Hard Evidence

Christopher Ball writes in to the comments area here with this critique, some variations of which have appeared in other responses to Everything Bad:

I think the problem is that the subtitle of your book -- how can you demonstrate that all of this is making us smarter?... You have a similar problem with Maclom Gladwell's _Blink_ -- where is the data to support the claims that you as an author are making, not the ancedotes from studies with more limited claims?

I think when you look at comparable books in the past that have made equivalent -- though diametrically opposed -- statements about the culture and its impact on our intelligence, you'll find that Everything Bad is much more concerned with empirical evidence than its predecessors. In a way, you can think of the book is a mirror-image version of influential books like The Closing Of The American Mind and Amusing Ourselves To Death -- both of which made bold claims about the impact of culture on the American mind in their title. If you go back and look at those books, they offer no evidence whatsoever that people are literally being dumbed-down; they simply offer a survey of the culture at large, compare it to past cultural moments, and conclude that the trend is a negative one, and thus likely to have negative effects on our minds.

Now, I happen to think this is a perfectly valid way to write -- cultural critics have a role to play, and it's not the exact same role that a social scientist should be expected to play. And in fact, had I written Everything Bad in my twenties, I would have taken the exact same approach: simply analyzing the cultural forms on their own terms, and making conclusions based on those observations. (In other words: the popular forms are getting more complicated, thus our brains must be adapting to that newfound complexity in some important way.)

But in fact, I didn't want the book to exist solely on the cultural level. So I went out of my way to include other evidence and explanatory models to back up my thesis. I explained how the popular forms appear to be sharpening precisely the kinds of skills that are measured by IQ tests, and then showed that IQ scores are rising. I looked at the Harvard study of gamers in the business population to demonstrate that those skills have real-world applicability, and pointed to the Rochester visual study to show that even very tight-focus studies show clear transfer of skills from gameplay to real-world application. In the notes, I deconstruct the numbers behind the illusion of declining SAT scores, and explain why test scores have been actually rising since the nadir of seventies television. And I brought in evidence from the brain sciences to explain why this kind of learning should be happening in the first place -- the dopamine section, and the section on the "regime of competence".

Is it a slam-dunk case, based purely on the lab evidence? Of course not. It's an opening volley. But it's much more rigorous -- at least where hard evidence is concerned -- than most of the sweeping declarations about the popular mind than we've debated in the past.

Comments

[mcuseo]

Yes! I've finally found someone who can appreciate Family Guy as much (and for the same reasons) as I do. I describe at length in a 2003 essay why I think Family Guy is brilliant, taking an angle appropriate to someone in their twenties: analyzing the show on its own terms and making conclusions based on my observations.

My main observation is that Family Guy is brilliant because of its ability to couple the technique of animation and the well-worn genre of family comedy to create a vicious cultural cannibal. But my conclusion is that the interdependence of Family Guy's cultural satire within a language created by pop-culture represents not a 'dumbing down' but a continual implosion of cultural into forms of REpresentation.

My question is: Does "media literacy" equal "cultural literacy"?

[Dale Garland]

Steven,
I really have mixed opinions on whether or
not your theory is true that massive exposure to pop culture can truly make one smarter. Obviously
your knowledge of all things pop is greater than
one NOT exposed to the "boob tube", etc.. But is
that pop person smarter than the bookworm? Probably not.
Here's my dilemma. My oldest brother is one
of the smartest people I know. His I.Q. is most
likely in the 130 to 160 range, while mine is
around 120. He's a bookworm who watches little to
NO television. BUT...he has very little common
sense most of the time. I on the other hand read
very little, but between the ages of 6 to 36 red
super-hero comic books like crazy. I actually
attribute a good portion of my intelligence and/or
knowledge to all those comic books. I also watch
way too much tv and most of it is not PBS. But
unlike my oldest brother, I seem to have gotten
the common sense gene.
All things considered, when I watch Jay Leno
do his "Jay Walking" segments or watch the game
show "StreetSmarts", I see people who have good
pop culture knowledge, but are otherwise dumb as a
post. So while I find your concepts interesting,
based perhaps partially in truth, I think I'll
wait until your book, "Everything Bad Is Good For
You", hits the public library and not waste my
money.

[Sean Voisen]

Dale: I think it's important to note that Steven doesn't make a claim that pop culture is increasing our book smarts, rather (and I agree), it provides a means for us to continually exercise our cognitive ability to solve and mentally model problems in innovative ways. There are several spheres of intelligence, of which common sense is one and fact retention is another.

That said, one thing I think Steven (if you're reading this) should have touched on in this book is this: Real-world cognition and problem solving requires more than the puzzle-solving and social-networking skills honed by playing games and watching TV. In most cases it also requires significant background knowledge from which to draw from, and that is usually only attained by reading books and study. For instance, creating a computer game requires both the ability to solve problems and recognize patterns innovatively, as well as a healthy understanding of physics.

A balanced mental diet is just as important as a balanced physical one. I think Steven agrees, but I didn't see it elaborated on much in the book, as it's really just a side-show to the main argument.

[Christopher Cloos]

I concur with Christopher Ball's critique. I posted a while back on the Child Well-being index (CWI) published by the Brookings Institute. In that study educational attainment has (from 1975 to 2002) only slightly increased. This domain is measured by U.S. Department of Education National Assessment of Educational Progress test scores for mathematics and reading. Math and reading scores are key indicators of ability to problem-solve and understand complex stories. If Johnson's book is correct I would expect to see a significant increase in educational attainment over those years (during the Info Tech revolution). However, the slight improvement points out that children are neither being dumbed-down nor made smarter by the increase in complexity of our wired culture. More to the point.

Steven has been barraged by an onslaught of critiques. I saw him lecture in Berkeley and thought he handled the subject matter and the questions with poise and fairness. I also commend him for continuing to engage in the important act of dialogue and debate. Yet, I wonder if all this banter is belaboring the more important question. So what?

Why is it important that technology is making us smarter? Why is being smart, in the limited form of IQ, important? As Dale pointed out, his brother is super-smart but not very socially adjusted. Is it a good thing that technology makes us more imbalanced toward problem-solving intelligence vs. emotional and social intelligence? Does a higher IQ equate to more happiness? Greater well-being?

This brings up another point. Steven Johnson had to limit himself to IQ to make a strong point. His is clear and aware of his reduction, but his reduction is also his dagger. Namely, his thesis (even if true) has very limited applicability. As humans we are much more than problem-solving machines. We are social creatures with emotions, a body, a consciousness. Namely, we possess a rich inner-world of which raw problem-solving is only one part. I'm curious if Steven is going to move beyond IQ? Will he address more of our humanity? That is my question and challenge.

Back to the book, what about content? Has Steven set up a straw man and proceeded to argue right past the other critiques. Nowhere in "The Closing of the American Mind" do I find something that says culture is making us stupider. In fact, intelligence isn't listed in the index. What Allan Bloom was talking about is the narrowing of the mind in terms of the quest for knowledge. True knowledge is found in deep structures of culture, history, justice and pursuing the natural human good. He was seeking to reestablish the full measure of our humanity, thus he touched on values, creativity, ignorance, prejudices. As Steven says, "they offer no evidence whatsoever that people are literally being dumbed-down." So, how can he compare the sophistication of his book to books that were not aimed at similar ends? The fact that the trends they cover is unhealthy for our minds does not mean that they are dumbing us down. Where does the assumption come from that a defense of technology making us smart was needed? Perhaps it is a feeling within the culture? I never heard anyone say, "technology is lowering our IQs." What I've heard people say is it's decreasing our attention span, exposing children to indecent, unhealthy programming. Steven Johnson's mirror-image is not a broad cultural critic like Allan Bloom; rather, his book's mirror-image is Jerry Mander's "Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television." That is a substantive critique that if SJ could successfully topple would really add substance and weight to his thesis, instead of arguing at a straw man or a broad cultural misconception.

I think Steven Johnson's thesis is important not so much in what it purports, but for the overall notion. Namely, what you may think is a downside of technology and popular culture may actually turn out to be an upside. Thus, examine your assumptions. To quote Robert Nozick's last line in Invariances, "Philosophy begins in wonder. It never ends."

[Sam Rose]

I haven't had a chance to read Steven's book yet. But, I think I can see couple areas where a large amount of consumption of television and video games over the years (I am 31) have helped me.

One area is in working with and visualizing information, particularly utilizing computers to make visualizations. I have no evidence, but I think that exposure to television and video games most of my life has made me more adept at learning and adapting and creating in virtual environments. By this, I mean mostly exposure to the mediums, and not necassarily any particular content.

I think that television and video games are a possible stepping stone to people collaborating usefully in online settings. Looking forward to reading the book.