Thoughts on Everything Bad Is Good For You

It’s ironic that the video games Johnson repeatedly uses as examples for their cognitive benefits are, Tetris, The Sims, Ultima, Zelda. These are games that are devoid of violence, yet Johnson argues that violent content is something that we shouldn’t be concerned with because violent content doesn’t have as much of an impact on our thinking compared to the game form. Why doesn’t he use more examples of complicated violent games then? Granted he does use a violent game like the Grand Theft Auto series a few times to represent strategy, but not nearly as often as non-violent games. He’s also compelled to point out that “shooter games are rarities on gaming best-seller lists” and that games like SimCity and Tetris regularly outsell these other games. He doesn’t cite any statistics to prove this, but the fact he needs to point out the high popularity of these non-violent games, undermines "the content doesn’t really matter all that much" argument which his overall thesis is dependent on. In general, I think he's well aware that he's on thin ice if he pushes violent video games as valid ways to enhance more complex thinking.

The form of reality TV programming may have narrative complexity and strategic value, but at least for me, the degraded content outweighs the benefits accrued from the form. I can watch about five minutes of The Apprentice (is it even on any more?) before I change the channel. The “social intelligence” and “strategy” that Johnson finds in these shows for me, translates to conniving and devious backstabbing. Reality TV form isn’t all that interesting or complicated anyway. Most of these shows are based on some sort of grimy competition for a big cash prize. The argument he also makes when he compares The Apprentice to shows like Who’s the Boss and Mork & Mindy, doesn’t help his case. He writes, “a show like The Apprentice, say – doesn’t look so bad when measured against the dregs of television past” (132). To advocate that reality TV is good for people, by framing it as the lesser of two evils, is not very persuasive. And come on, Who’s the Boss gave us Tony Danza! Who is going to remember any of the forgettable contestants on The Apprentice.

If anyone is interested in a book that basically argues against everything Johnson advocates, it’s Neil Postman’s Amusing Ourselves to Death (Johnson mentions Postman a few times). Postman’s book is a bit dated (1985), and he often comes off as a luddite, but it’s a great foil to Johnson’s work, and I think more convincing.

Matt Nelson