Everything Bad is Good for You

Jun 14, 2007 trivialchemy rated it 1 of 5 stars Recommends it for: those who will believe anything they want to be true

This book makes the following its central thesis:
Because popular media (TV, video games, movies, etc.) are becoming more complex, and requiring more cognitive work to process them, they are making us smarter. This is the so-called "sleeper curve."

The logic of this argument is identical to the claim, "market heroin is steadily growing in purity, therefore heroin is good for us." HOW DOES ANYONE BELIEVE THIS RUBBISH? It wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that its target audience consists o...more

7 likes · like · see review

Jul 15, 2010 Architeuthis rated it 3 of 5 stars

Shelves: philosophy, 2000s

Despite the critical readers on here giving this book one star for not, you know, being RELIABLE, I'm going with four. I'm rating it based on what I usually rate books on: entertainment value.

That said, the logic here is severely shitty. Thesis: modern films, television, and other technologies are more complex than they used to be. People nowadays have slightly higher IQs on average than they used to have. Therefore, modern media is making people smarter.

This is flawed in too many ways to name...more Despite the critical readers on here giving this book one star for not, you know, being RELIABLE, I'm going with four. I'm rating it based on what I usually rate books on: entertainment value.

That said, the logic here is severely shitty. Thesis: modern films, television, and other technologies are more complex than they used to be. People nowadays have slightly higher IQs on average than they used to have. Therefore, modern media is making people smarter.

This is flawed in too many ways to name, but I'm gonna give it a shot: first of all, I don't think "Transformers 2" or "Harry Potter 6" are really that much more complex than "Alien" or "Taxi Driver," thankya very much. Movies now, as I notice every fucking time I go to one, FUCKING SUCK THESE DAYS. Have y'all seen "Repo Men"?

Television, if we just look at shows like "The West Wing," "House," "Lost," and "The Sopranos," looks like a pretty thoughtful terrain. But we can't forget about "2 and a Half Men," "The Flava of Love," and "The Bachelor." Television has more stations now, so the variety is a lot greater than it was back in the days of "Green Acres," but most of it's still pretty stupid.

And other technologies? Well, there's this website, which pretty much proves the web is frickin' awesome. But, you know, there's also this: . The web is a pretty mixed bag. We have greater ACCESS to knowledge through the web, but I don't think that proves the average man in Pennsylvania actually uses it for anything but finding videos of midget sex or watching goofy videos on YouTube. (No offense to PA; that was a totally random state.)

Those are my qualms with the first of the three sentences of his thesis. Let me sum up for the rest: The IQ test is fallible and culturally biased, and even if sentence 1 and 2 were sufficiently proven, the third sentence wouldn't hold true, because correlation doesn't prove causation.

Why would we not assume that, as people naturally get smarter through evolution or eating their Wheaties, they will start wanting more complex forms of entertainment? Why is entertainment the cause, not the effect?

Okay, done ranting about the logical suckiness at work here. THIS BOOK WAS FUN! His arguments were outlandish and creative, and I would love to think that by watching "The West Wing" I'm strengthening my synapses. I'd also love to think that my time playing "Grand Theft Auto" was me challenging myself with a difficult game. I personally thought I was just running around and shooting people with flamethrowers. The coolest thing was when you were such a menace that the army tanks started coming after you! Did anybody actually play that game the way they were supposed to?

And is "The Legend of Zelda" any more challenging than playing poker, or Dungeons and Dragons? D&D go back a long way, and poker a looooooong way. So, no. Homeboy doesn't know what the shit he is saying.

Read this for some nonfiction entertainment, when you want some trash but don't feel like reading something about vampires or killer crabs. (less)

16 likes · like · see review

Dec 16, 2008 Michael rated it 4 of 5 stars

In Everything Bad is Good for You, Johnson attempts to de-bunk the popular narrative that the culture industry is making us stupider, by feeding us more and more banal television shows, video games, and movies. He argues for understanding a Sleeper Curve in popular culture that is actually making texts more complicated over time. That is, many video games, television shows, Internet sites, and movies are making us smarter by challenging out mental faculties: we have to make more mental and socia...more In Everything Bad is Good for You, Johnson attempts to de-bunk the popular narrative that the culture industry is making us stupider, by feeding us more and more banal television shows, video games, and movies. He argues for understanding a Sleeper Curve in popular culture that is actually making texts more complicated over time. That is, many video games, television shows, Internet sites, and movies are making us smarter by challenging out mental faculties: we have to make more mental and social connections, these texts leave out information that we have to figure out, and they rely on delayed gratification, and we have to figure out the rules of the game/text because they aren't told to us explicitly.

Johnson shows that IQ tests scores have been improving over the last few decades, and while it's problematic to compare IQ tests across cultures, races, and locations (because the tests probably are biased), it's not as problematic to compare them across generations. (He readily admits that IQ tests don't actually test all of our mental capacities, but rather serve as an indicator that at least gives us some data.)

I think Johnson provides some pretty good nuance to his book and gives some pretty strong evidence for his case. A lot of the first half of the book reads like James Paul Gee's What Video Games Can Teach Us about Learning and Literacy, though without the methodological explanation and some of the depth. Additionally, Johnson is clear to explain that he's not advocating quitting reading books, and that books do provide a kind of intellectual work unique to them. He's less likely to see declined book reading as a threat to culture, because he notes that all sorts of activities are in decline (television viewing, movie going, etc.). Also, he's not advocating playing video games 24/7, and he cautions that his book is not about the effects of texts' contents (e.g., violence, sexism, etc.). He argues that "[t]he work of the critic, in this instance, is to diagram those forces [neurological appetites, economics of culture industry, changing technological platforms], not decode them" (10).

Overall, this is a pretty good read and makes a convincing case. I am inclined to agree with him, though I do wonder more about the economic effects of all of this, and who benefits and who is left out of his narrative. Johnson, defending himself against critiques of his book that he is supporting capitalism, notes that some of the effects of gaming culture have been to question capitalist notions of private property, and also states that he sees himself as "much more of a technological determinist than an economic determinist." He doesn't want to ask "What is capitalism doing to our minds? Rather, the question is: What is the reigning technological paradigm — combined with both market and public-sector forces — doing to our minds?" (205). While I don't see myself as much of a determinist, I do think there is much to be said of the economic consequences (who is getting rich, and who is "feeding" those that get rich). Additionally, what does it much matter if we are getting cognitively smarter when most those energies are focused on perpetuating a capitalist system? Okay, that's cynical. It matters. But, from my vantage point, systems analysis needs to be coupled with an imagination for what's outside the system: what other worlds are possible, and how can they be achieved? Perhaps this is best left to follow up work to Johnson's text.(less)

4 likes · like · see review

Sep 29, 2010 Richard rated it 5 of 5 stars

Shelves: non-fiction, technology, social-political, really-deep-thinking

Sept 2010 update below.

Excellent book. Not a convincing argument, but a very refreshing and provocative contrarian perspective.

Johnson provides evidence that much of our mass entertainment, even the stuff we often shudder at, is gradually pushing the IQs of its consumers steadily up. He focuses our attention on aspects of television -- including reality TV!, video games, and much else in this effort.

Two things are crucial to note, though.

First, Johnson’s title and subtitle (”How Today’s Popular...more

4 likes · like · see review

Dec 10, 2007 Arlynda rated it 1 of 5 stars Recommends it for: no one.

Shelves: book-club

This book is so poorly written that I don't know where to begin. By the end of the introduction, Steven Johnson has already told us that he doesn't care about morals, and apparently neither should we. Well, I do. Knowledge with out serious thought about the implications of misuse of such knowledge is worse than ignorance. I think that nuclear technology is amazing, but I don't think that we should make bombs out of it and use them. Morals helps us to decide how to use technology. I think that a...more

4 likes · like · see review

Sep 16, 2010 Greg Heldt rated it 2 of 5 stars Recommends it for: anyone pining to validate those lost years watching television.

Correlation and causation; there's a difference, and the author doesn't understand it.

A sensational thesis opens the discussion: those once-dismissed hours spent playing video games watching reality TV are actually making you smarter!

Sounds too good to be true, right? That depends if you buy the author's argument: the average IQ has continued to rise over the past 30 years due to more intellectually demanding media, i.e., more complex video games, film, and television. Sadly, the author's case...more

4 likes · like · see review

Dec 19, 2007 Tracey rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: libraryread, pop-sociology

First heard about this on NPR's Morning Edition in May; then Johnson appeared on The Daily Show early in June. I'd read his Mind Wide Open a month or two ago & really enjoyed it, so I put this book on hold at the library.

Johnson's basic theory is that popular culture has gotten more complex and challenging over the last few decades, and our consumption of such has assisted us with problem solving and dealing with complex relationships, referring to this as the Sleeper Curve. He also referenc...more

1 like · like · see review

Jul 29, 2007 Elise rated it 2 of 5 stars Recommends it for: Mom, Dad, gamers and couch potatoes

What's nice about Steven Johnson's Everything Bad Is Good For You is that you can finish it in several short sittings. Three cheers for that. The book is quick and succinct, an easy but thoughtful and though-provoking read.

Johnson argues that over the last three decades, popular culture has become more complex, sophisticated and challenging, in spite of everybody's eagerness to dub it "lowbrow fluff." That is, for all the crap they get, programs on "the idiot box" and "those damn video games" ar...more

3 likes · like · see review

Jun 04, 2007 Ryan rated it 1 of 5 stars

i wanted to throw this book against a wall, many, many times while reading it.

my main problem with the book is the lack of data to support the hypothesis that johnson argues. if it were simply a polemic arguing that media has become more complex, and that complexity warrants closer inspection and not dismissal, i'd forgive it.

however, johnson begins the book by admitting that he isn't a scientist and then goes on to try to support his claims with scientific data. i'm not a scientist either, but...more

3 likes · like · see review

Jul 31, 2011 Jennifer rated it 2 of 5 stars

A little bit repetitive and somewhat simplistic, but an interesting idea to explore the complexity of popular culture and how it compares to television, videogames, and other distracting entertainment technology. Johnson's basic argument is that popular culture today requires more from its audience-more mental involvement, whether it is making decisions in a highly complicated video adventure game, or arguing the pros and cons of keeping particular reality show characters on the island / on the...more

1 like · like · see review

Oct 08, 2008 Lindsay rated it 3 of 5 stars

Shelves: genre-x

I found Johnson's argument that pop culture has become more complex to be interesting, even compelling. I'm still not sure I completely agree with him, but if nothing else it gave me a little more respect for video games and the people who play them. One thing that did bother me (and perhaps it's because I've been spending a lot of time lately reminding students to evaluate their information sources) is that I didn't get a good sense of Johnson's credentials. Based on some of the things he menti...more

1 like · like · see review

Dec 08, 2008 Ruby rated it 3 of 5 stars

Shelves: commentary-essays, sociology, psychology-self-help

(Social Commentary)—Everyone knows how captivating popular technology is--it sucks you right in and can chew up vast amounts of your time. In the midst of our addiction, we all intuitively believe that this is a bad thing. Johnson believes otherwise. He argues convincingly that modern computer gaming and television programming actually challenge us intellectually in a way that improves our capability to navigate a complicated world. He is willingly to concede however that while we may be getting...more

like · see review

Mar 02, 2013 Celena O'brien rated it 4 of 5 stars

“Everything Bad Is Good For You” by Steven Johnson strives to make the argument that popular culture, in the new millennium is more complex and disperses more information than it did in the 1970's, despite the media's claims that it has been intellectually declining to satiate the masses. Johnson maintains that popular culture is actually advancing societies cognitive abilities, thereby allowing us to retrieve and maintain information, and mainstream media is more challenging because the popula...more “Everything Bad Is Good For You” by Steven Johnson strives to make the argument that popular culture, in the new millennium is more complex and disperses more information than it did in the 1970's, despite the media's claims that it has been intellectually declining to satiate the masses. Johnson maintains that popular culture is actually advancing societies cognitive abilities, thereby allowing us to retrieve and maintain information, and mainstream media is more challenging because the population is demanding more stimulating material. He tries to prove this point by giving examples of recent video games, television shows, the use of the internet and current films. Johnson organizes his argument around his theory of the “sleeper curve” which is his assertion that mainstream media can be “nutritional” (9) after all, and is not as detrimental as the media portrays.
The book is written for the average nonfiction reader and does not require previous knowledge about popular culture or cognitive abilities. He transitions to different main subjects by the sporadic use of headers, not chapters, which can be disoriented because of the pace in which he changes his train of thought. He also breaks down the book into two parts. Part “one” focuses on types of media and examples of the increasing complexity, and part “two” focuses on evidence for his argument. Johnson does not always adhere to these subjects though and often goes of on tangents, such as long winded summaries of how an average Zelda or Pac-man game plays out. These two summaries alone take up a total four pages, in an almost bullet list fashion, without adding much to his argument besides the obvious advancement in video game technology.
Johnson gives many valid examples of mainstream media becoming more complex, such as comparing the 1970's episodic series “Dragnet” and the serial series “The West Wing.” The latter series he claims involves more plot twists and complex characters, thus enhancing our cognitive abilities as a result. He also claims that the same is true for new video games like Zelda compared to PacMan. Johnson tries his best to link the new media with the Flynn Effect in IQ scores but relies on his own conjecture and not much evidence to the correlation between the two.
A valid argument that Johnson makes is that new technology, coming at us at an ever faster pace, challenges us cognitively to keep up with the basics of our technological world, such as new software, new gaming systems, new social media crazes From AIM to Facebook and every blog you can imagine. He also convinces the reader that new social media, as mentioned above, is causing people to write, read, and interact with each other more than previous technology ever did.
All in all, Johnson's book makes you feel a little less guilty about your guilty pleasures and less worried about the media prophecy of doom for mainstream media. (less)

like · see review

Nov 01, 2012 Mohammad Abdelkhalek rated it 4 of 5 stars

the book we have here is divided into two parts, the first part is arguing that the popular media (Games, Tv, the internet, film) has developed so much complexity in the past few decades, a complexity that made us smarter by challenging our brains to process more data, the second part is telling us why the media has grown so complex in the first place.

But before we jump into quick judgments about the book, let's first try to understand what the book is actually trying to tell us, the book is try...more

1 like · like · see review

Sep 27, 2011 Patrick McCoy rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: criticism, non-fiction

I have to say that Steven Johnson, author of Everything Bad For You Is Good For You, is a persuasive individual. He starts off by identifying the “Sleeper Curve”-which is how in the Woody Allen film, of the same name, things that were thought to be bad, deep fat, steak, cream pies, and hot fudge in the future are good. I never thought that I would budge from the position that there is nothing redeeming about computer games, but Johnson has shown that the role playing games in particular require...more I have to say that Steven Johnson, author of Everything Bad For You Is Good For You, is a persuasive individual. He starts off by identifying the “Sleeper Curve”-which is how in the Woody Allen film, of the same name, things that were thought to be bad, deep fat, steak, cream pies, and hot fudge in the future are good. I never thought that I would budge from the position that there is nothing redeeming about computer games, but Johnson has shown that the role playing games in particular require problem solving skills to advance in the game and cites The Simms and Grand Theft Auto as examples-there are 100 page step guides that have been written to help gamers proceed through the varying levels of the game. He says often these games promote “telescoping”-which involves solving short term problems like slaying a dragon, while being cognizant of the end game goal rescuing the princess.

He also goes onto to explain how television challenges today like at no other time. He shows how comparatively a show like Dragnet, which required little thought to process the story, has evolved into The Sopranos, which has a large ensemble cast and requires knowledge of the characters and the shows past history, as well as the need to follow the story in progress for foreshadowing. The complexity of the show is validated by its repeated watchability-a factor that has made Seinfeld’s and The Simpson’s creators incredibly rich on syndication rights. He takes this a step further, when he analyzes reality TV. He compares it the game shows of the past like The Price Is Right, which is a simple game in which the rules are set. A show like The Apprentice can throw a curveball. His example was that they brought back fired employees to work for the two remaining contestants, which would show whether or not hey were well-like by their former competitors-a factor that wasn’t considered by the contestants. Furthermore, it invites participation as the theoretical water cooler talks that take place between people and more increasingly on the net promotes the reading and writing and cognitive analysis of not only game shows, but also other shows like Lost and 24 where speculation is half of the fun.

In part Two, he explains how these changes in mass entertainment have resulted in greater intelligence. He cites the rise of the middle section of IQ scores over the years as well as the fact that though the internet people read write more than have in the past. I’m not doing Johnson justice, but he makes a good case that things might not be as bad as they are made to be by the media and other cultural critics. An interesting and provocative read that is not unlike those that I have recently read like The Tipping Point or Freakonimcs.(less)

like · see review

Sep 21, 2011 Virginia Bryant added it

nice try, but i still am not convinced that being parked in front of an electric monitor is healthy. Yes, he does have a point that we are forced to learn more to deal with this brave new electronic world, but some of us already have interests that have little to do with that field of expertise, and it is more than a little annoying to be forced to put time and energy into these activities to function in the daily world, when we already HAVE agendas and projects we want to give our 100% attentio...more nice try, but i still am not convinced that being parked in front of an electric monitor is healthy. Yes, he does have a point that we are forced to learn more to deal with this brave new electronic world, but some of us already have interests that have little to do with that field of expertise, and it is more than a little annoying to be forced to put time and energy into these activities to function in the daily world, when we already HAVE agendas and projects we want to give our 100% attentions to!
This is written by a younger person who works with wired. The second association is an obvious influence, and having vast quantities of time wrested from us is not nearly so annoying when life seems to go on forever.
There was one bit that was especially vexing, that, "in late 2004 the Department of Justice and Education released a joint study that showed violent crime in the nation's schools had been literally cut in half over the ten year period from 1992 to 2002-----------" and attributing this to the "pacifying forces (interesting use of that second word), "better policing, higher incarceration rates, or low unemployment" YOU'VE GOT TO BE KIDDING! violent crime was probably reported as very low in Hitler's germany too, because the government and its agents were perpetuating all the violence! As for the higher incarceration rates, most of these are drug busts and nonviolent crimes, which cost taxpayers more than the education and other resources would have cost that pre-empt the despair of those so without hope that drugs seem the only answer. These are part of arguments that attempt to justify the trashy value systems and violence propagated by the mass media by someone who profits from it and is therefor unable to see the harms it causes.

For the most part, this is an informed look at the world through a younger person's eyes. There were some interesting book references, but as an older woman informed by the viewpoints of 60's activism and a hands on craft person, it was slow going.
(less)

like · see review

Aug 07, 2011 Ron rated it 1 of 5 stars

A blurb from Malcolm Gladwell promises shallow analysis and pseudo-intellectual posturing, and Johnson doesn't disappoint. His failure is a stated desire to diagram and not decode, which closes his argument to qualitative judgement. Like Gladwell, Johnson dresses up old concepts like subliminal forms (Sleeper Curve and Collateral Learning) and exploration and foresight (probing and telescoping) in pretty new clothes to appear to offer new insight, instead stretching the limits of credibility in...more A blurb from Malcolm Gladwell promises shallow analysis and pseudo-intellectual posturing, and Johnson doesn't disappoint. His failure is a stated desire to diagram and not decode, which closes his argument to qualitative judgement. Like Gladwell, Johnson dresses up old concepts like subliminal forms (Sleeper Curve and Collateral Learning) and exploration and foresight (probing and telescoping) in pretty new clothes to appear to offer new insight, instead stretching the limits of credibility in his zeal to rationalize modern media as the reason for a recent apparent (it is false) jump in IQ.

The problem here is that games are closed systems with an internal logic that has no correlation to the real world (he complains that novels are the realm of the author's mind, while failing to see the same in these puzzle makers). He fails to see the falseness of these 'interactions' and offers no valid research from neuroscience (all of which argues that games are damaging to brain function) and relies often on quotes from Henry Jenkins, who is notable for having no scientific credentials as a Comm Arts professor.

Johnson claims that baseball dice simulations caused him to think in powerful new ways, but he fails to see that the content of violent games will have the same subliminal effect on the player that he purports the structure of the game (citing McLuhan on the medium being the message) will have on logic and our thinking capacity. I could go on endlessly about his absurd assertions about urban life being more complex than rural (tell that to a microbiologist) or his failure to make the proper connections about the popularity of Dickens (it was a less literate, more impoverished age where perhaps 10 people read each book, which would make it the equal in popularity of a show that draws 10 million viewers), but we should just end all of this by recognizing that he sees no harm in how these entertainments churn out soulless logic-based automatons who are ripe to be plugged into the corporate matrix and are incapable of human interaction. In the words of the gamer geeks: EPIC FAIL. (less)

like · see review

Jul 31, 2011 Michael Dorosh rated it 5 of 5 stars

Very good book, written from the perspective of a teenaged gamer made good.

Johnson played games as a kid, baseball strategy games, as well as Dungeons and Dragons, and one can detect a certain bias in his outlook. However, his statistical references and footnotes make this book a scholarly look at popular culture - in particular movies, TV and videogames - and is a nice refutation of the "our culture is going into the toilet" crowd.

Johnson argues - to me, convincingly - that even though modern m...more

like · see review

May 15, 2011 Ed Wagemann rated it 1 of 5 stars

If everything bad is actually good for you, like the title of Steve Johnson’s study of pop culture suggests, then his book must be the best thing since penicillin. In attempting to make the argument that pop culture is actually making mankind smarter, Johnson is guilty of huge lapses in logic which stems from a very limited view of reality that pretty much totally misses the point on almost every level. Even the one tool of pop culture that actually is improving mankind, that being the internet...more If everything bad is actually good for you, like the title of Steve Johnson’s study of pop culture suggests, then his book must be the best thing since penicillin. In attempting to make the argument that pop culture is actually making mankind smarter, Johnson is guilty of huge lapses in logic which stems from a very limited view of reality that pretty much totally misses the point on almost every level. Even the one tool of pop culture that actually is improving mankind, that being the internet (since the internet has obviously evolved into one of the most important sources of information and communication in modernized civilization), Johnson’s off-base argument is that the Internet’s value comes from its ability to allow fans of pop TV shows to gossip about the fictional characters and plots in their favorite the shows. What he doesn’t explain—probably since it isn’t true—is how gossiping on a Desperate Housewives website better is for you than actually talking to a live person about real things happening in your real life.
Throughout his book Johnson continues to grasp for straws as he reaches one bizarre, unscientific conclusion after another in his attempts to legitimize all the time he has wasted in his life watching sitcom/melodrama TV and playing fantasy games on the computer. One such bizarre conclusion Johnson reaches is that “most” video games do to the “reward” circuitry of the brain what the game Tetris does to one’s visual circuitry. Never mind that he can’t cite any scientific proof for this, most likely since this claim is in fact a totally unfounded conclusion. Johnson rationalizes that the time, energy and money he has wasted during his life on playing video games is making him more evolved by arguing that millions of other people have wasted just as much of their time on these same video games. So it must be good for you right? That’s the kind of pedestrian logic that Johnson’s book is littered with. This is bad stuff, but Johnson compounds his illogical conclusions with a bad habit of making annoyingly off-base generalizations. He says things like people don’t “explore” movies or music in anything but the most figurative way. That’s obviously false. Even the village idiot knows that movies and music have many layers (in which the more you learn about, the better you can experience them in various ways).
So less than 60 pages into his book it became obvious that Johnson is an ignamaroon. His main problem is that his view of the world is limited strictly to the world of pop culture. He seems to think the entire world watches as much TV as he does, plays as many video games as he does, and spends all the rest of their time sitting in front of a computer screen gossiping with others about the latest Survivor episode. And although there are certainly millions of Americans that do spend hours in their parents basement hypnotized by the intricacies of fantasy video game worlds, and millions who have closer relationships to fictional TV characters than they do with real humans, Johnson offers no statistics as to how many or to what extent, and he certainly doesn’t explain how all of this is bettering mankind. He just assumes that everybody is like him, totally ignoring (or perhaps he doesn’t realize the fact) that many people simply use video games, TV and movies as diversions from their daily lives for a few hours of entertainment here and there, not as the sole tool for giving their life a purpose.
I guess what I found most offensive about Johnson’s book was his attempt to promote being obsessed with pop culture as being for the betterment of mankind. To me there is no benefit to society in having a worldview that is limited in scope to nothing but pop culture. In fact it makes me wonder how those who are seeing the world from such a limited view are interacting with the real world and affecting it at all. From reading Johnson’s book it wouldn’t surprise me in the least if Johnson (and those others with the limited perspective of a pop culture junky) would rather have someone who was a champion player at Sims 2000 become mayor of his city over someone with real world city council experience who has dealt with the complexities of community politics. It also wouldn’t surprise me if they would rather have a champion Nintendo player managing their favorite baseball team over someone who was an actual former big leaguer. And who, I wonder would they want as the top policy makers of America’s Department of Defense, a hotshot whiz at Dungeon and Dragons and Command and Conquer or someone who had military experience in real world conflicts? The point I’m trying to make here is that while the couch potatoes that make up the population in Johnson’s world are doing amazing things on a video game or coming up with incredible insights to reality TV show strategies, it is the people who are actually living in the real world who are putting their stamp on reality. Obviously video games cause you to make decisions while playing, but so does taking a walk, so does hiking or biking or rock climbing or going to a library or music store or a job interview. The difference of course is that in real life your decisions have real life consequences, consequences that actually matter. In video games they don’t. In video games you can start over, you can use ‘cheats’, you can be killed and come back to life.
Johnson doesn’t seem to get this. In fact he compares playing video games to studying Algebra. And although mastering algebra may not give the average person skills that they use every single day in real life, Johnson doesn’t site even one skill that is learned from playing a video game that is going to help the average person in real life. Johnson’s main argument is that video games cause the player to ‘probe’ and ‘telescope’ yet he doesn’t explain how these two skills have any relation to real life. Without any scientific research on the subject, it seems pretty obvious that skills you learn playing a video game are not likely going to be skills that will help you in real life, and one reason for that is that in video games the possibilities of what you can do are all limited to the confines of the game. In real life hobbies like biking or taking roadtrips, even collecting baseball cards, you can make up any rules and values you want. You determine the goals instead of having some fabricated limitations assigned to your ‘character’.
I do however concede that the Internet is a good tool for mankind, although Johnson’s case for it is way off base. I also see how video games can be of some minimal benefit, beyond just entertainment. But by far the weakest of Johnson’s many weak arguments is that pop culture is making mankind smarter because TV show narratives have become more complex and that their characters have become more complex. That’s probably true if you are comparing them to TV characters of 30 years ago, then yes, perhaps they are more complex. But compared to real people, or even compared to literary characters, or film characters then no, they are not more complex. In fact most of what I’ve seen on TV is rehashed and repackaged bits, plots and characters from older foreign films, off-Broadway theatre and radio programs of yesteryear. Again Johnson doesn’t seem to get this. In fact at one point in his book Johnson goes on and on for several pages, making a total fool of himself by blubbering on about what a cutting edge and original technique is employed in Sienfeld by something that is nothing more than a simple running gag. In this case the running gag is that the character George Costanza uses a false name (Art Van Delay) to try to impress people. Even though similar running gags go back to the beginnings of performance, Johnson treats it as if it’s the most original and creative thing since sliced bread. Yet he offers no explanation at how this running gag is any more creative than Jack Benny’s ‘tightwad’ jokes or Mr. Ropers ‘turn to the camera and grin’ bit that was worked into several Three’s Company episodes.
Still, this doesn’t prevent Johnson from concluding that these more complex TV characters and narratives are turning all of mankind into this super insightful observer that can read emotions, intentions and motives better than someone who doesn’t watch TV shows. And the ridiculous thing about Johnson’s limited thinking is that if people really are learning their life lessons from so-called “complex” TV characters and content, and if they are really operating under the false notion that being an expert on what strategies Reality show characters should use, or what plot twist the Sopranos is going to take, makes them an expert on real life issues, then they are going to make some terrible decisions in real life. I’m talking “voting for George W. Bush” caliber terrible decisions.
Overall, due to the carelessness of thought and the over rationalization and leaps in logic Johnson makes in nearly every one of his arguments, it’s becomes way too easy to dismiss his entire book as nonsense. I recommend you ignore this book completely.
(less)

2 likes · like · see review

Feb 27, 2011 Michael Scott rated it 3 of 5 stars

Shelves: compsci-tech, non-fiction, thought

The trend of publishing idea books (books that argue in favor of a central, seemingly narrow, thesis) has grown in the past decade, from Malcolm Gladwell's The Tipping Point (and others) to Cheap Heath's Made to Stick to Nassim Taleb's The Black Swan to James Surowiecki's The Wisdom of Crowds. Besides structure, they all have in common the ability to raise discussion about the idea they champion. (This may stem from their rather poor academic standard and their mostly qualitative rather than qua...more The trend of publishing idea books (books that argue in favor of a central, seemingly narrow, thesis) has grown in the past decade, from Malcolm Gladwell's The Tipping Point (and others) to Cheap Heath's Made to Stick to Nassim Taleb's The Black Swan to James Surowiecki's The Wisdom of Crowds. Besides structure, they all have in common the ability to raise discussion about the idea they champion. (This may stem from their rather poor academic standard and their mostly qualitative rather than quantitative arguments.)

In Everything Bad is Good for You, Steven Johnson argues that what many Western people perceive as an increasingly dumb popular culture, expressed in new media such as television, Internet, and gaming, is in fact an increasingly complex culture that expresses in complex socio-technical ways incomparable with the expression of the past. Johnson argues that, while the top-of-the-class for these new media would not be much better than the equivalent in "old" media (traditional writing), the average would be much better---he calls this effect the "sleeper curve". He sets out to compare structurally (systemically) rather than semiotically the contents of TV programs and computer games over the past four decades, and argues through anecdotal evidence that an evolution in the complexity of these shows exists. He also argues that decision making and understanding are skills that are more actively required by the new media of the 2000s, as TV shows and computer games become tied to an economic model that requires replay rather than one-time experience.

In the remainder of the book, Johnson steps into speculation territory and tries to link the increase in the complexity of pop culture expression to non-so-well-documented increases in the ability of the general population to solve problems (increases in the average IQ over time) and to interact. In other words, he tries to argue that the increased media complexity, and bombarding with it our kids and average Joes, are responsible for making our kids and average Joes more able in solving problems and in interacting with each other. It's possible, but the argument presented in this book does not explore enough alternative hypotheses and it is not sound enough to be acceptable.

An informed reader could raise many issues about the arguments formulated in this book. Since many of these arguments are just rehashes of the old (ironically, Internet-based) debates that preceded the book, I will refrain from stating them. In hindsight, computer games have not continued their evolution towards complexity; in fact, the most popular games in 2010 were FarmVille and Mafia Wars, two casual games that tone down and popularize (trivialize?) the complexity of previous games such as SimCity (discussed in Everything Bad is Good for You). Although series such as The Big Bang Theory started with poli-faceted characters and unexpected plot turns, their later seasons have turned to more stereotypical characters and plots. Perhaps we are witnessing a dumbing down of the new media, after all? Herher, at least the IQs of my friends seem to be still growing.

Overall, an interesting book but I'm not sure it brings forth something new, either in the topic or in the argument.
(less)

like · see review

Dec 26, 2010 Nenia Campbell rated it 3 of 5 stars

Shelves: x-2005s

This book has a very interesting premise, which is that all those things condemned by the media--the boob tube, internet, video games--might not actually be as bad for us as we're led to think. In fact, if you buy Johnson's logic, they might actually be GOOD for you.

However, I don't really buy Johnson's logic. As a Psychology major, I'm pretty familiar with most of the studies he cites in his book. And he succumbs to a temptation many amateurs do: ascribing causation to correlations. For example...more This book has a very interesting premise, which is that all those things condemned by the media--the boob tube, internet, video games--might not actually be as bad for us as we're led to think. In fact, if you buy Johnson's logic, they might actually be GOOD for you.

However, I don't really buy Johnson's logic. As a Psychology major, I'm pretty familiar with most of the studies he cites in his book. And he succumbs to a temptation many amateurs do: ascribing causation to correlations. For example, the London cabdriver study. He neglects to mention the significance of this (due to how old London is, the streets are INCREDIBLY complex). All he says is that cabdrivers have bigger hippocampi. His conclusion: Our brains are plastic! If a cabdriver can increase the size of his hippocampus, imagine what's going on in our brains by watching these fantastically complicated TV shows!

I have a huge problem with this because while your brain IS more plastic than scientists have been led to believe in the last few decades, it is not that plastic. The reason older cabdrivers might have larger hippocampi than the younger cabdrivers might simply be because their physiology predispositions them to be better at their job. The crappy younger drivers probably get weeded out, proving that size, at least in terms of the hippocampus, does matter.

Secondly, I took issue with the fact that Johnson condemned reading as an asocial, passive activity in comparison to video games. WHAT? Excuse me, but some of those gamers lock themselves in their rooms for ten hours as a stretch, mining ore or selling feathers for the whole time. I fail to see how reading a book is less mentally engaging than that. Especially since a reader (a good one, anyway) generally creates a mental landscape, letting the world unfold inside their head as the story progresses. How is that passive? It takes far more creativity to create a world in your head and THEN keep track of all the social connections than it does to passively make tic marks while watching TV.

He made some good points, but his premises suck.(less)

1 like · like · see review

Feb 23, 2010 Jessica rated it 2 of 5 stars

Shelves: 2010, adult-non-fiction, library-or-education

Johnson discusses the background and implications of what he calls "The Sleeper Curve" or the positive cognitive impact popular media has on the mass culture. In a nutshell, he relates how today's video games, television, and movies, are created with the expectations that players/viewers will be active participants parsing out relevant details, organizing the social networks in their own minds, and taking advantage of syndication, TiVo, etc. to watch episodes over and over (calling for a complex...more

1 like · like · see review

Jul 23, 2009 Daniel Solera rated it 2 of 5 stars

Shelves: pop-culture

Ironically, this was a difficult read. Not because the theme is hard to digest, or because Johnson's diction is criminally elevated (neither of those are true), but because I couldn't really decide whether I believed him.

The crux of Johnson's argument relies on the increasing complexity with which our popular culture is deliberately built, a complexity which forces its audience to multi-task, follow and understand multiple narrative threads, all the while developing advanced cognitive abilities...more Ironically, this was a difficult read. Not because the theme is hard to digest, or because Johnson's diction is criminally elevated (neither of those are true), but because I couldn't really decide whether I believed him.

The crux of Johnson's argument relies on the increasing complexity with which our popular culture is deliberately built, a complexity which forces its audience to multi-task, follow and understand multiple narrative threads, all the while developing advanced cognitive abilities and therefore becoming “smarter”. He then goes on to describe the high-level thinking required of modern video games, movies, television shows and the internet.

I agree with him on only one of four claims.

It's no secret that I love video games, so forgive the bias. Because of rapid technological advances, many of the newest video games play cinematically, feature engrossing characters, convoluted storylines and play right into Johnson’s argument. He frequently cites Grand Theft Auto and popular simulation-based games like Civilization and the cultural phenomenon The Sims as landmark games that challenge the intellect much more than PacMan. In these cases, I agree. These multifaceted games are possible because of technological innovation, and required with these improvements are players who can handle tasks of greater difficulty. As a footnote, it is a mystery why Johnson overlooked Myst, an inarguably difficult experience and once the all-time bestselling computer game as an example.

But when it comes to movies and television shows, I don’t buy it. Although both mediums have benefited from technology and increased budgets, saying that newer movies are more complicated than older movies is a stretch and Johnson definitely cherry-picks his examples. He compares “Bambi” to “Finding Nemo” as an example of this progression, citing that you have to follow the lives of twenty characters. Even though it’s one of my all-time favorite movies, you can process the majority of “Finding Nemo” by following Marlin, Dory and Nemo. He even cites the Lord of the Rings trilogy, which is based on books that were written sixty years ago. To say that modern films are more complex today than they were in decades past is an obviously visual one, not one at all based on narrative technique. But that’s just me.

Finally, the most criminal case he makes is that of the internet. Like his modus operandi for the previous three arenas, Johnson picks only the true virtues of the internet to illustrate his point, and conveniently avoids the intellectual perils of Twitter, Facebook, MySpace, etc. He also reassures us that though we are reading fewer books, we are “spend[ing:] much of [our:] day staring at words on a screen: browsing the Web, reading e-mail, chatting with friends, posting a new entry to … 8 million blogs” (183). Because nothing increases our intelligence like reading amateurish articles devoid of any proofreading. This is the kind of apologetic ass-covering that plagues this book from start to finish.

In short, no, I don’t think reality television promotes high-level thinking, movies today are no less compelling and layered than they were forty years ago, and reading blogs over published works by reputable authors doesn’t make you a smarter person. Sure, you can make an argument for each of those if you pick and choose, but all in all, I’m not sold.(less)

2 likes · like · see review

May 17, 2009 Yune rated it 4 of 5 stars

I don't own a TV, and spent most of my life oblivious to the most popular TV shows. (I'm told I'm missing out on millions of Seinfeld references.) It's unsurprising that the friend who is introducing me to a few shows recommended this book. It actually made me feel better about starting to watch television.

Johnson starts by talking about video games, and how common perception is that kids are wasting their time on it. But he points out that much of playing video games is spent being frustrated (...more I don't own a TV, and spent most of my life oblivious to the most popular TV shows. (I'm told I'm missing out on millions of Seinfeld references.) It's unsurprising that the friend who is introducing me to a few shows recommended this book. It actually made me feel better about starting to watch television.

Johnson starts by talking about video games, and how common perception is that kids are wasting their time on it. But he points out that much of playing video games is spent being frustrated (cities revolting, unable to find the right key, dying, whatever is appropriate for the particular game), and asks why children would want to put themselves in that state. I was particularly taken aback by the comparison of game guides to Cliffs Notes.

Games offer a participatory method of figuring out a set rules, and Johnson argues that this is a problem-solving skill that we should actually encourage. SimCity got his nephew to utter, "I think we need to lower our industrial tax rates" -- a lesson he wouldn't have obtained from, say, an urban development class, where he probably would be asleep in minutes. When kids are able to send text messages or perform other technological feats that seem arcane to their parents, they're applying the mode of thinking learned from video games: how does this work? What can I do?

He goes on to discuss television shows from a couple of decades back, and how the rules then were to ensure every scene was self-evident: you could tell how people were related, and what was happening, and why. These days, shows employ running gags that may stretch from years back, have complex intertwined story threads, and often obscure information -- in short, taxing the watchers' brains in order to follow all this.

I found his arguments thought-provoking, although a tad, hmm, optimistic (he argues that the inflation of average IQ scores may be a reflection of how intelligence is enhanced by the growing complexity of pop culture). Highly recommended.(less)

like · see review

Apr 12, 2009 Eric_W rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: current-affairs

Johnson has written several books on science and technology and his analyses are provocative. He suggests that television has evolved from shows that are essentially linear, with few characters and a simple story line, to shows like "The Sopranos" in which a single show would encompass multiple narrative threads and characters who move in and out of the plot, often with little explanation, requiring the viewer to do a lot of "filling in." Television now forces an engagement of the viewer that fo...more Johnson has written several books on science and technology and his analyses are provocative. He suggests that television has evolved from shows that are essentially linear, with few characters and a simple story line, to shows like "The Sopranos" in which a single show would encompass multiple narrative threads and characters who move in and out of the plot, often with little explanation, requiring the viewer to do a lot of "filling in." Television now forces an engagement of the viewer that forces cognitive demands on the spectator.

Video games have evolved similarly. Today's games might require forty hours to complete and require the player to make strategic decisions based on multiple sources of information. "This is why many of us [me, certainly:] find modern video games baffling: we're not used to being in a situation where we have to figure out what to do. We think we only have to learn how to press the buttons faster."

A quote for us book lovers to mull over:

"Reading books chronically understimulates the senses. Unlike the longstanding tradition of game playing--which engages the child in a vivid, three-dimensional world filled with moving images and musical soundscapes, navigated and controlled with complex muscular movements--books are simply a barren string of words on the page. . . .
"Books are also tragically isolating [something I've always considered a benefit :))] While games have for many years engaged the young in complex social relationships with their peers, building and exploring worlds together, books force the child to sequester him or herself in a quiet space, shut off from interaction with other children. . . .
"But perhaps the most dangerous property of books is the fact that they follow a fixed linear path. You can't control their narratives in any fashion--you simply sit back and have the story dictated to you. . . .This risks instilling a general passivity in our children, making them feel as though they're powerless to change their circumstances. Reading is not an active, participatory process; it's a submissive one."

Johnson, in a jocular manner, is making the point that reading "is a form of explicit learning." Video games make you think. Of course, reading this book certainly got me thinking. . . .
(less)

like · see review

Feb 05, 2013 Kai Schreiber rated it 5 of 5 stars

A refreshing thesis and a convincingly told story, paired with a healthy dose of cultural and psychological optimism.

This would ordinarily have gotten four stars from me, but I give it five to cancel the silly deluge of very bad reviews based on sciencey catchphrasing and moral bias.

Yes, "correlation is not causation", thanks for the cliché, but Johnson doesn't really claim to have good evidence. In fact, he says quite clearly that he could have made the argument, as his evil twins on the other...more

like · see review

Aug 06, 2012 Douglas rated it 2 of 5 stars

Shelves: non-fiction

In a word; no. I came across this problem in a class I took in university that focused on digital literature and new media (the spectrum ranged from e-readers, video games, television shows and comic books). Because a medium involves the use of narrative does not mean that it constitutes a valid art form. By that definition the old guy at the sports bar regaling people with stories of his days in the navy is given equal weight as a novel simply because it contains a narrative. Steven Johnson foc...more

like · see review

Apr 05, 2011 Julie rated it 1 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: nonfiction, pop-culture, steven-johnson, did-not-finish

I give up. I was interested in reading this book because I love pop culture. I was expecting something lively, fun, and interesting, and what I got was a book that's boring, repetitive, and based entirely on conjecture.

Johnson's thesis is that since games and TV shows have become more complicated over the years, they require more of the audience's attention and thus make them smarter. That's the entire book. (I skipped ahead a little bit.)

I knew he'd lost me in the forward when he went on and on...more

1 like · like · see review

Jul 19, 2009 Olivia rated it 3 of 5 stars

Shelves: journalism

This book starts with attacking the popular notion that pop culture represented by games, TV, movies are bad for society, especially children. From my opinion, this book achieves to counterattack that notion by showing the complexity of pop culture stimulates learning. For example, children can learn how to organize a city in a fun way, not in a boring class session. I have to admit that this book opens up my mind in that part.

However this book fails to reason why violence in games, TVs, or mov...more

like · see review

Feb 05, 2009 Bookmarks Magazine added it · review of another edition

Though the research behind Johnson's theories proves interesting, most critics found a few quirks in the construction of its delivery. Driven by a fervent desire to prove that today's media are more beneficial to the human mind than they are damaging, Johnson, author of several books on science and technology (see Mind Wide Open, **** May/June 2004), fails to adequately define his agenda other than showcasing his research. Though his prose is captivating and his enthusiasm infectious, Johnson do

...more

1 like · like · see review

topics	posts	views	last activity
Reading Alternate Dimension	1	3	Apr 30, 2012 10:22am
Reading Alternate Dimension	1	1	Apr 30, 2012 10:22am
Reading Alternate Dimension	1	1	Apr 30, 2012 10:22am

title link	preview: Everything Bad is Good for You
avg rating	preview: Everything Bad is Good for You Goodreads rating: 3.48 (2600 ratings)
small image	preview: click here [close]
med image	preview: click here [close]
BBCode	[url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/36085.Everything_Bad_is_Good_for_You?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book][img]http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1309284758l/36085.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/36085.Everything_Bad_is_Good_for_You?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book]Everything Bad is Good for You by Steven Johnson[/url]

Everything Bad is Good for You

Friend Reviews

Lists with This Book

Community Reviews

new topic
Discuss This Book

combine
Other Editions

Genres

Readers also enjoyed similar books

About Steven Johnson

Books by Steven Johnson

Share This Book

Share This Book on Your Website

Trivia About Everything Bad is...