Sleep Tight

I read the long excerpt of Everything Bad is Good For You.

Basically, the argument was that all of the technology that people are constantly accusing of 'rotting your brain' is actually helpful to us, cognitively. For example, videogames, while seemingly mindless, actually teach us to reach long-term goals and follow complex patterns. Television teaches us to keep track of complex plots and pick up on social cues. As for the internet, Steven Johnson seems to feel more or less the same way that I do (that it allows for much more efficient information exchange and social interaction), also pointing out that the sheer complexity of the technology itself requires us to expand our understanding.

On a whole, I agree with Johnson's main points. The argument that especially resonated with me was his perspective on videogames. From the outside, when all an observer sees is a player staring blankly at the screen, twitching their thumbs and only vaguely aware that someone is telling them that dinner is ready, it's easy to come to the conclusion that their activities are sapping their brain power. But actually, the reason that they are so out of touch with the moment that they are in is because they are focusing all of their attention on the task at hand. Whether that is because they have to be able to quickly spot the hundreds of virtual enemies they're fighting before they get shot or because they need to figure out logically how to get past a complex barrier, they are engaging their minds fully in a task that is probably more difficult than those that they would face in life.

Games like Zelda, which Johnson used as an example, also force people to think creatively--something encouraged in English class and condemned as almost unhealthy in most other places. My mother Nancy, who is professor of social work and more than proficient in almost every cultural study imaginable, is utterly befuddled when confronted with concepts like sword fighting or telekinesis. Videogame players, on the other hand, are not only able to accept these obscure concepts quickly, but are able to adapt to them and use them to their advantage with equal speed. While those specific examples may not be particularly helpful in life, being able to quickly asses and solve a problem involving elements outside one's comfort zone is undeniably a valuable skill.

The main point that I disagreed with was his argument on reality television. While it's true that in those programs we may be able to get a better grasp on social cues and even the nature of human emotion, it really all depends on the quality of the program. Shows like Survivor are designed to put people in situations that will always make them feel the same way, because seeing people feel that way is the reason that the audience is watching. It is possible that one could grow more perceptive to emotion by watching a reality show than a cheesy soap opera where exaggerated expressions are held for a solid minute for emphasis, it is much easier to pick up on them through normal interaction. At the very least, reality shows can teach us no more about social cues than a normal conversation would.

Johnson is definitely contradicting the message presented by Tobin in Feed, but the arguments are not really compatible. Tobin cites consumerism and the tendency to ignore calamity, but he provides no real evidence that the technology itself is to blame as opposed to general human nature and corporate greed. On the other hand, Johnson claims that technology can force us to think in ways that are helpful to us in the long run, and while his evidence that it is being used in these ways is solid his conclusions may be a bit overreaching. Overall I agree with the essentials of both arguments, but as for the specifics I'm more on Johnson's side.