In his book, culture critic, Steven Johnson seems to provide a counter argument to what several of the theorists we've studied are claiming.
Plato believed that we live in a world of illusion, truth is not always in line with reality, and that we should constantly search for truth by challenging and questioning what we are told or shown in order to free ourselves from the cave of ignorance we live in.
McLuhan believed that the technological mediums of a society dictated the culture of this society and that it is the mediums, more than the messages within them, that affect us.
Postman built on McLuhan's ideas, focusing on how the medium of the television, which valued visual appeal, quick delivery of information, efficiency, immediate gratification, entertainment, and stimulation over the quality and substance of the content, was making us more like this medium...He believed we were becoming a culture that needs immediate gratification, entertainment, and stimulation (like the tv provides), and a culture that did not want to think. In short, he believed that the television was dumbing us down and trivializing the culture.
Turkle argues that the technological mediums of our current society are diminishing our humanity. She says we are expecting more from technology and expecting less from humanity. She says we are losing our ability to think for ourselves, to be bored, to interact with people, etc.
Steven Johnson provides a different perspective... he believes that contemporary popular culture, which includes tv shows, video games, movies, etc. is actually making us smarter. Despite how superficial and shallow the content might be, he claims that the complexities of these shows, games, etc., and the complexities of the mediums itself (ex. video games), exercise our brains more than the popular culture of previous generations ever did. (note: none of his arguments are based on scientific evidence).
His book entitled "Everything Bad is Good For you" is discussed in this New York Times article...
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/22/books/review/everything-bad-is-good-for-you-the-couch-potato-path-to-a.html?_r=0
But what do you think? First, summarize his main ideas/arguments and then explain whether you agree or disagree, using examples from your own life and experiences to support your opinion. Please comment below with a response to these questions.
Plato believed that we live in a world of illusion, truth is not always in line with reality, and that we should constantly search for truth by challenging and questioning what we are told or shown in order to free ourselves from the cave of ignorance we live in.
McLuhan believed that the technological mediums of a society dictated the culture of this society and that it is the mediums, more than the messages within them, that affect us.
Postman built on McLuhan's ideas, focusing on how the medium of the television, which valued visual appeal, quick delivery of information, efficiency, immediate gratification, entertainment, and stimulation over the quality and substance of the content, was making us more like this medium...He believed we were becoming a culture that needs immediate gratification, entertainment, and stimulation (like the tv provides), and a culture that did not want to think. In short, he believed that the television was dumbing us down and trivializing the culture.
Turkle argues that the technological mediums of our current society are diminishing our humanity. She says we are expecting more from technology and expecting less from humanity. She says we are losing our ability to think for ourselves, to be bored, to interact with people, etc.
Steven Johnson provides a different perspective... he believes that contemporary popular culture, which includes tv shows, video games, movies, etc. is actually making us smarter. Despite how superficial and shallow the content might be, he claims that the complexities of these shows, games, etc., and the complexities of the mediums itself (ex. video games), exercise our brains more than the popular culture of previous generations ever did. (note: none of his arguments are based on scientific evidence).
His book entitled "Everything Bad is Good For you" is discussed in this New York Times article...
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/22/books/review/everything-bad-is-good-for-you-the-couch-potato-path-to-a.html?_r=0
But what do you think? First, summarize his main ideas/arguments and then explain whether you agree or disagree, using examples from your own life and experiences to support your opinion. Please comment below with a response to these questions.