Bad vs. Good
I just picked up a copy of “Everything Bad is Good for you” by Steven Johnson. The premise is simple: From generation to generation, human beings have become more intelligent (based on IQ tests, and non-education-based exams) as a direct result of popular culture and media (ie. games, film, tv). While I don’t know if I wholeheartedly agree with the theory, it does make a lot of sense.
Johnson argues that the way that we use our brains to participate in this new media-style has helped to improve our problem-solving abilities. For instance, video games such as Tetris have made it a common practice to spin and rotate different shapes very easily. While this wasn’t difficult before - for those of you that have played Tetris for several hours know that after a while you’re seeing shapes with your eyes closed and moving things around in your head. Games don’t just improve your hand-eye coordination, they also improve your problem-solving skills.
The same is true with Television. If you take a show like “I Love Lucy” from the 1950’s and compare the show to The Sopranos or even 24 - the differences are astounding. In “Lucy,” you have few main characters (Lucy, Ricky, etc.) that face one or two small problems. All related to the main theme of the show. In The Sopranos, however, you have between 12 and 20 characters in a given episode - all of which have subplots and storylines that can extend beyond the borders of the episode. In Lucy, the problems tend to be resolved within the span of the 30 minute broadcast, and this is definitely not the case with The Sopranos.
So, while I do agree that this has had something to do with the way that our mind works, I don’t know if I can make a direct correlation to higher IQ scores. I think there are just so many factors that can result in this (evolution, for one), that I don’t think it can be based purely on media.. but it is an interesting concept and a great read. I highly recommend it.
UPDATE:
Oh, the irony. In Today’s Boston Globe, there’s an article about video gaming and how to manage video gaming time for kids. I think this is the complete opposite end of the spectrum in how kids should be raised. Read the article here: http://doiop.com/gaming.
Gaming’s initial appeal is the chance to escape your problems, whatever they are, because you get so engrossed, so wrapped up..”
This has to be the most ridiculous sentence in the entire article for two reasons. One, it begins with: “Gaming’s Initial Appeal” — making it sound like there’s a comparison between gaming and addictive substances such as Cocaine or Heroin. Secondly, gaming has nothing to do with escaping from your problems. I enjoy gaming because it’s fun — just like watching movies or television. I don’t watch Law & Order because I’m having family problems — for the exact same reason that I don’t play MVP Baseball because I screwed up something at work. I do it for entertainment. Enjoyment.
While I do think that people can become addicted to gaming — I don’t think it’s nearly as large of an issue as they make it out to be. This article should be a warning in the same way that parents should warn their kids about gambling and addiction, not in the “sky is falling, take away video games from kids” sense.
She says the newest games are multisensory so that you can be drawn in without realizing it. They’re also more sophisticated. In the past, a skilled player could achieve the highest level in four or five hours; now it can take up to 40 or 50 hours, feeding into the typical teenager’s need to master a challenge: ”I can’t quit until I get to the next level.”
This is the exact same case that Johnson makes in his book, except here it’s being used in a negative connotation. Earlier I stated that I didn’t fully agree that Johnson’s argument that popular culture has improved IQ scores. This is true, I feel that there are a number of factors at work in improving IQ scores — not just culture. But, I do completely agree that the gaming industry has changed so much that it’s important to create games that take 40 or 50 hours — making them challenging enough for the player. It’s that challenge that is enjoyable — if the gaming industry didn’t evolve into this way — and we were still playing Pong and Pac-Man — I don’t think Microsoft, Sony or Nintendo would be around today.
I sometimes wish that Boston.com allowed you to comment on articles, or at least provide Trackbacks, because I wish I could attach this post to this particular article.
