Does watching television make you smarter? Do the new shows require the same focus, imagination, and retention as reading a book? Steven Johnson thinks so, author of Watching TV Makes You Smarter. The simplicity of television has come and gone, replaced with mind exercising network shows. Shows of today contain numerous, difficult plots with multiple characters; interesting topics and high profit yields. Steven Johnson believes that all of these things have created a new kind of television, one that may make you more intelligent, however, there are exceptions to this such as reality and junk television.
In Stevens Johnson’s article about new television making you smarter he gives arguments such as multiple plots, series of ending and newly beginning information and endless characters. He believes that multiple plots require the viewer to pay deeper attention, he uses the show 24 as an example by saying, “to keep up with entertainment like 24, you have to pay attention, make inferences, track shifting social relationships.” Johnson mentions that shows of the past have fewer, less detailed plot lines that contain very few characters, usually three to four, which make the shows these shows today, seem boring and not much for the mind to keep up with. Today, however, a drama on primetime has multiple stories in one episode, one mystery ending and ten more beginning. Thus causing you to have to engage yourself in what’s going on to keep up with the story, and sometimes even use your imagination to fill in the blanks. Johnson argues that these modern shows and their complex stories are indeed making us smarter.
Johnson makes some very interesting points in his article. He makes his stance very clear, and is very well orga...
... middle of paper ...
...ke people enjoy them so much, they entertain because you unknowingly become involved in it. You engage your mind and think. Johnson hit the nail on the head with this argument.
The shows and networks of today with no doubt are much different and much more entertaining than those of the 70’s. With the audience expecting more, networks continue to push the boundaries of television, and along with it, the level of intellect required to enjoy it. Steven Johnson believes that all of these things have created a new kind of television, one that may make you more intelligent, however, there are exceptions to this such as reality and junk television. Steven Johnson has made a well thought out and valid argument that TV makes you smarter. It is proven with many shows relying on witty humor and tough to follow stories that engage your mind, and hopefully, make you smarter.
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
Like I said, television and movies are very easy to watch and there is not much thinking that you have to do because you can almost say that the thinking, in a sense, is done for you. It is easier to see something visually than have to visualize it for yourself. When you read a book, you have to concentrate on who is speaking, but on television and movies you don’t have to because the people in the TV/movie act out their own parts.
In the novel, technology, especially the enormous TV screens, are responsible for replacing literature, intellectualism, and curiosity. People spend so much time watching programming that is considered unproductive. People in the novel became less likely to search for knowledge and discover new abilities. This happens frequently today. Many people are engrossed in their technology and mass media. They have become less likely to...
In a Class Dismissed when the narrator says,” because we have seen television as just entertainment, we readily disregard its impact on our thinking”. When I heard that statement, I thought to myself that our perceptions of things are based upon what we see on TV, although I do view TV as entertainment as well. However, I never paid attention to how TV impacted my thoughts until viewing and reading in the material in this class. Because of some of the things that we studied and the familiar shows that we talked about I understand and noticed small things in TV shows and ad
Intelligence tests have been developed by scientists as a tool to categorize army recruits or analyze school children. But still discussing what intelligence is, academics have a difficult time defining what intelligence tests should measure. According to the American researcher Thorndike, intelligence is only that what intelligence tests claim it is (Comer, Gould, & Furnham, 2013). Thus, depending on what is being researched in the test and depending on the scientist’s definition of intelligence the meaning of the word intelligence may vary a lot. This essay will discuss what intelligence is in order to be able to understand the intelligence theories and aims of intelligence tests.
Steven Johnson wrote an article for the New York Times in which he argues that back in the days, television shows use to have a very simple plot which was easy to follow without too much attention. It was just an other way to sit back and relax. However, throughout the years, viewers grew tired of this situation and demanded more complex plot lines with multiple story lines that related to recent news topics. He takes the example of the television show “24”. “24” is known for being the first show which its plot occurs in “real-time”, it is also known for not censuring the violence of its topics. It is a drastic change from what Johnson states as an example “Starsky and Hutch” where basically each episodes was only a repetition of the last one. Johnson also believes that there is a misconception of the mass culture nowadays where people think the television viewer wants dumb shows which in response makes them dumber. Johnson does not agree, for him, television shows such as “24” are “nutritional”. He also states that sm...
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
Television is a highly entertaining way to pass the time whenever we may want to relax or may not have anything to do. Some believe that watching television is nothing more than staring at a box while others believe that it can help us become aware of things we may not have noticed before such as social issues or in some measure get our brains thinking. This paper will point out the similarities and differences of Antonia Peacocke 's essay "Family Guy and Freud: Jokes and Their Relation to the Unconscious" and Steven Johnson 's "Watching television makes you smarter" aswell as
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.
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.
Can intelligence be measured? Does an IQ test actually measure a person’s intelligence? Does a high score indicate a genius? Does a low score indicate stupidity or merely ignorance? These questions have been asked over and over again by psychiatrists and scientists alike, but to date there are no clear answers. These questions cannot be answered without first defining what is meant by the term intelligence. Once intelligence has been defined then it should be easy to answer these questions; however, multiple definitions of the word tend to lead to further confusion.
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).
When a person utters the word “intelligence,” people tend to think of a genius like Albert Einstein developing some obscure equation that the great majority of the population will never understand. The problem with the definition of intelligence is that people relate intelligence to words like “genius” which require intelligence but do not have the same definition as intelligence. Often, people try to use related words to define intelligence, but these words are unable to define intelligence since many are only different levels of intelligence. While many definitions try to encompass the meaning of intelligence and various definitions describe a small part of intelligence, no definition completely explains intelligence, because intelligence is a concept that is understood only after realizing that intelligence is based on three basic concepts: logic, growth, and emotion. Although many people believe that humans are the only creatures capable of intelligence, other animals exhibit intelligence and are capable of further demonstrate the complex concept of intelligence.
One must realize that entertainment has been around since the dawn of man. Whether it be gladiators fighting in arenas that drew large crowds, or sitting in front of TV like commonly done now, it is a large part of our society. To disregard any benefits it can have would be a waste of potential to expand and be open to other ideas. If there was no demand for the influences portrayed to us, they would not exist. What keeps the entertainment business going is its success, for society sees it as not just a form of inevitable ruin, but a form of impending growth.
The ongoing debate on whether nature or nurture is responsible for intelligence seems to be a never-ending argument. There will probably be no definite answer to this argument any time soon, but answers such as Dr. Bigot's prove how intolerant of other opinions people can be. To say intelligence is entirely based on genetics, or one's environment, for that matter, is utterly extremist. An interaction of both nature and nurture is responsible for intelligence.