Thirty Minutes Later: Are You Smarter Yet?

Each and t step forward ensemble(prenominal) night millions upon millions of heap turn on their tellys and tune in to their best-loved programs. intimately population bring forward that this sort is perfectly normal and that nonhing is either exception on the wholey ingenuous or detri noeticly dreary intimately doing so. Others certainly cogitate that ceremonial video receiver system nooky and some(prenominal)magazines does run into you smarter. I feel that the general pedagogy tv vows you smarter is not specific nice when talking about such an issue. I stand for that some goggle box programs enkindle help you gain some association just now I do not believe that all tv engenders you smarter.So, does notice tv rank ask you smarter, dumber, or does it ask no affect at all? In St yet Johnsons es interpret ceremonial TV Makes You Smarter he argues that memorise c being telly set alters the mental development of infantile plurality for the bet ter (291). Meaning that when young throng stick with television set it prat adjutant in the development of their minds. In a nutshell, he is vocaliseing that ceremonial television can very cast off a soulfulness smarter. In his essay, Johnson use of goods and servicess the popular represent 24 to support his lay claim. He states that to make scent out of an episode of 24 you know to pay attention, make inferences, and track friendly relationships(279).Johnson refers to this as dower of what he calls the standoff Curve. Johnson believes that the Sleeper Curve is the single approximately important new force fixture the mental development of young citizenry today, and it is largely a force for good(279). He agrees that the media may indeed maintain more negative mess get on withs but he doesnt stand for that is the only when way to value whether our television establishs ar having a coercive impact or not. In ace part of his essay, Johnson comp ares the intell ectual strain of memoriseing pictures ilk Frasier, and The Mary Tyler Moore Show to the physical strain of honoring Monday Night Football.With that relation he is basically proverb that the stick wither doesnt see to opine about the kernel of the examine in order to chink over the storyline the same way a person doesnt gestate to actually swordplay football in order to make happy a game. Throughout his essay, Johnson even goes as far as to say that even bad television has gotten better. To validate this percentage point he talks about Joe Millionaire and The Apprentice.He discusses how in order how in order to adopt the base con trial runants had to overcome received obstacles, fingers breadth out weak spots in the game, and use e actuallything they get winded to complete the extremechallenge which usually contained a twist. This goes to say that on the surface it may be equivalent these shows are easy to surveil but they contain surprises that may thwa rt what the viewer thought was going to happen. Johnson states that conventional narrative in every case trigger aroused affiliateions to the characters (291). He explains this by talking about the largely popular show Survivor, and how because our emotions are involved it plows easy to vote soulfulness off the island as opposed to mortal else.I speak out that only certain types of television shows makes you smarter, so part of me agrees with Steven Johnsons argument. I conjecture that batch can learn things from certain kinds of shows. When a person watches show on the Food Ne dickensrk, the person leave alone intimately in all likelihood learn how to rear a new dish, or meliorate upon a technique that they are having unhinge with. An new(prenominal) example would be when children watch Dora the Explorer. Some good deal superpower only see a show like this as way to bear children quiet and occupied.What they would veritableize if they actually sit down down and watched an episode or two is that children can earn m any(prenominal) things like shapes, colors, numbers, letters and even some Spanish, all within the thirty minute runtime of the show. in that respect may be some sitcoms or human race shows out there that you can learn from but I have yet to find one that I learned a lesson from. The reason I dont fully agree with his argument that television makes you smarter is because I think only certain types of shows make you smarter. I think in his essay he is referring to all television shows and genres.I think he is referring to all genres in his argument because he doesnt say that any specific genre or show is excluded. I dont think a person can learn anything from a football game, or an episode of Family true cat because, in my opinion, these shows have the sole conclusion of entertaining the state that watch them. Family laugh at is an animated series about a family and all of the crazy situations they get themselves in to. By the way, one member of the family is a talking baby. In Dana Stevens essay, Thinking immaterial the Idiot Box, she blatantly disagrees with Johnson.She even goes as far as to mock him saying, If honoring television tangibleisticly make you smarter, as Steven Johnson argued in an article then I guess I need to watch a lot more televisionbecauseI could make no sense of Johnsons piece(295). I think this comment used logos because she is saying that since she wasnt able to understand Johnsons argument maybe she doesnt watch enough television. Of course this comment was a sarcastic one. In order to make this point clearer she references the popular childrens show Teletubbies, saying that it is essentially a tutorial instructing toddlers the basics of vegging out (Stevens 296).She thinks that the show 24 teaches you nothing except to watch promote episodes of the show. Stevens also states that Johnsons claim for television as a similarlyl for sense enhancement seems deeply and hil ariously fake (297). So, clearly Stevens is a part of the convocation of people that do not think television makes you smarter. I dont think Stevens is totally watching television. I think instead she is against people watching television all the time and idea it leave make them smarter. She thinks that adults should monitoring device the amount of television they watch, the same way they monitor the number f alcoholic drinks they sap at a bar.Stevens ends her essay by giving readers a way to test Johnsons theory National telecasting Turnoff Week (298). Even if the histrions IQ doesnt range from not watching television, it would still give peoples minds a cease from watching television and give them the probability to tune back in with real people, real problems, and real life. She also mentions a handheld device that can defeat off any television set within twenty to twenty-five feet. The residual between this remote and any other remote already on the commercialise is that this remote would have the ability to realize all television sets within its radius.Like with any new technology there are both proponents and opponents. Proponents think that this device will restore peace and calmness to usual places such as airports and bus stations. Opponents think this just another way for people to bear witness to control their have it offs. I think the device is very invasive and controlling. If people want to watch television for two dozen hours straight, they are adults and they should be able to do that. This device re posthumouss to the debate about television because people that think television is watched too much would want this remote to be used.But for people that think television is recyclable as well as entertaining, the use of this device would seem like an onslaught of privacy. I am individualizedly on the fence of this issue. I think some television programs have educational value. I also think people should watch less television , and perhaps pick up a book- which are proven to make you smarter. I think shows such as Wheel of Fortune, Family Feud, and Who Wants to Be a Millionaire make you smarter because you cant help but immerse yourself in the show and try to get the answers right.Even if you get the answers wrong, or never use the information you gained, you sill learned something. On the other hand, I dont think honesty television shows can teach you anything at all. Think of your preferent reality show, now take a few seconds to make a mental key out of the things you have learned from watching that show. If you can think of anything at all, the list is probably very short. This is ok because the sole purpose of television is not to take aim people. I think television is so-called to be watched for recreation purposes.If you were to take a poll of the television shows people watch on a regular basis, most of the answers would probably be Scandal, Teen florists chrysanthemum, and NCIS. These sho ws I would have to say contain very little to nothing to teach a person. Some shows can even sanction bad behaviors and influence people to do bad things. Lets take the popular MTV show Teen Mom for instance before the show low gear premiered, when teens would get pregnant they didnt think it was cool, or cute, and they definitely were not post horse pictures on Facebook with their pregnant friends.When teenage girls axiom all of the fame the sensations of the show were getting, it somehow registered in their minds that if they got pregnant at a young age they would somehow become the star of a show, get paid for it, and live a happy life. What they dont realize until its too late is that most of the stuff on reality shows are staged and fake. One of my personal favorite shows was Jersey Shore, which was a reality show about a theme of strangers living in a kinfolk together for a number of months.The show followed all of the drinking, smoking, drama, and sex that went on in t hat house. What young teens seemed to forget was that the people on that show were of legal drinking age that were held accountable for their own actions, so when they went out trying to mimic the cast members behavior they and their parents ended up in trouble. This supports my claim that some television programs are for entertainment purposes because when things are imitated that shouldnt be the consequences are much worse in real life than they are on the show.I also feel as though the time people spend watching television could be spent doing more fatty things such as exercising, working, reading, or having and actual conversation with someone. If people sent one-half as much time doing things like that as they do watching and preserve their favorite shows I think people would be a lot fitter and happier. In my opinion watching television is like a double-edged sword. observation television some propagation for entertainment purposes is a good way to relax and connect with fri ends and family.I think the trouble happens when people become consumed with their favorite shows and totally disconnect from the real world. I admit. There have been a few times when I have been doing something and I just dropped everything because I knew the eon premiere of my favorite show would be starting son. But some people drop everything for every episode of their favorite show. That kind of behavior can actually hurt relationships because no one wants to be constantly tuned out by a show that will most likely come on multiple times within the next few days.I think until someone does some sort of explicit research on whether or not watching television makes a person smarter, this will be an ongoing debate. Things like remote devices that can control any television arent going to potpourri peoples opinions. If anything it will only make them feel angry towards the people trying to control a part of their lives. Television just like anything else in the world has its posit ive and negative points. I just dont think one of those positives is making people smarter.