Everything Bad is Good for You (ISBN 1594481946)

Amazon.com Review:
In his fourth book, Everything Bad Is Good for You, iconoclastic science writer Steven Johnson (who used himself as a test subject for the latest neurological technology in his last book, Mind Wide Open) takes on one of the most widely held preconceptions of the postmodern world--the belief that video games, television shows, and other forms of popular entertainment are detrimental to Americans' cognitive and moral development. Everything Good builds a case to the contrary that is engaging, thorough, and ultimately convincing. The heart of Johnson's argument is something called the Sleeper Curve--a universe of popular entertainment that trends, intellectually speaking, ever upward, so that today's pop-culture consumer has to do more "cognitive work"--making snap decisions and coming up with long-term strategies in role-playing video games, for example, or mastering new virtual environments on the Internet-- than ever before. Johnson makes a compelling case that even today's least nutritional TV junk food–the Joe Millionaires and Survivors so commonly derided as evidence of America's cultural decline--is more complex and stimulating, in terms of plot complexity and the amount of external information viewers need to understand them, than the Love Boats and I Love Lucys that preceded it. When it comes to television, even (perhaps especially) crappy television, Johnson argues, "the content is less interesting than the cognitive work the show elicits from your mind." Johnson's work has been controversial, as befits a writer willing to challenge wisdom so conventional it has ossified into accepted truth. But even the most skeptical readers should be captivated by the intriguing questions Johnson raises, whether or not they choose to accept his answers. --Erica C. Barnett

eye-opening, fascinating, and great fuel for discussion:
One of the most brilliant books I read this year, Johnson's book defends contemporary popular culture (video games, the internet, film, and television) not based on its much-maligned content, but on what it is doing to our brains. And that is, it is exercising them on a staggering scale as popular culture has never before. All these forms of media are engaging us in their complexities (forcing us to problem solve, increase our emotional and social intelligence, follow complex storylines and laugh at more complex jokes). Perhaps most intriguingly, the reason all these are flourishing is because we all want to be challenged and engaged and to exercise our brains. Not just some of us are becoming smarter, all of us are becoming smarter. And we all like it. A wonderful, fascinating, and so totally true book. Great read that perfectly explains my pop-culture-loving life, explaining why I love to read Harry Potter or watch Lost and then analyze it and post reviews. My brain--like all human brains--just loves it. Grade: A+

Well-Written and Entertaining but Not Convincing at all:
Steven Johnson's polemic can be read as a counter-argument to Neil Postman's influential classic "Amusing Ourselves to Death," and that's exactly what Mr. Johnson would like us to believe because he does mention Mr. Postman throughout his book and he takes as his foil the argument that mass entertainment is making us stupid, which is Mr. Postman's original thesis oversimplified. Mr. Johnson examines three main forms of popular culture -- videogames, television, and the Internet -- and argue well that each in their own way are challenging brain function, and increasing our intelligence quotient. Mr. Johnson sees a virtuous cycle where popular culture is becoming more complicated and complex in order to entertain us by challenging us, and because we are challenged we participate in the process and demand to be challenged more, causing entertainment executives to produce ever more complex fare. For example, consider "Seinfeld" or "The Simpsons" which will have dozens of references and allusions and in-jokes that cannot be picked up on first glance. But thanks to syndication (which allows for repeated viewings of one show over a short time span) and the Internet (which allows for the fan base to discuss and dissect each show) "Seinfeld" and "The Simpsons" are rewarded for being complex because viewers can discover new things upon each viewing, and the success of "Seinfeld" and "The Simpsons" drives the competition to create more complicated and intelligent shows. Now Mr. Johnson does concede that there's a lot of crap out there but this crap is a lot better than the crap of the past, and we should re-frame our understanding of popular culture. Instead of deriding popular culture as a whole we should separate the popular culture that is good at stimulating our brains (Sopranos, 24, Survivor, Grand Theft Auto) from the popular culture that's just complete crap (Three's Company, Dragnet, Fear Factor, Quake). Mr. Johnson is a crisp and clear, economical and efficient writer, and the beauty and force of his writing often clouds the bad reasoning of his arguments. Mr. Johnson in his prologue says he grew up with playing games (a card game that simulates a baseball franchise, in fact), and it's obvious he's a big fan of video games. Mr. Johnson begins his argument with video games, and he's absolutely right that the video games of today is of startling complexity and sophistication that challenges the brain in ways never possibly imagined. In Starcraft, arguably the most brilliant game ever created and simply the best real-time strategy game ever made, a player must in real time consider resource allocation, army size and strength, order and compatibility in response to his opponent's possible strategies, the permutations of his opponent's army and base design, and the map terrain -- no wonder then that the competitive game's very best players are geniuses. Mr. Johnson also points out that, contrary to popular prejudice, video game players are active and social. That may be very well true but then Mr. Johnson assumes that what's true of video game players must also be true of watchers of complicated television shows such as 24 and the Sopranos, with their multiple threads and complex web of relationships. Yes, 24 is entertaining but to suggest it can actually increase brain function is a bit of a stretch. Compared with Dragnet 24 is complicated but compared with Starcraft 24 is like a game of tic-tac-toe. Mr. Johnson also makes the bad argument that the plot of 24 is like an intricate logical puzzle. If you actually plot out a season of 24 you'll realize that it works against logic, and not from logic. In the first season the show shows how it's logically impossible for Nina to be the mole but by the end of the season it's revealed she is the mole. Another silly argument that Mr. Johnson makes pertains to reality television shows like Survivor. He argues that reality television is good for us because it trains us to read people better -- that may be true, Mr. Johnson, but wouldn't going out on a date or going out with friends or just interacting with your office colleagues be better? Mr. Johnson simply ignores the argument of opportunity cost. If chatting online was the only possible source of social interaction then it's good for us -- but talking to someone face-to-face or even talking on the phone is so superior. (I've tried MSN messenger, and I feel it makes me stupid). Indeed, the anti-social aspects of watching television is an argument that Mr. Johnson completely ignores: it's hard to be a fan of 24 and not be paranoid about everyone and the world -- in fact, as 24 makes clear, the only people you can trust are psychopaths like Jack Bauer. And the biggest problem with Mr. Johnson's argument is how he presents Neil Postman's "Amusing Ourselves to Death." Neil Postman was not arguing that mass culture would lead to the death of intelligence but to the death of intellectualism -- how public intellectuals, intellectual issues, and intellectualism as a public good would all decline, and in that regard Mr. Postman's prophecy has proven true. Read the New Yorker and the Atlantic Monthly of today, and compare it with those of ten years ago, and you'll be shocked by the decline in intellectual gravity and depth. Mr. Johnson is right in that dumb people are getting smarter but what he doesn't point out is that smart people are getting dumber, among many, many other things. And while we're amusing ourselves in more complex and complicated ways we're still amusing ourselves to death.

Steven Johnson Book Review:
Steven Johnson's book, "Everything Bad is Good for You: How Popular Culture is Actually Making Us Smarter," immediately jumped out at me and grabbed my attention. As a college student who is all too familiar with shows such as "Shot at Love with Tila Tequila," and video games like "Grand Theft Auto," I found myself wondering how this could be possible. However, throughout this book the author gives surprising evidence and facts that support his claim. One of the main reasons the author wrote this book was in response to the general opinion that today's television shows, video games, and movies have negative influences on children and adults alike. Steven Johnson attempts to look past what's on the surface of these shows and explain how television viewers and video game players are improving their cognitive and problem solving skills. He calls this effect the "Sleeper Curve," and this concept is brought up throughout the book. This book would be interesting to a wide array of readers, from those who condemn popular culture, to video game enthusiasts, and especially to parents worried about what their kids and doing with their free time. While the author admits that children should also spend time reading and playing outdoors, he wants parents to know that it is okay, and even beneficial, for children to play video games and watch some of the more mature shows on television. The first area of popular culture the author chooses is to address is the growing world of video gaming. He aimed to deconstruct the popular belief that video games serve no useful purpose other than possibly increased hand-eye coordination. He explains the vast worlds presented in video games and the methods players must use and master to have success. While a player is stuck on a particular level, Johnson explains, that player must probe his environment looking for patterns and cause and effect relationships. Based on the information gathered, the player makes a hypothesis about how to successfully complete the task, and then the player must re-probe the environment. This process is the basics of the scientific method that video game players are using to complete their tasks. Video game players must constantly use this method to complete each game, and over time, their problem solving skills are vastly increased. He points to a study done at the University of Rochester to support his claims: One study at the University of Rochester asked subjects to perform a series of quick visual recognition tests, picking out the color of a letter or counting the number of objects on a screen. . . . . Regular gamers consistently outperformed non-gamers on all the skills measured in the study (p. 113). These results show that there is more to gain from video games than increased hand-eye coordination video game players are actually improving their cognitive skills by playing these games. Another form of entertainment the author chooses to examine is television. Instead of focusing on the increase in swearing, partial nudity, and nonsense in general, the author wants the reader to focus on the much more complex storylines, and cognitive demands modern television places on its viewers. He explains, "Part of the cognitive work comes from following multiple threads, keeping often densely interwoven plotlines distinct in your head as you watch (p. 63)." He compares the plotlines and complexity of older shows such as "Starsky and Hutch," and "Dragnet," with racier modern shows like "24," and "The Soprano's." When comparing these shows, the differences in cognitive demands between them are staggering. In older shows, plotlines followed one or two central characters and the storyline was very linear, it didn't shift from story to story. Today's shows are so complex that viewers sometimes cannot even grasp and comprehend all the separate storylines and events in one viewing. Johnson attributes this to the growing cognitive appetite of today's television viewer. Simply following a television through an entire season requires a significant amount of mental work. Johnson wants the reader to focus on these aspects instead of the fact that they may be more morally questionable. The biggest affirmation of Johnson's claims comes with his analysis of the fact that IQ scores have been steadily increasing within as small as one generation. Due to the small amount of time passing between jumps in IQ scores, this cannot be attributed to advances in the gene pool; therefore, this increase must be attributed to environmental factors. Environmental factors that include problem solving, abstract reasoning, pattern recognition, and spatial logic, are the benefits Johnson has been attributing to the benefits of video games and modern television shows and movies. While this does not conclude that video games are the reason for increasing IQ scores, it does show a connection between the two, even if small. Throughout this book, the author provides interesting facts and pieces of evidence that support his claim that popular culture is actually making us smarter. He does a good job of organizing material in a logical, easy to follow, and interesting way, from his own experiences with video games to in-depth study of IQ tests. I would recommend this book to anyone who comes in contact with popular culture today, which would be the majority of the people living in this country. If you are a skeptic, video gamer, television connoisseur, or parent, this book will prove to interesting and beneficial.

Not bad, better than expected:
This books starts out on rather slippery footing, but gains a foothold in the subject quickly. Quite a bit of time is spent on the topics of modern television and video games, but that is perhaps because those two things occupy so much of our daily lives nowadays. Johnson raises several salient points. I'm not yet sure how much of it I agree with, as some of the generalizations don't fit in my own household. But all in all, an interesting read, and doesn't take very long to get through. If you're looking for some arguments to get your mom to stop picking on you for playing so much X-Box, this book is for you.

Everything Bad is Good for You, College Student Review:
The book Everything Bad is Good for You: How Today's Popular Culture is Actually Making us Smarter by Steven Johnson, is a critical and detailed analysis of society and how it, he argues, is positively effected by popular culture. The overall objective of the book is to prove that despite the fact that many believe that our nations obsession with media and popular culture is a means of corruption and "dumbing down" in our society, due to the complex and constantly evolving nature of current media outlets, America's pop culture is actually forcing us to become sharper. This book, while very complex and fact based throughout its entirety, is vastly interesting and an easy read for the general audience. Since Johnson references many genres of television shows, videogames, and movies from a number of decades, the book is good for many ages and types of people. However, without a relative knowledge of said media outlets, some of the key concepts and ideas in the book may be hard to comprehend. Johnson's main argument throughout the book is that even if our media is brainwashing us, it is a "positive brainwashing" (p. xiii), and should be viewed as what he likes to call a "Sleeper Curve", meaning that America's media throughout time has been consistently, though we may not be aware of it, becoming much more complex and thought-provoking. Because of the intellectual demand that media is putting on us, we are in turn becoming smarter. Johnson argues that in regards to one of nations biggest industries, video-gaming, "it's not what you're thinking about when you're playing a game, it's the way you're thinking that matters" (p. 40). He then continues to argue that one of the biggest attributes of games is that when playing, one is forced to make decisions, as well as work through difficult ideas and objectives. In respect to television, one of the more passive media outlets, Johnson argues that popular television shows such as Lost, 24, and The West Wing are by and far more intelligent than television shows of the past such as Three's Company and Starsky and Hutch. He even implies that these shows would be somewhat insulting to our intelligence would they be aired as new television today. These modern shows, in the way that plots, characters, and references string together, leaves viewers thinking and questioning exactly what is going on throughout the entirety of nearly every episode. He also tackles what many people claim to be the downfall of society, reality television. Johnson claims that reality television forces the viewer to "adapt to an ever changing rule book" (p. 96). Johnson argues that many of these same principles of media development can be applied to movies and internet as well. Through statistics, charts, graphs and numerous specific examples, Johnson validly argues his points. Since Johnson does use statistical evidence and graphs, he is able to convince his readers that his book is not just a matter of opinion. Johnson even goes out of his way to note what some people will disagree with him on, and prove their arguments false on a number of topics. Furthermore, Johnson includes a very detailed and extensive "Notes" section describing the statistics and ideas he references in further and clearer detail at the end of the book. While I must say that I have never been one to think of American popular culture as something that makes us dumber, this book definitely reaffirms my thoughts. I do think that someone who had a negative viewpoint on popular culture would be swayed with the arguments in this book, especially because much of the book is based on concrete information, not just the opinion of the author. One thing that Johnson could have improved upon was his obvious bias. Obviously he is going to be bias toward his argument, but it would have been interesting if he would have shown some information or data that refuted his claims. I think if he would have made a better attempt to represent both sides of the argument, compare and contrast data, and still be able to prove why his beliefs were correct, he would be able to convince even some of his most stubborn critics. Despite this fact, I would recommend this book to anyone who is looking for an easy yet eye-opening read. Johnson even manages to make a topic that may not be intriguing to many feel fun and nostalgic. It is obvious when reading Everything Bad is Good for You that Steven Johnson is a very intelligent and interesting man, and through his convincing arguments, we can see that pop culture may be one of the reasons why.