Another plug, but I couldn't resist after reading Matt Barton's review of the Steven Johnson book a couple posts down. I'd like to alert Kairos readers to a thread recently begun at if:book -- the blog of the institute for the future of the book -- where we have mounted a multi-post, ongoing critique of EBIGFY, in which Johnson himself is participating. We were moved to do this after witnessing the near-universal acclaim the book has received. Already, we've come across numerous instances of it being assigned as essential reading for new media and design classes, in some cases by teachers who haven't even read it. It seemed time for a more rigorous discussion...
Despite being celebrated as iconoclastic, we find Johnson's book to be surprisingly conservative, not in the American two-party political sense, but in that it effectively reinforces the status quo. Johnson says pop culture is making us smarter. Which is undoubtedly a good thing. Therefore everything is fine and we don't have to question anything we are doing.
What exactly "smarter" means, and to what end it leads, is never really explained, but the implication seems to be that gorging on pop culture will make us more effective and compliant worker bees in the techno-capitalist society. I don't accuse Johnson of consciously suggesting this, but it seems to be the way the book is being received. Take, for example, Matt's assessment:
"...we learn a different set of skills--no less important--by playing videogames and watching television, and these skills may turn out to be more valuable to tomorrow's workforce than literary analysis."
This is not to mention the questionable science on which much of Johnson's thesis rests. His use of IQ, even acknowledging its problems, seems to me to signal acceptance of a racist status quo. I'm not calling Johnson racist, but IQ is seriously damaged goods.
While I accept the book's basic observation that television and video games have become more complex, I'm troubled by the avoidance of larger questions about ethics and the impact of new technologies on our social and political lives. True, Johnson has challenged the conventional wisdom about pop culture, but he seems to have replaced it with something equally, if not more, problematic.
I invite readers to check out this thread in medias res. Most recent posts are at the top.
in comparison to -- ?
Ben, I think your question about "What exactly 'smarter' means" is right on the mark. Pop culture is making us smarter than what, exactly? What's being compared? Over at the thread to which you link, there's a fairly obvious referent with the Flynn effect thing -- namely, history -- which I reacted strongly against in response to Matt's review. That sort of teleological triumphalism is smug, pointless, and -- as you point out -- deeply conservative. But there's an implicit comparison also being made between "playing videogames and watching television" and not doing so, and so the rather facile argument there would seem to be that doing stuff makes you smarter than not doing stuff.
--
Mike
http://www.vitia.org/
Multiple Intelligences
If you hold that intelligence(s) should be seen as multiple, as many cognitive psychologists do, then there is no issue about smugness. I would argue that one understanding of intelligence places too much weight on facility with symbols, especially quantitative and verbal ones. This leaves out all those who are especially talented in hand-eye coordination, who are good are working with others, with those who know about themselves in ways others cannot know themselves, those who are capable of asking fundamental questions. For some reason we think that people who can throw a baseball are worth millions of dollars- I don't see but others think so. If it were commonly accepted that people had different kinds of intelligences, then the smugness might be avoided.
MGGreer
Indeed
There's a lot of interesting stuff in Johnson's book, much of it gratifying to those of us whose interest in popular culture extends beyond just condemnation. However, I am concerned by the way he detaches his "scientific" inquiry from moral questions. When I read the book, I felt compelled to externalize some of my angst over it:
http://kukkurovaca.textdriven.com/gramarye/archives/everything-bad-is-go...
I've got to say that I'm a
I've got to say that I'm a huge fan of reading popular press stuff in the graduate classroom. We've got to move past the notion that technology integration happens in a vacuum. We are seriously deluding ourselves if we think that what the real world thinks about technology has no effect on what we do in the classroom, what we get funded to research, or what magically appears in our campus labs.
Dr. B.'s Blog
Blog
Popular Stuff in Grad Classes
You're right, Dr. B. Another bonus is the pop stuff is actually fun to read. :-)
Review at The Valve
You guys should take a look at Jonathan Goodwin's post about the book at The Valve. Steven Berlin Johnson himself responded.
CultureCat