The Anti-Thesis [HW #14 Draft]

Steven Johnson's perspective is as the title states "Everything Bad is Good For You." In this particular excerpt, Johnson focuses on the good aspects of video games, television, and the internet. Contrary to the popular claims that digital technology is bad for us, Johnson argues that these things actually help us, mostly in developing equanimity. He says that by associating ourselves with DRDs, we are learning new ways to cope with quagmires. Rather than saying video games, television, and the internet distorts the way we perceive and interact with the world, Johnson says that it is representational of the lives that we live. It provides an opportunity to have a mock-trial in our isolated rooms, where errors are acceptable, before going into the real world where finesse is an absolute.

There has been, for the most part, a contrast between reading books and playing video games. It's either you do one or the other (like the vanilla or chocolate example). However, Johnson tries to synthesize both of these activities and say that they're both beneficial. For the sake of his book, Johnson sides with the teenagers, saying that video games should not be so belittled, and even brings arguments other than "cause they're fun." Some of Johnson's arguments is that video games help all the players develop "visual intelligence and manual dexterity" and tolerance for chaos . All of which, I would agree, are important. Video games are similar to gyms. Both allows us to develop and hone certain skills. But of course, there are also alternatives- some that are actually more natural and direct, and possibly more efficient. Although Johnson makes many valid points, it can easily be argued by saying that the same set of skills that you get from playing video games, can be attained through the world that physically surrounds us, as opposed to the world that mentally surrounds us.

"The book readers of the younger generation are learning to 'follow the plot' rather than learning to lead" - In an attempt to set video games at a higher standard, Johnson says that readers are not as empowered as video gamers. They are not in control of what stimulates their mind and senses. They simply read along the linear lines of coded symbols. I agree with critique about reading, and would say that it's something that people should be aware of. However, I wouldn't use that as an argument as to why video games are good for you. That is because video games are just as arbitrary. The player might be able to control which frame they look at at any given time, but there are only so many possibilities before the experience become repetitive. Both books and video games are limited by the creators. And both are obstacles that you simply have to get good at overcoming.

In a similar manner, television also creates hypothetical situations where "finding order and meaning in the world, making decisions that help create that order" is possible. Johnson is saying that by us watching television, we are putting our sense of judgment to use. He is saying that we watch television in order stimulate our minds- instead of seeking for a distraction, we are are actually seeking for a distraction that requires logic. I think that, to some degree, this is true. There probably is some thinking involved in us staring at a rectangular box. Through the rules and the circumstance provided, we create an appropriate solution and prediction about the show. Again, just like video games, we're trying to logically understand what is "happening" right in front of us. Even so, I'm not too sure if we turn on the television in hopes of exercising our minds so that we can better solve the situations that we are in. The way that I saw this segment of the excerpt was that it was Johnson's chance to validate those many hours he spend on watching those various shows, which he used as examples. I think that Johnson momentarily lost track of the point he tries to make, because he said that viewers are able to follow the plot and make sense of it. But in the previous chapter, he bashes on how following the plot doesn't allow for control. I do, however, agree that television is effective in spreading the current events. Looking up the news on the computer, or reading the newspaper is just far too inconvenient.

The internet section was slightly more cliche than the other two sections. He says that the internet is a new way of connecting with people around the world. It gives us the ability to project our lives and broadcast it with everyone who bothers to read it. Although this may be true, it isn't worth considering because it's nothing that everyone hasn't thought of. Johnson also say that the internet is very interactive and "participatory." It is something that we are focused and engaged in doing. The internet gives us the incentive to write diaries and novels, both of which comes from "our" thoughts. "The next generation is carrying that logic to a new extreme: the screen is not just something you manipulate, but something you project your identity onto, a place to work through the story of your life as it unfolds"- Again, this is not something that hasn't been said in class, but it is definitely something to be aware of, and is worded more nicely. I would only like to add that, even though we draw elements from our lives and incorporate into our internet profiles, it's also true in reverse. Both sides of our lives define each other.