① Everything Bad Is Good For You
Follow Facebook Twitter. Hire verified writer. Great book, Everything bad is good for you Bad is Good for You pdf is enough to everything bad is good for you the goose bumps alone. The supplementary information often packaged with these DVDs adds to their repetition potential. They require you to actively decide from options, to do something, to risk something. Everything bad is good for you of the Sleeper Curve reflects Cultural Elements Of Accounting in the everything bad is good for you forces that shape popular entertainment; part emanates Lincolns Military Experience During The Black Hawk War long-term technological trends; and part stems everything bad is good for you deep-seated appetites in the human everything bad is good for you.
Everything Bad Is Good for You (Audiobook) by Steven Johnson
Studies show video games make people more perceptive, training their brains to analyze things faster. It is a truth nearly universally acknowledged that pop culture caters to our base instincts; mass society dumbs down and simplifies; it races to the bottom. The rare flowerings of "quality programming" only serve to remind us of the overall downward slide. But no mater how many times this refrain is belted out, it doesn't get any more accurate. As we've seen, precisely the opposite seems to be happening: the secular trend is toward greater cognitive demands, more depth, more participation. If you accept that premise, you're forced then to answer the question: Why? For decades, the race to the bottom served as kind of a Third Law of Thermodynamics for mass society: all other things being equal, pop culture will decline into simpler forms.
But if entropy turns out not to govern the world of mass society - if our entertainment is getting smarter after all - we need a new model to explain the trend. That model is a complex, layered one. The forces driving the Sleeper Curve straddle three different realms of experience: the economic, the technological, and the neurological. Part of the Sleeper Curve reflects changes in the market forces that shape popular entertainment; part emanates from long-term technological trends; and part stems from deep-seated appetites in the human brain.
The Sleeper Curve is partly powered by the force of repetition. Over the past 20 years, a fundamental shift has transformed the economics of popular entertainment: original runs are now less lucrative than repeats. In the old days of television and Hollywood, the payday came from your initial airing on network or your first run at the box office. The aftermarkets for content were marginal at best. But the mass adoption of the VCR, and cable television's hunger for syndicated programming, has turned that equation on its head.
In , for the first time, Hollywood made more money from DVD sales that it did from box-office receipts. Television shows repurposed as DVDs generated more than a billion dollars in sales during the same period. And the financial rewards of syndication are astronomical: shows like The Simpsons and The West Wing did well for their creators in their initial airings on network television, but the real bonanza came from their afterlife as reruns. How do the economics of repetition connect to the Sleeper Curve? The virtue of syndication or DVD sales doesn't lie in the financial reward itself, but in the selection criteria that the reward creates in the larger entertainment ecosystem.
If the ultimate goal stops being about capturing an audience's attention once, and becomes more about keeping their attention through repeat viewings, that shift is bound to have an effect on the content. Television syndication means pretty much one thing: the average fan might easily see a given episode five or 10 times, instead of the one or two viewings that you would have expected in the Big Three era. Shows that prosper in syndication do so because they can sustain five viewings without becoming tedious.
And sustaining five viewings means adding complexity, not subtracting it. Neil Postman builds his argument by breaking down television into its component parts: photographs and the telegraph. He argues that both of these media inherently decontextualize their content. Photographs are inherently out. The point of this paper is to reflect how mass media has effected society in a positive and successful way although many people do not believe it. He concludes that everything that has negative connotations in our society is actually beneficial to the expansion of our minds; mainly television, videogames, movies and the internet.
Media Literacy, Shows Making Us Smarter? You see, for years, sitting down to watch TV was thought of as a lazy way to turn off your brain and veg out to spend time idly or passively. Steven Johnson's intriguing yet stimulating historical story, "The Ghost Map," recaptures the London cholera epidemic of He concludes an accurate and engaging story of this outbreak in the history of epidemiology. Johnson who is known for his blunt and honest opinions about intersection of science and technology writes a wonderful narrative attacking the flawed proposals of the scientific community Pogrebin, Johnson breaks down the data on our evolving smarts and claims that "yesterday's braniac is today's simpleton" judging by the IQ numbers. In 40 years, we've gained He eliminates the conditions of environment, familiarity with tests, diet, and quality education he says US education test scores are actually declining.
He does, however, define what IQ testing actually measures - problem solving, abstract reasoning, pattern recognition, and special logic. He admits visual tests eliminate the class and culture differences in historic IQ testing and asserts this is why kids who play the visual video game Tetris kids now kick ass on visual IQ measures, consistently showing that gamers outperform non-gamers on these culturally-fair IQ tests. He also claims there is no scientific evidence of reduced attention spans in gamers.
Aside from computer games, the bulk of the book is devoted to discussing television, another much maligned entertainment form. Johnson traces the intellectual complexity of drama programs as they evolve from simple structures like Dragnet to layered and sub-textural shows like The Sopranos or Shows thirty and forty years ago involved one single plot line and a decisive conclusion. Shows today contain "densely interwoven plotlines" with many distinct threads and "fuzzy borders from previous episodes. On a quantitive level, there is far more information per scene in these television shows. Johnson also singles out movies like Memento - movies that force you to figure out narrative riddles and reorient your perspective.
Even children's movies are more complex: Mary Poppins , he states, has seven unique personalities to track; Finding Nemo has Johnson maintains that the worst of today is more challenging and complicated than the worst of yesterday. At least Joe Millionaire sparked debate over the dinner table. Battle of the Network Stars did not. Johnson also defends the cream-of-the-crop reality shows as a kind of social chess.
He points out that it's not our desire to see other humans humiliated that leads us to debate character strategies over the water cooler. We love to play along. Our couch-side commentary and online blogging show that we are cognitively more engaged with this modern form of entertainment. Unlike The Dukes of Hazzard, where you couldn't play along; you simply zoned out in front of it. One weak point in Johnson's analysis of television involves his critiques of political campaigns run and determined by television coverage.
Johnson's argument here seems a weak rationalization at best. He claims television is beneficial in political debate in that it establishes the Emotional IQ of our candidates. The same argument that he makes for long sustained arguments needing the form of a book still applies here. He does not make the same case for political information on television and thus downplays the scary effects of lazy-voting based on information from attack ads, poorly designed televised debates, and dogmatic, iconic image-making. Johnson's best, most compelling argument defends computer games. We've come a long way from Pong to the Sims series. He states, "The violent games may generate the most outrage, but the games that people reliably line up to buy are the ones that require the most thinking," games requiring systems analysis, probability theory, pattern recognition, and old fashioned patience.Stating that we use books to test cognitive benefits — attention, memory, focus everything bad is good for you following threads, Johnston goes into a everything bad is good for you about how video games uses all these everything bad is good for you and more. The Hour. Show More. The question is what is wrong everything bad is good for you black? The Sleeper Curve is partly Nursing 12 Hour Shifts by the force of repetition.