I've been re-reading Steven Johnson's Everything Bad is Good for You again this year, mostly because I'm using it for 106, but I've been more impressed this time around with the main thrust of his argument. I think he has a lot to say about the topics that we've been going through recently in 605. For example, he makes a clear distinction between the cognitive benefits of video games and the potential for problematic content. Since we've been discussing transferrence, and the topic is certainly short of resolved, but Johnson's take on this issue is surprising clear-minded and practical. He claims:

"The question is whether that violence has an effect on the mind that apprehends it. It should go without saying at this point that I believe different forms of media can alter our brains in significant ways; the premise of the Sleeper Curve adheres to that principle: more complex popular entertainment is creating minds that are more adept at certain kinds of problem-solving. But violence is part of the content of popular media, and as I have explained throughout the preceding pages, the content of most entertainment has less of an impact than the kind of thinking that entertainment forces you to do. This is why we urge parents to instill a general love of reading in their children, without worrying as much about what they’re reading—because we believe there is a laudable cognitive benefit that comes just from the act of reading alone, irrespective of content. The same principle applies to television or video games" (190).

For him, the cognitive/learning benefits outweigh the potential negative impact of violence or sex in video games. He's not trying to be an apologist for the violence, but he certainly doesn't pay that much attention to the crazies that think video games will be the downfall of society. His take on transferrence shows this:

"The great majority of television viewers understand that the violence they encounter on these contemporary shows is fiction; they understand that they should not look to Tony Soprano for moral guidance, or their real world driving on their Grand Theft Auto excursions" (191).

In essence, Johnson takes the middle road; he doesn't argue that some people aren't influenced by video games, but he doesn't give them too much power, either. To me, that's a pretty critical, yet informed cultural studies approach to the issue. Of course, he has to include some disclaimer about the power of parents, too:

"In pointing out some of the ways that popular culture has improved our minds, I am not arguing that parents and other caregivers should stop paying attention to the way their children amuse themselves" (193).

And he again uses the middle road in suggesting a responsible approach to mature media content:

"Where our media diets are concerned for all of us—young, old, or somewhere in the middle—-the commonsense rule still applies: moderation in everything" (194

I like Johnson's book a lot more this time around. For some reason, the first time I read it, perhaps a couple of years ago, I thought that his definition of "intelligence" was so very narrow, and that real world situations could present some significant problems to his thesis. I still think there are problems, but I like the narrow focus of his claim a bit more--he's actually making less of a broad claim than I assumed. Oh, and he does suggest that a “mental labor” ratings system, though he doesn’t endorse it, which we mentioned at the end of class on Tuesday.