stevenberlinjohnson.com

My Random Statistical Data

A Child and Adolescent Psychiatrist named Mike writes into the comments:

I would say you are either among the many uninformed people I know or you are brilliant in feeding the masses random statistical data that leads to no conclusions to no end other than to sell more of your books. There is an overwhelming body of medical research linking violent media to increased aggression in kids and teens.

This is a pretty crucial point, one that bears walking through more slowly. It is true that a number of studies have found a correlation between violent media and aggressive thoughts or feelings. I think that's an entirely reasonable finding. But *no* study has found a correlation between violent media and actual violent or criminal behavior. In fact, the only study that I know of that interviewed perpetrators of actual violent crime found that they tended to watch *less* media than the average person, and have less of an identifying relationship with onscreen characters.

So the only thing that we've been able to prove after years and years of study is a slight increase in aggression after spending time with violent media. And that's precisely why I brought up the high school football analogy and the "compared to what?" question. Because there have been no studies that I know of that have compared the levels of aggression provoked by violent media to the aggression provoked by any number of activities that we happily encourage as a society: football, pickup basketball games, playing cops and robbers, etc. In other words, the idea that some form of media might create an uptick in aggression is not in itself cause for panic, if we already accept and celebrate many forms of recreation that may have the exact same effect.

And I fail to see why violent crime statistics are "random" in this discussion. The specific accusation leveled by Senator Clinton and other game-bashers is that Grand Theft Auto and its ilk are damaging a whole generation of kids, desensitizing them to violence and thus making them more prone to it. So if all the evidence suggests that this generation is the *least* violent bunch of kids on record, why isn't that relevant to the debate? The argument that the anti-gamers are making is that we have a crisis on our hands with these games, so the first thing we should ask is: where is the evidence of crisis in this generation of gamers, in their real-world behavior? And in fact, there's no evidence of crisis whatsoever -- other than the obesity issue that I referred to. For some odd reason, people like to think that the "kids today" are in some kind of terrible peril, but the happy truth of the matter is that they're doing better today than they have in the past 30-35 years. Despite the fact that they're playing more videogames than ever.

Open Letter To Hillary

Today's L.A. Times is running an open letter to Hillary Clinton that I wrote, responding to the whole Grand Theft Auto panic. Those of you who have been following the blog or who have read the book will know most of the argument, but there are some new little twists in this one. Here's the opening:

Dear Senator Clinton:

I'm writing to commend you for calling for a $90-million study on the effects of video games on children, and in particular the courageous stand you have taken in recent weeks against the notorious "Grand Theft Auto" series.

I'd like to draw your attention to another game whose nonstop violence and hostility has captured the attention of millions of kids –– a game that instills aggressive thoughts in the minds of its players, some of whom have gone on to commit real-world acts of violence and sexual assault after playing.

I'm talking, of course, about high school football.

The Kids Are Better Than Alright

One of the most striking things I've experienced over the past few months talking to people about Everything Bad is how deeply ingrained the assumption is that today's kids are academic underachievers compared to previous generations. In the book I tried to combat that stereotype by looking at the increase in IQ scores, largely because IQ scores were the most accurate measure of the kind of intelligence that I was discussing in the book -- i.e., abstract problem-solving, pattern recognition, and so on. But I've also been exploring some of the data on traditional educational measures -- reading and math skills, for instance -- and it's amazing how solidly the data flies in the face of the "dumbed-down" hypothesis.

Today's release of the "Nation's Report Card" should silence all the doomsayers for once and for all. The report card has been tracking student achievement in reading and math since 1971, focusing on three age groups (9, 13, and 17) and three major demographic groups (white, black and hispanic.) How do the kids of today compare to the late boomers of 1971? Allow me to turn caps lock on to make this point clearly: with one exception, EVERY SINGLE LINE GOES UP. All the age groups are better at math, and both the 9-year-olds and the 13-year-olds are better readers than the kids of 1971.

Now, the one exception is the 17-year-olds, but even that is misleading, because both black and hispanic kids saw dramatic increases in reading skills since 1971, while the white kids stayed exactly the same. This is what we call Simpson's paradox: all the groups either improve or stay the same, but the average doesn't go up. That seems illogical, until you realize that the ratio between the different groups has changed from 1971: there are far more Hispanics being the assessed, and that group has on average lower reading scores. (Not surprisingly, since a full 20% of them are not native English speakers.) So the change in the overall breakdown of the group brings the statistical mean down, even though most of the people being assessed are actually improving their skills.

Combine this new study with the fact that 1) IQ scores are significantly higher than they were 30 years ago, 2) SAT math scores are at an all-time high, and 3) today's kids are undoubtedly more skilled today at things like multitasking or mastering new technologies that are both essential to success in the workforce and entirely ignored by all standardized tests. Add all that together and you get a clear portrait of a generation of kids that are significantly better off intellectually than the kids of 1971. Now, I'm not implying by any means that pop culture is responsible for most of this improvement. (In fact, most of the skills measure by the Nation's Report Card have nothing to do with pop culture.) But the idea that today's kids are an illiterate bunch of slackers compared to earlier generations is empirically false.

The Urban Web

I'm happy to report that I will not be talking about reality TV and Grand Theft Auto for a change on Tuesday night, when I deliver the keynote talk at the Summer Design Institute, sponsored by the Smithsonian's Cooper-Hewitt National Design Museum.

Here's the formal description of the talk -- as you can see, it's open to the public for a mere $15. Should be a fun night, and it's being held in a beautiful building down at the very tip of Manhattan, right across from where our original FEED offices used to be.

July 12, 2005, 6:00 p.m.-8:30 p.m.

Please join us for a keynote address by Steven Berlin Johnson, bestselling author of Everything Bad is Good for You: How Today's Popular Culture is Actually Making Us Smarter. Mr. Johnson will address how the design of social spaces in interactive environments is based on the translation of metropolitan values, or the "value of sidewalks," building on the intelligence of great cities and neighborhoods.

A book signing and reception will follow.

Johnson's talk is a part of Summer Design Institute, a week-long program for educators and designers. The event features workshops, studio visits, keynote presentations, and advisory groups that connect the school curriculum with the world beyond the classroom. Attendees join an international roster of renowned designers and design educators as they share strategies for engaging K-12 students in the design process. For more information about Summer Design Institute, please visit www.summerdesigninstitute.org

Event Location:
The National Museum of the American Indian
Smithsonian Institution
1 Bowling Green
New York City

Price: FREE for Summer Design Institute participants and Museum members; $15 non-members; $10 students and seniors.