The media and the message

First of all, Johnson leaves little doubt that today's entertainment is more sophisticated than, say, the entertainment in the 1970s. That's a reasonable claim and he makes his points convincingly. However, other sections of the book brought questions. Allow me to explain.

Is someone who is quick to absorb the visual stimulation of pop-culture a 'smart' person? It seems the intelligent person not only digests ideas, but produces them. Thinking creatively and originally is different than merely reacting to and retaining data - whether that's data from a text book, a movie, or a video game.

Here's the point Johnson seems to gloss over, mental stimulation is not a virtue in itself. To build on that, is all learning (knowledge) 'good'? More specifically, is there a difference between wisdom and trivia? See, that's the huge question Johnson misses. If he proves all 'facts' are equal in their importance then his thesis becomes much stronger. However in the real world some knowledge is far less important than other knowledge.

Let me use an example. Say we have two kids - aged 10. One kid can tell you the title, manufacturer, plot-line, and year of every video game ever produced. The other kid can recite the Declaration of Independence, tell you who signed it and why it's important. I'd suggest while both kids may be equally 'smart', both are not equally intelligent.

Here's the point. Johnson is so focused on defending the media forms of today that he ignores the messages they send us. At the same time he uses the term 'good' in the title of his book. That's a term of value differentiation. Is he implying some things are 'good' and others are not? That's a moral distinction. If that's what he's saying, then what would be the 'bad' that could be promoted via today's media? ... a preoccupation with murder? sex? hedonism? Are those things bad? I wish he would have at least attempted to deal with the content (messages) of pop-culture.

Here's the bottom line. Let's assume pop-culture is making us smarter. A different question would be, is it also making is better? Is it actually good for us? Is it building character, courage, heroism, altruism, and charity? I remain unconvined that it is.

Great points and easy to understand

This book makes a lot of great points--and if all of the above reviewers had read the whole thing most of their faults would have been answered.

Johnson notes there is a difference between the intelligence a very complex video game needs and the intelligence history class needs, but also makes that case that both are important. Especially in the direction we're headed--a visual society--having skills that complex popular culture foster (especially video games and TV shows like 24 and Seinfeld) is increasingly important.

Being an author, Johnson also makes the case that there is a reason to read books (other than to fill his bank account).

So in short, problem solving is of course not the only intelligence people need. But by the same token, book smarts won't fully satiate your brain either.

Does Johnson see the elephant in the middle of the room?

This book reminds me of parents who say, "Wow - my 3 year old has a great attention span; he can watch TV for hours already!" What is ignored in that statement is the fact that TV programming is produced to hold your attention and watching the programs requires little or no effort.

Many will find Johnson's view of the human intellect as misunderstood at best. He seems to see it as something you "plug in" like a computer rather than a muscle you exercise. Most of the concrete evidence shows that these skill games only sharpen what I'd call "specialist intellect" rather than provide some type of well-rounded intellectual development which would come from reading the classics or learning about world history and culture.

The idea that somehow playing games is equal to hard work is probably very attractive to the adolescent mind which is found in many adults, unfortunately. The "elephant" in the living room which Johnson fails to treat is that kids spend arguably too much of their time and energy playing and mastering video games. Even many like myself who do not believe the gross generalization that "society is going down the drain" have trouble believeing the benefits from playing games for hours on end can equal those from the same amount of time spent on serious study.

This book will gather many "Amen, brothers" from those who are tired of the fire and brimstone preachers prophesying doom on our society. But the lack of substantive research will ensure this book fails to convert the skeptical who have a hard time believing the word "smart" and the phrase "reality show" or "popular culture" belong in the same sentence.