Resoponse to Everything Bad is Good for You- Steven Johnson
The main argum ents about the texts are, the pros of gaming, television, and internet. Johnson talks about how older generations compare the recent digital representation devices to older ones and the percieve the new ones as bad. Johnson then retorts that and goes through all the positive aspects of DRDs.
The older generations compare reading to video games. The bad aspects of video games are generally that it makes you want to play the game until you beat it, so you just sit there all day playing which prevents physical activity and physical interaction. Like reading, it prevents physical activity. But the pros of reading that Johnson mentioned are, that it allows you to exercise the mind which requires effort, concentration and attention. All that video games require as well. To get to the next level a gamer is focused on the game for long periods of time and thinking of ways to get to the next step. Video games can be challenging as well. In a sense, reading and video games do have some core similarities.
Johnson also makes an argument that says, video games are created to make you curious and make you want to know what comes next, that's why it is so addicting but I personally do not find certain games so addicting and it makes me wonder why that is. I can watch my brothers play their video games for about five minutes and it will not interest me and I wonder, if it is designed to grab my attention, why doesn't it grab mine. I think maybe because I am not so accustomed to them, like in Andy's example of how television does not attract him because he is not accustomed to it, while I might find television entertaining because I am accustomed to it, Andy is not.
Then he argues that in comparison to reading, video games expands useless knowledge. Everything you learn in the game is not necessarily of any help to you. But arguably, in reading, depending on what you are reading, they can be useless as well, such as teen fiction books, they are more for entertainment as well. But we don't really learn anything from them, but it is still reading so it physically looks better than sitting and playing a video game all day. But is it really all that much better? Personally I think a good balance of the two is okay.
Then comparing video games to television. There is no interaction with television, you sort of just pay attention and listen to what is going on. Which personally, I don't think is very challenging to do because the shows are created so that people with limited attention spans can watch and remain interested. Some shows require that you watch it from the beginning so you understand what is going on. Others are entertaining whether you have seen the show or not. Either way, I think you can basically figure out what is going on. Johnson also talks about how the audience has to trust the creator to fill in the details for you. In the positive aspects of television, Johnson explains how the viewer analyzes the relationships in the shows and it forces them to pay attention to the connections between the characters. Television also allows you to connect with the characters. On a reality show, the environments might be produced and fake but the emotions are real and relatable to the audience.
In comparison of internet to video games, there is interactivity. You control what you do on the computer and in video games, you control what you do in the game, but in gaming, what you are doing is more specific. If you want to get to the next level you figure out what you have to do. On the computer there are many more options. You have the option to "project your identity onto," you have the freedom to express yourself through the computer. This exercises your cognative muscles.
This excerpt contradicts with Feed in several ways. Feed mainly argues that television, and internet, and gaming generally forces you to be lazy. Because everything is so easy to have access to, all you have to do is think and your answer is there, it makes us brain dead. Whereas, in this excerpt, it goes through what tv, computer, and games does for us in a positive sense.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Great post. You break everything down and summarize the article effectively. I read the two shorter ones but your explanation gave me a good feel for this. The response is well written, organized and insightful.
ReplyDeleteYou say that the author gives a lot of unorthodox view points and he basically says the things that we view as bad in our society in terms of digitalization may after all be helpful to us and make us smarter in some sense. You then compare the specific points he makes to your own life for example the point about how video games are not addicting to you but the things you are accustomed to are intriguing to you personally.
Your idea on personal connection and how what we are accustomed to affects what we are "addicted" too is a very good point. It is something that changes for every for example many people may be addicted to t.v and watch it a lot but I myself prefer my Ipod over t.v. I like that you explain the alternate viewpoint the reading is not much different than video games much deeper. I don't think I agree with this but I think it is worth looking at thing alternatively because that is the only way you truly learn and you do a superb job of this.
I think what would develop this post even more would be to make it a bit more personal. I find you explain the author points very well but I think adding some more of your personal thoughts on his idea would make the post a bit better. The analysis is great but I think a bit more reaction would be better.
This post made me consider what I view as important in life in general and in terms of me specifically. This post made me think of how I am similar and different to others and how our society affects what we like and dislike or maybe what we think we like or dislike, I am not sure which. It also obviously made me think of a viewpoint that differed from feed and our previous opinion.
Thanks again for the post. Great job.
-Omar
SANDY.
ReplyDeleteSo every one of your posts really connected till I read this one. ITS GOOD. I really appreaciate the breaking of the paragraphs. that helps me skim read a lot faster. I'm sure Andy would have something to say about "fast skim reading" but whatever.
From what I understood, you basically go down to the point that people are just lazy. 10-13 you claim that. in the research homework you talked about how people think initially. They think "oh this is hard let me make the process a lot easier". I agree. I mean today in math Andy pointed out that people have Binary thinking. The good vs the bad. THE SLOW VS THE FAST. Faster being the pro, we people always try to find ways to make everything go by faster without the wait.
The self experiment also showed how we are lazy, or how you were lazy while reading VS. watching TV. I mean, we're all lazy-- that's without saying. but when you said reading takes a lot more dedication than TV does, then does that mean we're so lazy that people just don't give in the time of day to actually read and understand? yes. We don't have to dedicate any kind of knowledge into watching tv. we have people speaking for us, unless you know you were deaf then that would be a problem. Maybe deaf and blind people are less ignorant that a lot of people.
The feed responses, you were pointing out the tradgeties the book had. A lot of the things you pointed out were about how "this person" noticed this but didn't do anything about it. WHICH IS BEING RATHER LAZY. God, I'm being repetative but isn't that the case? isn't that just what it comes down to? LAZINESS?! ppfft. Do you get what I'm saying?
Part B of the feed. MT whatever wrote the allegory well but in the end leaves the person to think for themselves. Was that intentional? was it meant to be? or was that just an accident merely prooving that he knew the answer but was lazy to add that last part in. "But isn't that what author's really go for? to leave the person to think?" Doesn't that make them all lazy? ha, this repetative shit is getting annoying isn't it? WHY CAN'T WE JUST STOP BEING SO LAZY? Then I wouldn't have to repeat myself so much.
This post.. I can actually get something out of this. So here you're connecting between Reading to TV and TV to video games. Reading can be just as useless as Television is. Word. But Television to video games is a different story isn't it? Video games allow you to figure the pussle out for yourself, thinking of what you should do next. As for the TV you just let the show do the work for you. Like I said before we don't need any kind of knowledge to watch TV. So which one is better? isn't all just useless? Reading watching and playing video games? If thats all useless information, what now?
I'm sorry for totally rambling. I hope you usnderstand my thought process. I love your posts they always have my attention. I don't find any flaws in your writing really. Its not cause I'm lazy to point them out its just the truth. You summurize the reading and then state your opinions. You then connect to everything else that we've learned in class.
So big ups Sandy!
-Esther