I have read the "Long Excerpt" called Everything Bad for you is Good for you by Steven Johnson is about varies things from video games to T.V. shows. He talks about how people who play video games tries to solve their difficulties by asking their selves an SAT problem such as:
I have to get across this river, what are my choices?
A) Jump it
B) Swim Across it
C) Use the bridge
I know this is sort of an obvious type of question with an answer you don't really have to think twice about, but this is the sort of question gamers ask themselves. And then we have people watching T.V., and a list of programs the excerpt listed are ER, 24, Apprentice, The Price is Right, etc. The excerpt suggest that watching shows like these, is like reading a book and trying to understand the concept and complications of the story or plot. This book does not talk about how bad these programs or how bad these video games are to your health but talks about how they help you improve on certain skills.
I can see why Johnson believes what he how these digital representations are helpful in some ways. He believes that certain television programs can help with our perspective in situations and how we see view these situations. Such examples, Scream, the movie, he pointed out how we would watch this movie, "As the door shuts behind her, the camera swoops in on the doorknob and we see that she's left the door unlock. The camera pulls back and then swoops down again for emphasis. And then a flashing arrow appears on the screen with a text that helpfully explains: 'Door unlocked!'" Johnson explains how we would watch what appears on screen and how we interpret the situation. There is no big arrow pointing to the doorknob that says "Door Unlocked!" but it is how we see in our mind. We also do this in books, we label each character with a list of names we come up with, quotes they've use in the past, and past actions to interpret what will happen next. Johnson suggest that TV and reading a book is not so different.
A page in Johnson's book talks about how we play video games. He said anyone new to the game who probably think that video games have obvious objectives like, kill this guy, dodge this, go here. But Johnson suggest that the agenda is much more complex than that:
"1) Your ultimate goal is to rescue your sister
2) To do that you must defeat the villain Ganon
3) To do this, you need to obtain legendary weapons
4) To locate the weapons, you need the pearl of Din
5)To get the pearl of Din you need to cross the ocean..."
Johnson compared this endless list to pacman which got about 4 agendas. This endless list shows how games have advance over the years and how complex it is to it's predecessors. In fact I believe that Johnson is hoping for more advance games in the future, many of which will be puzzle games such as Zelda to help, not only increase the awareness of the mind, but also the creativity.
There are many reasons these authors would disagree on and very few they would. One thing they agree on is that games and television programs will take up several hours of your time a day. Although Feed only talks about how being too in touch with digital representations are bad for you, not just physically, but mentally. Feed talks about how these electronic devices will take over your lives and control you and your emotions the way they want to, how people will become so addicted that everyone will want it implanted in their heads. Johnson, however, believes that they are good for you in some degrees. Although he didn't type it, or I didn't read it, he compares watching television to reading a book, how you follow a complex story but with images, and he then compares games to questions or puzzles and you have to solve them with given information. In ways, this would excessive your mind and your ability to adapt to complex plots.
So in all, Johnson and Feed talks about the digital representation of life, but both have very different view points of it. Feed talks about the future and how it will take over everyone while Johnson talks about how these representations will help you in life.
"1) Your ultimate goal is to rescue your sister
2) To do that you must defeat the villain Ganon
3) To do this, you need to obtain legendary weapons
4) To locate the weapons, you need the pearl of Din
5)To get the pearl of Din you need to cross the ocean..."
Johnson compared this endless list to pacman which got about 4 agendas. This endless list shows how games have advance over the years and how complex it is to it's predecessors. In fact I believe that Johnson is hoping for more advance games in the future, many of which will be puzzle games such as Zelda to help, not only increase the awareness of the mind, but also the creativity.
There are many reasons these authors would disagree on and very few they would. One thing they agree on is that games and television programs will take up several hours of your time a day. Although Feed only talks about how being too in touch with digital representations are bad for you, not just physically, but mentally. Feed talks about how these electronic devices will take over your lives and control you and your emotions the way they want to, how people will become so addicted that everyone will want it implanted in their heads. Johnson, however, believes that they are good for you in some degrees. Although he didn't type it, or I didn't read it, he compares watching television to reading a book, how you follow a complex story but with images, and he then compares games to questions or puzzles and you have to solve them with given information. In ways, this would excessive your mind and your ability to adapt to complex plots.
So in all, Johnson and Feed talks about the digital representation of life, but both have very different view points of it. Feed talks about the future and how it will take over everyone while Johnson talks about how these representations will help you in life.
To Richard:
ReplyDeleteThis is a really nice post! I specially enjoyed how you stated Johnson's opinion on television and video games and provided clear examples to understand his point. I understand that you read the long version of the article, and I think you summarized it very well. Your use of tone and language is clear and I can identify your voice on this post.
I understand that you base your discussion on the comparison between books and television and Johnson's view on video games. Currently we are surrounded by all kinds of electronic devices that run our lives. While M.T. Anderson considers this event as tragic, you argue that Johnson actually thinks it will help us in our lives at some degree. As you said, "Although he didn't type it, or I didn't read it, he compares watching television to reading a book, how you follow a complex story but with images, and he then compares games to questions or puzzles and you have to solve them with given information." In other words, there could be a general misconception on what playing a video is or watching TV is. Johnson argues that watching TV or reading a book may actually not be that different from one another. This is because people have a very similar experience while reading a book or watching a movie. However, when reading a book we improve our intellect by developing skills, which cannot be the same from watching a movie.
In order to expand your knowledge on this or to make your post better, I recommend you to take a side. Who do you think is right, Anderson or Johnson? And would you actually begin to think differently after adopting one of their ideas on electronic media? I recommend you to apply both of their theories into your own life and predict how it will look like. By doing so you will have a better understanding of their point and make a decision. If you have previously experienced playing video games and watching TV for hours and consider it as wrong, then why do you originally decided it was "wrong"? If you really enjoyed it then it must had felt right for you at some point, but wasn't society the one that told you that it was actually wrong and therefore you labeled it in such way. This could cause you to be bias against what Johnson has to say. I simply recommend you to be open minded about this entire situation (not labeling what is right or wrong) and choose what is best for you.
After reading your post I began reconsidering the general definition of the effect of playing video games on people. I do not entirely agree with the general idea of how most people think gamers think like. Similarly to Johnson, I consider that gamers face more challenging problems than simply getting across the river. Yes the main goal may be getting across it but there is more to do than simply finding a simple way of doing it. As Johnson said there is a list of different things one must overcome in order to achieve this goal. It is more like solving a puzzle and being strong enough to go across that river. And by that alone as a gamer you must think of strategies. Therefore, similarly to a book, by figuring out the best way to get across the river is just developing one personal skill. Therefore, I personally agree with Johnson that what video games and TV offer is much more than what is generally thought of. However, I do know that these are harmful to one's life in the long run. So, I would ultimately have to agree with Anderson and his idea of our lives being a tragedy. And as much as I enjoy playing video games or watching T.V. or the skills I may develop by doing so, do not reward the incredible amount of time I invested into them. In other words, I have wasted my time.
Once again I would like to say that this was a really nice point. You have me a lot to consider and ponder about. Also I appreciate all your hard work and dedication to this specific assignment. Out of all your assignments from 10-14 I found this to be a summary of your main ideas for involving such strong opinion on electronic media from Johnson and Feed. Great work!