Version 1.0. | Go to Version 2.0
Monday, April 25, 2005
TV Makes You Smarter? Doubtful.
Slate's TV critic, Dana Stevens, discuuses a new study arguing that television is making people smarter by teaching people how to follow multiple storylines. Apparently, older television series weren't as complicated - the example used here is Starsky and Hutch versus The Sopranos.
There's a lot of things to consider here and it'll have to be twice removed from the source because, like Stevens, I think this idea that TV makes you smarter is ridiculous and stupid. I'm not even going to Google this gem up, never mind read the finer details.
First, complicated television storylines go back at least to daytime soap operas. You'd be better off using a 1960s episode of Edge of Night than Starsky and Hutch.
Second, complicated storylines are common enough in other forms such as novels and movies. If that isn't considered, then the study is pointless. We may watch a lot of television, but there are other ways we take in information on a daily basis.
Third, while I don't believe passively viewing television can make you smarter, I think other forms of entertainment - most notably, video games - are able to. Honing one's mind with entertainment forms has nothing to do with processing various storylines (we all know how to juggle different threads of plot from our own freakin' lives) but from other mental activites encouraged by the entertainment form.
Reading works better at teaching us how to think of events as ordered causalities - the focus is on building a sense of order and connection, not following a bunch of disparate tracks for their own sake. Whereas television washes over you if you don't commit to a show - and you can still derive pleasure from sensory stimulation (gun fights, clever dialogue, whatever) - written material demands attention and commitment. Reading also encourages more articulate communication, which goes a long way to appearing "smarter".
In contrast, video games teaches us liminality - the ability to learn skills to a certain level, and then be forced to develop the skill further to attain the next level. That's an equally useful skill in an age of developing technology that we constantly learn and adapt to.
The guy behind this study needs to at least read Marshall McLuhan.m And if I'm misreading any of this and someone cares enough to correct me, go ahead. Maybe I'll give it a second chance.
But I doubt it.
There's a lot of things to consider here and it'll have to be twice removed from the source because, like Stevens, I think this idea that TV makes you smarter is ridiculous and stupid. I'm not even going to Google this gem up, never mind read the finer details.
First, complicated television storylines go back at least to daytime soap operas. You'd be better off using a 1960s episode of Edge of Night than Starsky and Hutch.
Second, complicated storylines are common enough in other forms such as novels and movies. If that isn't considered, then the study is pointless. We may watch a lot of television, but there are other ways we take in information on a daily basis.
Third, while I don't believe passively viewing television can make you smarter, I think other forms of entertainment - most notably, video games - are able to. Honing one's mind with entertainment forms has nothing to do with processing various storylines (we all know how to juggle different threads of plot from our own freakin' lives) but from other mental activites encouraged by the entertainment form.
Reading works better at teaching us how to think of events as ordered causalities - the focus is on building a sense of order and connection, not following a bunch of disparate tracks for their own sake. Whereas television washes over you if you don't commit to a show - and you can still derive pleasure from sensory stimulation (gun fights, clever dialogue, whatever) - written material demands attention and commitment. Reading also encourages more articulate communication, which goes a long way to appearing "smarter".
In contrast, video games teaches us liminality - the ability to learn skills to a certain level, and then be forced to develop the skill further to attain the next level. That's an equally useful skill in an age of developing technology that we constantly learn and adapt to.
The guy behind this study needs to at least read Marshall McLuhan.m And if I'm misreading any of this and someone cares enough to correct me, go ahead. Maybe I'll give it a second chance.
But I doubt it.
