popular thinking

EVERYTHING BAD IS GOOD FOR YOU: Or so Steven Johnson would have you believe. His book of the same name -- subtitled "How Today's Popular Culture is Actually Making Us Smarter" -- has generated much press and buzz, and as such, might wind up on many people's summer reading lists. Case in point, a relatively long and easy-going profile earlier this month in the Washington Post.

Johnson's premise can be debated ad nauseum.

But my problem isn't with his premise so much as some of the leaps in logic he makes to back up his claims. Johnson defends himself with the argument: "Today's popular culture may not be showing us the righteous path. But it is making us smarter." Possibly. But smarter than whom? Our parents or grandparents? Senior citizens stereotypically may have a more difficult time programming the VCR, much less the DVR, cell phone and e-mail. But does that prove that consumers of pop culture are smarter, or does it reinforce the idea that children can pick up new technologies as easily as they can pick up new languages?

Are increased IQ scores a result of complex video games and TV plotlines, as Johnson suggests? Or are the higher IQs simply a reflection of evolution and the Darwinian notion of survival of the fittest (and smartest)?

The technologies that drive movies, TV shows, video games and our electronic accessories certainly have advanced and have become more complex. Whether that makes the acutal content better for us is another matter. The intricate story arcs of 24 and Alias may test our cognitive abilities, as Johnson suggests, although anyone who actually stops to process the plotlines figures out that these shows make no sense. And despite Johnson's statement to the contrary, 24 in fact took about two minutes at the beginning of each hour "explaining the back story" to viewers.

A few other quibbles that need sorting out...

Johnson argued that we watch "reality" TV not to see people humiliated but to watch them "find their bearings" in social chess. Yet two pages after making that case, he decides "the thrill of watching TV is seeing their face at the moment they get the news" -- the very climactic and most humiliating moment.

Johnson also argued that "the Oprahization of politics" is a good thing, despite the fact that television has weeded out politicians strictly based on looks. That's a good thing?

His arguments for better TV also choose out deliberately specific shows that might support his premise. For every Seinfeld or The Sopranos, though, we have Britney and Kevin's Chaotic.

Johnson doesn't address the proliferation of celebrity magazines and entertainment news programs on TV, and how our obssession with them might undermine our societal intelligence.

And, well, Johnson even argued that the movies have gotten better. Really? The special effects are better, but really?

Related: See the book on Amazon.com