Imani Hoffman

Professor Sotirakopulous
2/3/16
English 1102

Watching TV makes you smarter response

1. Steven Johnson makes clear in his opening paragraphs what view he is

arguing against. What is that view (his they say)? How does the dialogue
from the Woody Allen movie sleeper relate to that view?
Johnson is arguing against the view that mass culture follows a
path declining steadily toward lowest common denominator standards,
presumably because the masses want dumb, simple pleasures and
big media companies try to give the masses what they want. They
dialogue from the Woody Allen movie relates to that view because in
the dialogue of you mean there was no deep fat? No steak or cream
pies or hot fudge it shows a simpler way of human thinking in the
way that the scientists thought process toward healthier food such as
wheat germ and organic honey is on a more basic level. He doesnt
show understanding of foods that were thought to be healthy and
meant to increase lifespan.

2. Johnsons own argument relates to the intellectual effects of television

viewing. Find his thesis statement, locate his supporting discussion, and write
a concise summery of the whole argument.

Johnsons thesis statement is that the culture is getting more

cognitively demanding, and not less which means that television is
getting more complicated as the years go on. In order to keep up one
must pay attention, make inferences, and track shifting social
relationships which is something he called the Sleeper Curve. His
supporting discussion is to consider the cognitive demands that
televised narratives place on their viewers, shows such as the Mary
Tyler Moore show or Frasier are what we consider quality
entertainment, but those shows actually come packed with intelligence
fully formed in the words and actions of the characters on screen. They
say witty things to one another and somehow avoid lapsing into the
sitcom clichs. The discussion is that the intelligence and intellectual
work is happening off screen and not on screen. So essentially the

whole argument is that watching TV does not in fact make someone

dumber, but in fact makes them more intellectual due to the fact that
people have to pay attention, make inferences and track relationships.

3.

Pick an example of popular entertainment that Johnson discusses or another

comparable quality that you are familiar with, and imagine how someone
could use it to make a case against Johnsons argument.

In modern day TV there are a ton of reality shows such as The Kardashians or
even Bad Girls Club that some consider to be quality entertainment but the issue
with shows like that is that its marketed as reality or realistic as they follow
certain people through their lives or experiences. Can you imagine though how
boring it would be to watch someone who isnt a celebrity go through their day to
day activities most of the day being chores, going to work, cooking dinner, driving,
possibly an argument of a stolen t-shirt a sibling took without permission.
Essentially activities and drama that the average human experiences day to day.
People do not wish to watch the life of someone like us, someone who is living the
average life we are living, because we already know all about it. Someone could
take these shows and argue against Johnson by saying that we dont learn from
these experiences of people who arent like us, people who have opportunities we
dont have, and essentially people we do not relate to. How can we grow cognitively
by paying attention to scripted drama with the same unoriginal plot line of drama,
betrayal, unexpected complications, loss of materialistic items, etc. how can one
successfully track social relationships that dont change or have much of a
resolution, a climax, or even a successful plot twist that is original.

4. Compare Johnsons view with that of Dana Stevens, whose essay thinking
outside the idiot box follow on p 285. Which piece do you find more
persuasive, and why?
On one hand we have Johnson who is saying that television has grown more
complicated over the years and on the other hand we have Dana Stevens who is a
movie critic, saying that television has not become more complicated, that
television in fact has 16 minutes worth of commercials that can interrupt the
intellectual process of inferring and breaking down relationships. Stevens argues
that when TV such as 24 challenges that audiences cognitive faculties with intricate
plotlines and rapid fire information it is actively discouraging them from thinking too
much about the vigilante ethic it portray. However she believes it is good at
teaching the viewers to think about future episodes of the show. I think that
Stevens piece is more persuasive because from what I have seen of television in
modern time, I do not see the plot lines, the communication, the drama, and the
arcs improving. Especially when you think of reality TV shows and childrens shows

like Uncle Grampa or Clarence. I do not think that people spend time on most TV
shows trying to break down what they have seen, but perhaps they try to figure out
how to connect each episode together.
5. Write a response to Johnson using your own experiences and observations as
support for what you say. Consider the audience you wish to address, and
craft your opening and choice of examples with that audience in mind.
I do not believe Johnsons argument of watching TV makes you smarter because
with reality TV shows and current TV shows I do not feel I am growing cognitively or
intellectually. I believe there are TV shows that are catered towards children that
can have valuable lessons on family, friendships, school/working hard, etc. For me
however, unless the TV show is a segment on the history channel or a documentary
I do not feel as though I have taken anything in that I could teach others. Most of
modern day television has themes that are dark such as Salem, or surrounds itself
with a materialistic outlook such as The Kardashians or has a large amount of
violence or death such as Blue Bloods. Ever since I was a little girl I have heard the
term Dont watch TV like that, it will rot your brain or some variation of that
argument when it comes to violent television or cartoon shows. Being a college
student to me, means that when I watch TV it should be something happy that I can
use to redirect my focus from stress, or perhaps something I dont get to learn
about in school but can gather information about through a documentary.