BLOG POST: “Is Pop culture Dumbing Us Down or Smartening Us Up?”
By. Sally Moon
“Brain Candy: Is Pop Culture Dumbing Us Down or Smartening Us Up?”
Malcolm Gladwell
Are you actually learning something while you’re watching that favorite TV show of yours? While you’re playing that video game that was just released at midnight? Is today’s pop culture actually making you smarter in ways that books cannot provide?
Malcolm Gladwell explores the various ways pop culture benefits our learning process, as a response to a book by Steven Johnson, which fully supported the idea that pop culture actually makes us “smarter” in many different ways. Whether it’s playing a video game or watching a television show, today’s pop culture is very different than that of 20 or 30 years ago. Today’s video games and television shows are far more complex than ever before, the complexity of these games and shows require complex interaction from the viewers/players. As Gladwell claims, greater cognitive demands are thrown at us by these television shows that require such in-depth thinking and thought processing. Watching and understanding some of these popular shows require scrutinizing the actions going on in the shows, second-guessing to try to figure out the plots, and approaching problems from many different points of views. While watching television shows has you on the edge of your seat, using your brain in ways that reading a book would’ve never been able to provoke, playing video games also plays a huge role in developing your collateral learning process. Playing video games requires the players to use their complexities. Every video game comes with a full imaginary world, along with very complex details. Playing video games requires the players to “manage a dizzying array of information and options, craft long-term strategies, and actively intervene to look for hidden logic, and find order in chaos” (Gladwell 455, 456). Gladwell’s appeal to logics succeeds at persuading the readers that pop culture does in fact benefit people’s learning processes. However, he concludes his argument by giving credit to both sides of the arguments. He states that the real importance is the balance between the collateral and explicit learning. While reading a book is important, credit should also be given to the extensive collateral learning promoted by today’s popular culture.
Gladwell successfully addressed the opposing point of view by presenting various questions that may have been raised by the opposing side. He even mentions possible downsides of the opposing approach. He quotes Steven Johnson’s response to the opposing arguments such as “books are also tragically isolating…”, “reading books chronically understimulates the senses…”, and “…this risks instilling a general passivity…”. This approach appeals to the logical perspective of the issue, which successfully supports his claim. However, is this enough evidence to disprove the opposing claim? Are his claims and approaches powerful enough to overpower the opposing side? Will supporters of reading and traditional learning be persuaded to switch their teaching methods from this argument? What more could he have done to make his argument more persuasive?
Malcolm Gladwells claim is that todays pop culture has increased our learning ability. Due to the increase in IQ scores of not only those who go to private schools and "enriched" daycare centers but also for individuals who are actively involved in watching television, listening to music, and playing video games. However, he acknowledges that Steven Johnson reminds us that "explicit learning is not the only kind of learning that matters" (457). Therefore, it is not only video games, as Gladwell claims, that are rising the IQ scores it is collateral learning as well.
ReplyDeleteThe opposing claim for this argument would be that pop culture does not make us smarter or help increase people's IQ levels. Gladwell does not really talk about the negative affects of popular culture on people's minds. He talks about collateral learning most of the article. But he does mention explicit learning, saying it necessary as well. He does say that both are important,but he is not mentioning the real opposing claim. He does not mention any statistics about how many hours people send watching television versus doing homework. He doesn't mention that some tv shows are full of meaningless information and do nothing to benefit our minds. He doesn't mention any statistics about the grades of people that play video game vs the people that do not. Playing video games might help someone's eye hand coordination but it will not help you do better on your next test. He doesn't mention anything about people that consider themselves "gamers" and how many hours they spend playing video games and how many of those hours they didn't get something done they needed to, such school work. I think reading a book will definitely benefit a person's learning ability more than playing a video game. People's IQ scores have probably risen dues to the advancement of technology, which opens an endless amount of resources to anyone, not by playing video games
ReplyDeleteIn the piece "Pop culture is dumbing us down or smartening us up", Malcolm Gladwell was not spicific enough to give us an answer. Rather, he took it into another level in audiences' mind by raising more questions and dilemmas about the debating topic "Explicit learning vs Collateral learning. But, he did give us a solution by stating that a balance between both is important. But, the issue here is, is collateral learning by playing video games such as "Grant theft Auto" or watching reality shows like "Survivor" is as helpful as learning explictely by reading a presidential speech from the past twenty years in a newspaper. Gradwell is talking about a balance here but I question, is a rigorous workout in our mind by getting engaged into a vivid, three-dimensional world filled with moving images is equally as productive as studying a biology test book. Not only that, Gladwell also questioned the value of doing homework indirectly at the end of his piece. Therefore, he was not successful enough to go with the opposing claim aganinst "Everything Bad is Good for You" by Steven Johnson.
ReplyDeleteThough Gladwell's approach to fully explore both sides of the claim is helpful in some ways, it slightly weakens his argument. Every strong argument is aware of both sides of the claim, but Gladwell is too focused on the opposite claim which distracts the audience from the main claim. The arguer should be aware of both claims, yet back his own claim 100 %
ReplyDeleteWhile Gladwell has interesting points and views on the matter of pop culture, he did not present sources that could back up his facts. The piece is filled with much explanation to why pop culture could be beneficial to our mind such as, "...we're not used to being in a situation where we have to figure out what to do," like in the recent video games. Another example is "television is very different now from what it was thirty years ago. It's harder." Yes, we surely have advanced in the technology and details in our video games and television plots but Gladwell has no proof that this is actually stimulating to our brain. For example, how could he prove this in a show such as The Jersey Shore. It is a show just following the lives of young adults living a life of drinking and partying. The show is purely entertainment, and there is not much one could gain from it. So while Gladwell may be grabbing his readers attention with an interesting topic, he needs to back it up with more facts and real statistics.
ReplyDelete