Monday, August 15, 2005
Book Review: Everything Bad is Good for You
Over the weekend, I finished Steven Johnson's Everything Bad is Good for You (tripod, amazon). He is the author of several popular books about neuroscience, technology, and society. He is a neuroscientist by training, but he is interested in the way various aspects of society affect the way we think and function within our connected and increasingly complex world.
Everything Bad takes on the idea put forth by many in politics and parents' groups that tv, film, video games, and the internet are dumbing down our society. He argues just the opposite, that these things actually are making us smarter. The basic argument is that most of this popular culture has gotten increasingly complex. Take tv, for example. He argues that a show like "The Sopranos" is much more complex than "Hill Street Blues," one of the most complex shows of a similar kind. He uses several charts to show the plotlines and character connections in both shows. In "The Sopranos," there are about 15 different plotlines to track, often over the course of more than one episode, compared to about 5 in "Hill Street Blues." Also, there are many more characters, connected in many more different ways, in "The Sopranos" as opposed to "Hill Street Blues." Keeping up with all of those plotlines and characters takes mental work. Further, he suggests, that we like this kind of work and that is why shows like "The Sopranos" are popular.
Johnson makes the same kind of argument for video games, comparing early games like Pac-Man, whose patterns can be explained in a page and easily memorized by a 12-year old (yes, I did this myself) to games like Zelda or Grand Theft Auto which have volumes written about them to explain how to solve the puzzle. The complexity of these games also comes from the fact that the rules are not laid out neatly from the beginning. Players are dropped into a world and must "poke around" on things to figure out how they work. This is true in tv, too. Have you ever watched a "West Wing" episode? Often, at the beginning, you'll see several characters having a hushed conversation about something you know nothing about. You have to figure it out over the course of the episode. In other words, you have to think.
As for the internet, Johnson discusses the way people take in information now in a way that isn't always linear and that people can interact with that information or create their own content. You can't talk back to your 6:30 news broadcast, but you can talk back to a news blog. You can create your own news blog--or any other kind of blog. Again, people are more actively involved with their information retrieval in a way that they just couldn't be 20 years ago.
What does all this mean for educators? I think it means that we have to recognized that many students will be expecting this kind of environment in their education. They want to be, not just entertained, but engaged with their educational environment. They may not want their information presented in a linear way. They may want to be able to poke it, prod it and interact with it. For me, this book was a breath of fresh air. I have always felt that I've thought in non-linear ways and that I like the challenge of puzzles and games. I think our current students do, too. And they want those puzzles to be hard, hard enough to challenge them and make them think in different ways--just the way video games and complex tv shows do.
Everything Bad isn't the perfect book, but I think it is a much-needed commentary on our popular culture. The argument gets repetitive at times, but I might have felt that way because I agreed with it almost immediately. For someone going in with an opposing view, they may not feel that way. Definitely worth a read.
Everything Bad takes on the idea put forth by many in politics and parents' groups that tv, film, video games, and the internet are dumbing down our society. He argues just the opposite, that these things actually are making us smarter. The basic argument is that most of this popular culture has gotten increasingly complex. Take tv, for example. He argues that a show like "The Sopranos" is much more complex than "Hill Street Blues," one of the most complex shows of a similar kind. He uses several charts to show the plotlines and character connections in both shows. In "The Sopranos," there are about 15 different plotlines to track, often over the course of more than one episode, compared to about 5 in "Hill Street Blues." Also, there are many more characters, connected in many more different ways, in "The Sopranos" as opposed to "Hill Street Blues." Keeping up with all of those plotlines and characters takes mental work. Further, he suggests, that we like this kind of work and that is why shows like "The Sopranos" are popular.
Johnson makes the same kind of argument for video games, comparing early games like Pac-Man, whose patterns can be explained in a page and easily memorized by a 12-year old (yes, I did this myself) to games like Zelda or Grand Theft Auto which have volumes written about them to explain how to solve the puzzle. The complexity of these games also comes from the fact that the rules are not laid out neatly from the beginning. Players are dropped into a world and must "poke around" on things to figure out how they work. This is true in tv, too. Have you ever watched a "West Wing" episode? Often, at the beginning, you'll see several characters having a hushed conversation about something you know nothing about. You have to figure it out over the course of the episode. In other words, you have to think.
As for the internet, Johnson discusses the way people take in information now in a way that isn't always linear and that people can interact with that information or create their own content. You can't talk back to your 6:30 news broadcast, but you can talk back to a news blog. You can create your own news blog--or any other kind of blog. Again, people are more actively involved with their information retrieval in a way that they just couldn't be 20 years ago.
What does all this mean for educators? I think it means that we have to recognized that many students will be expecting this kind of environment in their education. They want to be, not just entertained, but engaged with their educational environment. They may not want their information presented in a linear way. They may want to be able to poke it, prod it and interact with it. For me, this book was a breath of fresh air. I have always felt that I've thought in non-linear ways and that I like the challenge of puzzles and games. I think our current students do, too. And they want those puzzles to be hard, hard enough to challenge them and make them think in different ways--just the way video games and complex tv shows do.
Everything Bad isn't the perfect book, but I think it is a much-needed commentary on our popular culture. The argument gets repetitive at times, but I might have felt that way because I agreed with it almost immediately. For someone going in with an opposing view, they may not feel that way. Definitely worth a read.
