One-Sixteenth

M. sent me a link to "Watching TV Makes You Smarter" (S. Johnson writing for the NYT) a week or so ago:

http://mentalmultivitamin.blogspot.com/2005/05/from-email-bag.html

After reading the piece, I decided I needed to read Johnson's book. He also penned Mind Wide Open, which Mr. M-mv and I both enjoyed. So I'm reading and nodding along in places, when, suddenly, I ask myself, "Isn't this reverse intellectual snobbery?"

Enjoy a good weekend.

P.S. Have you been following the news about the Lincoln Park Zoo? This wonderful Chicago must-see is the subject of much controversy in the wake of a number of inexplicable animal deaths.

I'm so glad that there is something "substantial" now to back up my thoughts about TV viewing and learning. I don't know what I would do without Discovery Kids programming, History Channel, and yes, even Food TV.

I liked Johnson's points - but like you I'm not ready to say that TV will "help" my children's brains. If I had to choose between video games and TV, I'd choose TV. For us, I see learning connections made while/after viewing many real life scenes (as opposed to cartoon drawings in text books), and story plots built around tours of a country, the people, food, and artifacts. In a historical text book, you read and conjure up the images on your own. With TV you often get the best known to date image of the era, the landscape, and in the scenes view the technology, food and work involved during that era. It's just much more rich imo.

"Smarter" being relative, the difference is between explicit and collateral learning. Is one more valuable than the other? One is content, one is problem solving, so they're obviously both important. I think studying logic bridges the gap between the two types of learning.

What attracts me to classical education is the gut feeling that we have lost so much knowledge, that people educated in that way were so much smarter than we are today, and a classical ed. offers a chance to recover some of that lost wisdom.

I have to wonder how well the ancient philosophers and Renaissance scholars would have done on IQ tests. I'm pretty sure they would have been able to figure out a video game after a few tries, but how many of the kids who can master Grand Theft Auto will ever reach the intellectual levels of the great thinkers?

Glad you're back!

Gina

I hope there aren't too many kids playing Grand Theft Auto. I'm no prude and even I found some of that game disturbing. Didn't stop me from playing though :)

I think it's the synthesis of multiple entertainment channels that leads to learning. My sons reads about WWII, watches the History Channel, and them spends hours mastering Medal Of Honor on the PS2. All that together adds up to a lot of learning.

l,

I guess we'll see, won't we? Ian, from Open Texture, frequently argues that computer games help children's brains develop. I can easily understand his reasoning. I would imagine that it really depends on how those kids who are Grand Theft Auto whizzes spend the rest of their time.

M,

I was wondering how much reverse intellectual snobbery he was engaging in. I'm going to have to read this book. And thanks for the tip about the zoo. I hadn't heard. I'm saddened to know that the elephants are gone, especially.

Interesting idea, but as you said, increased IQ (which doesn't necessarily mean smarter) could come from any number of factors. What evidence does this guy have that it's TV/video game related, I wonder?

I find amusing his disdain of books as being passive/non-interactive and anti-social in nature, just having the narrative revealed to you without a chance to change the outcome, etc., while at the same time lauding the watching of television. Television is also a narrative in which the viewer has no chance to change the outcome, instead just having the writer's story revealed to you, and can be both passive and anti-social in nature.

I would add, that a good book is no more passive than a good TV show. It engages the mind in the same way: following multiple complex characters in a complex story, filling in what is unsaid, thinking ahead about multiple possibilities, and so on. But with a book, you must create the pictures yourself, using your imagination. I think that is far more intellectually stimulating than having the images just given to you.

"And by the way, did anyone notice that Kate and Tom made that tape on 8/15?"

What's the significance of that?

Brian,

I nearly wept when I read what he said about reading. The reviewer said the author was joking, and I certainly hope so. Yes, how would an engaging, thought-provoking TV show make you think any more than a thought-provoking book?

8/15 ... it's another instance of Hurley's numbers. (Those of you who don't watch Lost, just let your eyes glaze over here.)

Steph,

If he was joking, it didn't come across in the reading.

More on Lost's numbers if you haven't seen it already. For example, the flight number was also 815. Just scroll down to "Analysis".