb” (Johnson 214).But do the masses actually want to get the opposite out of their TV programming? Steven Johnson author of Mind Wide Open: Your brain and the neuroscience of everyday life and five other books thinks that they do and has done much research to try and prove that watching TV may actually be stimulating and that audiences may be demanding smarter TV and Johnson says they are getting it. Because of multiple threading, attention, and patience, newer TV shows are placing on audiences cognitively; Johnson thinks TV may actually make you smarter. In Steven Johnson’s article he is arguing that TV actually makes you smarter rather than the common thought that “culture follows a path declining steadily towards lowest common-denominator standards”(214). He compares many shows to back up his argument and even has graphs illustrating his point that shows are becoming more complex. As a result of this increasing complexity Johnson even believes that people are becoming more “cognitively demanding, not less” (214).Johnson also thinks that the Entertainment industry is making TV smarter for a reason. “Of course, the entertainment Industry isn’t increasing the cognitive complexity of its product for no reason. The sleeper curve exists because there is money to be Gaddis 2 made by making TV smarter” (228). Although He seems to say that all TV makes you smarter near the end of the article he does specify that he doesn’t mean all shows. Johnson’s logic seemed to me to very sound. He did not try to back any of his reason with opinio... ... middle of paper ... ...on about the possibility of TV making you smarter. Is Stevens ignoring the fact that there are shows such as the ones just mentioned that are there to be purely educational? Or does he not think these shows can be beneficial either? Johnson and Stevens should have brought these types of shows in to account and the people that are completely convinced that TV makes you dumber should think about these shows too. Experiencing the heightened mental experience of newer shows may actually make you smarter. Because watching TV requires a higher state of awareness than shows of the past people are working their brains and possibly becoming smarter in the end. So the TV that you once thought was harm to your brain may be actually benefiting you. But as Johnson says there are shows that are more beneficial than others and TV can be beneficial if the right shows are watched.
Not only educational shows accomplish these goals, but fictional television programs can often incorporate information that requires viewers to grapple with a topic using logical reasoning and a global consciousness. In addition, not to diminish the importance of reading, television reaches those who may never pick up a book or who might struggle with reading problems, enabling a broader spectrum of people to interact with cognitive topics. Veith has committed the error of making generalizations about two forms of media when, in truth, the situation varies depending on quality and content. However, what follows these statements is not just fallacious, but
Has the modernization of the twentieth century made us smarter or has it hindered our brains to think in 140 characters or less? In the article, “Brain Candy”, Steven Johnson argues that the “steady upward trajectory” in global I.Q scores is due to what we thought was making us dumber: popular culture. However, this romantic critic is too rooted in his technology- age ideology. While Johnson claims that everything bad is good for us, family themed-programing is being replaced by fabricated reality television shows and channels specialized in selling, video games are hindering our reading and writing skills, and books are becoming things of the past. Johnson insists that popular culture is making us smarter, but is stupid the new smart?
Social phenomenon is analyzed from different perspectives and at different levels. Sociologists study every specific event from the small social patterns to the large social patterns. The European sociologists have also offered a wide conceptualization of the society’s fundamentals and its workings. Today, there are three major perspectives that offer theoretical paradigms that are commonly used by sociologists. These theoretical approaches aid in explaining the inter-relationship between people and society. They include: the functionalist, the interactionist and the conflict perspectives. Each of these perspectives conceptualizes society, human behavior, and social forces. In this paper, comparison and contrast of these different perspectives with one another is looked into.
Steven Pinker and Nicholas Carr share their opposing views on the effects that mass media can have on the brain. In Carr’s Atlantic Monthly article “Is Google Making Us Stupid,” it explores his viewpoints on how increased computer use affects our thought process in a negative manner. Carr critically analyzes that having widespread access to the internet via the internet has done more harm by disabling our ability to think complexly like it is the researching in a library. On the other hand, Pinker expresses how the media improves our brain’s cognitive functions. Pinker expresses that we should embrace the new technological advances and all we need is willpower to not get carried away in the media. Although both authors bring very valid arguments
One technique MacNeil uses is providing statistical support for his argument about TV. An example of this technique is ‘by the time age 20, you will have been exposed to at least 20,000 hours of TV’. MacNeil uses this statistic because to show that Americans watch too much TV. Another example of statistical support is ‘in 10,000 hours, we could have learned how to become an astronomer or engineer’. This example helps MacNeil’s argument because this show us that we could have gotten something that we could use later in life instead of watching Tv and losing our attention span. Still another statistic MacNeil offers is ‘30 million adult Americans are ‘functionally illiterate’ and cannot read or write well enough to answer a want ad or understand the instructions on a medicine bottle.’ This example bolsters MacNeil’s stance because to show that there are a lot of people who cannot read or write because we watch too much TV.
As I read Television as a teacher written by Neil postman, His main argument throughout the article is that television isn’t a good or effective way to use education, and he describes how it’s actually worst for us and were not learning the full purpose of education and learning by watching tv. His main example was Sesame Street, and how children sit in front of a television for hours watching what they call education television and claiming they get knowledge from it but they're getting no social interaction by watching it. Also, Neil postman makes excellent points by comparing education television to a real classroom, saying how a classroom has social interaction, the ability to ask a teacher question, development of language, and it’s a
In Steven Pinker’s article, “Mind Over Mass Media”, he argues that every advance in media technology has sparked accusations of declining intelligence and morality. Pinker believes that these “moral panics often fail basic reality checks” by pointing out that if technology were as bad as critics painted it to be, it would be impossible for society to be at its current level of progress. Instead, Pinker concludes that “far from making us stupid, these technologies are the only thing(s) that are keeping us smart” by helping us leverage large amounts of information. Pinker’s argument contains some faulty logic, such as suggesting a questionable correlation between the popularity of television and rising I.Q. scores and citing anecdotal evidence about the failure of multitasking rather than facts. Indeed, he mentions a study on multitasking, but fails to cite it, which lends false credibility to his argument.
In "thinking outside the idiot box", Dana Stevens responds to Steven Johnson's New York Times article in which Johnson believes that watching television makes you smarter. Indeed, Steven Johnson claimed that television shows have become more and more complex over the years in order to follow the viewers need for an interesting plot instead of an easy, linear story. However, Dana Stevens is opposed to this viewpoint. Stevens is not against television, he does not think it makes you smarter nor that it is poisenous for the brain, he simply states that the viewer should watch television intelligently. That is to say that, viewers should know how much television they should watch and what to watch as well.
In our society entertainment has become an immense part of our daily lives. We spend extensive periods of time watching TV, which in general has become a habit for many individuals, and a necessity for others. In the article Television as teacher by Neil Postman he argues that television does not help us learn what is necessary for further education, and that it shouldn’t be utilized as a main learning tool because it undermines the techniques applied in teaching centers. Some of these technics are obtaining a previous education before practicing the advanced learning, paying attention to the material being provided, and retaining the information given for future references. Nonetheless I agree with Postman’s point of view that Television is
Presently 98% of the households in the United States have one or more televisions in them. What once was regarded as a luxury item has become a staple appliance of the American household. Gone are the days of the three channel black and white programming of the early years; that has been replaced by digital flat screen televisions connected to satellite programming capable of receiving thousands of channels from around the world. Although televisions and television programming today differ from those of the telescreens in Orwell’s 1984, we are beginning to realize that the effects of television viewing may be the same as those of the telescreens.
Television has come a long way since it was first introduced. Originally, it was thought that the masses that watch television enjoyed the more simple shows that would tell you exactly what was going on from start to finish. In Steven Johnson’s article, “Watching TV Makes You Smarter”, Johnson argues that this is actually not the case. In fact, Johnson argues that much more people enjoy shows that involve multi threading, or multiple plots that are all connected.
In making this comment, Stevens urges people to step away and leave the TV unbothered for the weekend. Leaving the television off for a full weekend gives a person the chance to fully digest how much of a negative impact it has on our intelligence. When someone is constantly watching TV they are allowing themselves to constantly hear the language of a lower class student, fabricated or made up words, and grammatically incorrect sentences to the point they have failed to realize that it is beyond awful grammar. After being exposed to that for hours every week it then becomes difficult for them to distinguish the right rules of language from the wrong. Also, it doesn’t only make it difficult
When it comes to the topic of television, most of us would readily agree that watching television is a waste of time. Where the agreement usually ends, however, is on the question of “are there shows that increase our intelligence?” and what pleasure do some television show bring to us? I would say there are some great shows that increase our intelligence. Shows like “Are You Smarter than a Fifth Grader?” this kind of show puts the brain to work; thinking. There are some other shows that tend to convince us that watching television seduces our mind. I find Johnson’s argument about his article “watching television makes you smarter” confusing because he was not actually picking sides in the article and Steven’s “Thinking Outside The Idiot Box” argument about how “it’s really good at teaching you to think… about the future episode” (Steven, 296). Although I agree with the author of “Watching Television Makes you Smarter” Johnson to an extent, I cannot accept that he overlooks how much time people spends each day watching television.
Television supports reading, which in turn to improves language ability. Good programming improves reading and can increase thinking. The Himmelweit confirms, “Television in the long run encourages children to read books; a conclusion that can be reinforced by evidence from libraries, book clubs, and publishing companies” (Postman 33). Dr. Hemmelweit stresses this point; “Book reading comes into its own, not despite television but because of it”(33).
Whether consciously aware of what is being displayed or not, media plays a substantial role in influencing consumption patterns and lifestyle. Researchers noted television's power to influence even people who are illiterate. Smith-Speck and Roy (2008) explained that even individua...