HW 14: Second Text

Steven Johnson sets out to flip the traditional perspective of the digital phenomenon through his book "Everything Bad is Good For You." The public generally frowns upon such digital simulations given the impression that they are a waste of time and do nothing good for the brain or body except for improving hand-eye coordination. Johnson however, pulls out the various aspect of digitalization that we never really think about nor do critics ever write about. For instance, most video games are infamous for their violence and corruption of the mind. That's probably the most familiar argument. The excerpt goes about a different way of looking at DRDs. Johnson says that we must first abandon all previous views on our DRDs in order to see it in a new light. He explains how its addiction comes from rewards in the game as well as the player's determination to learn the rules well enough so he can use it to his greatest advantage in the game. These games are also stimulating the mind and getting it to work in a way most other mediums wouldn't be able to do. It's because these games have you focusing on an ultimate goal and a bunch of little goals at the same time (which in turn will help you reach your final goal). It has you mapping out a plan and making decisions ("It's not what you're thinking but the way you're thinking") whereas other medias such as books and T.V. shows contain narratives that are out of your control.

T.V. shows though, stimulates the mind in another kind of way. Johnson gives examples of shows such as 24 to demonstrate how shows have developed to activate our mind's process. These shows that "make you intelligent" gives you bits and pieces of the story, requiring you to put the whole thing together. Because the whole story isn't spelled out for viewers, it becomes a less passive activity where the viewer is encouraged to take in confusing information and work out the plot for themselves. Like Johnson said "Extra information takes the fun out of watching (76). People like to think. They find piecing together information and threading entertaining.

I thought most of his arguments made sense but some of his arguments still aren't strong enough to outweigh the cons of that specific DRD. Just because he found something good about the internet, like learning how to problem solve computer errors through logic, doesn't rule out the sad fact that the internet has become the default playground of our society.

I found it interesting how Johnson keeps reminding us that the critics and haters of our digital phenomenon are too narrow minded and stuck to the cons of digitalization. They don't explore other perspectives surrounding the subject. Johnson seems to contradict himself by mostly describing to us the benefits of our DRDs, while leaving out most of the cons. So I don't know if Johnson is simply just describing the goods of digitalization or if he's purposely being bias just like the critics.

Although I agreed with most of his arguments, that video games help us develop good decision making skills and some T.V. shows teach us how to thread information, I still can't help to wonder how much it actually helps us. How substantial is the difference in thinking between a person not interacting with DRDs and a person who does? Can it really help us to the extent where it makes it okay to excessively use them the way we do?

The arguments posed in this excerpt contradicts Feed in the way that it gives reasons to support the growth of digitalization whereas Feed predicts a collapse caused by the societal and political corruption of DRDs. Even the titles contradict each other. "Everything Bad is Good For You" throws out the idea that although our DRDs are typically criticized, there are also reasons that will challenge these viewpoints and depict digitalization as a positive progression. "Feed" insinuates that our society is being fed information that we voluntarily swallow without questioning the long term effects it will have on us. So basically one encourages us to develop a better outlook on this new advance in technology while the other warns us of its tragic consequences.

Feed describes the affects of DRDs as hypnotizing. It brainwashes you and doesn't encourage individual thinking at all. Johnson on the other hand, argues that it may seem like you are hypnotized from the outside, but inside, your brain is actually being provoked by your DRD to think in a way that will benefit you in the real world (such as problem solving, information threading, probing and telescoping etc.) Both arguments sound legit to me so I'm having a hard time picking a side or even the right middle.