This book was definitly an interesting read, but I feel like its lacking in substance.

Johnson tries to prove, for example, that todays television shows make us smarter than those of the 70's because they require a viewer to keep track of more characters and plot lines. But he fails to prove that this is a valid way of measuring complexity, or that keeping track of more plot lines and characters actually makes you think a substantial amount more. He doesn't actually analyze many television shows to prove this statistic, but chooses a few TV shows that he believes are representative of the era. To really prove the point, I think one would need to come up with some sort of data for all shows on television at a given time, but he does not. Even if he does convince you that TV is smarter today than in the 70's, that doesn't mean it makes you smarter than you would be if you hadn't watched TV at all.

He formulates similar opinions for movies, and games as well.

His writing is quick and easy to read, though I thought it a little redundant. Also, the citations annoy me. There aren't any. But in the back of the book, there are sentences referencing studies and an explanation. The problem is that many information that is stated as fact is not cited at all in the back. And its hard to pick out since there aren't any footnotes or anything of that nature to let you know what information he aquired from reputable sources and what information is opinion stated as fact.

Overall, I'd spend your money on something else.

On first reading this book it just seemed like a defense of playing computer games. However after reading it and thinking about it for a while it probably has a point. Traditionally there has been a distinction between what could be seen as " the arts" and what is popular entertainment. The "arts" were meant to uplift one and inspire and do good things. Popular entertainment were seen as at best time filling but perhaps as bad as rather than being educative about the world it spread a false reality based on simple stereotypes.

Historically some novels, drama, poetry, music and perhaps a small number of films have been seen as serious "art." Most films, television and certainly computer games are seen as popular entertainment. Over time books, drama and poetry have tended to decline in market share as the new technologies of DVD, Cable television and portable sound systems have developed. This has led to some gnashing of teeth and tearing of hair in some circles as there is a belief that there is a general dumbing down of culture. Of course if you look at the level of education of the majority of people and the changes over time of IQ rates you get a different picture.

The author makes a good case that a lot of what is now being put out as mass entertainment is different from what it used to be and that most main stream critics of popular culture have not caught up. Thirty years ago most television cop shows consisted of a half hour format with heroic police dealing with cartoon character criminals. Nowdays cable television puts out shows like The Wire or The Sopranoes which rather than being stand alone simple stories have twenty four one hour episodes which have interlinked story arks with realistic character portrayals and insightful discussion of contemporary issues. All of course to do with market change. Thirty to forty years ago there were a small number of television stations which meant that the demand for programs was limited and had to appeal to a majority of the market. This lead to bland simple programs. Nowdays with the spread of cable TV you have the development of niche markets which means that there is more ability to produce diverse programs.

What the book says is that a lot of modern culture is much more complicated and sophisticated than it used to be. That is the reason of course why programs like " The Shield", " Lost" or " The Sopranoes" are made is because people have been educated to a level so that they can understand the multi layered plot lines, the interplay of the characters and the commentary on real issues.

Whilst there points are well made, I don't think that it could be said that playing computer games is actually good for you.

Everything Bad is Good for You is Steven Berlin Johnson's attempt to argue against the popular consensus that certain forms of entertainment (video games, television, etc.) negatively influence the consumers. He addresses concerns that television and nintendo dull intellectual development, as well as concerns that violent entertainment lead to violent behavior.

First off, let it be known that I play video games. I watch T.V. I want Steven Johnson to be right. In fact, I chose to read his book largely to try to justify, perhaps even glorify my hobbies. However, Johnson falls a bit short of what the title leads you to expect. For example, he attempts to attribute the gradual rise in average IQ scores over the years to increasingly complicated television programming and cognitively challenging video games. Although there may be some link between IQ and certain media, Johnson never provides a convincing argument that increasingly complicated media contribute to the gradual increase in average IQ scores.

I still liked the book, though. Although Johnson doesn't exactly prove that the these "bad" things are "good for you", he does successfully show that the popular view of television, video games, and the like, do not reflect the reality of the situation. Steven Johnson shows that violent crimes have drastically decrease over the past decade or so. He goes on to argue that, even if violent entertainment does have some sort of negative impact on its audience, that effect is trivial compared to much larger factors. Additionally, the gradual increase in average IQ scores shows that, even if T.V. and video games do have some sort of dumbing effect, that effect is swallowed up by larger factors.

Basically, a lot of people will get out of this book exactly what they want. Those who view popular media as detrimental will think Johnson is advocating increased video game playing and television watching and will therefore summarily dismiss it. Those who don't will view it as a justification for increased consumption of video games and T.V. I recommend the book, especially if you find the very idea of the book repugnant, but I wouldn't change my life over it.

In Everything Bad is Good for You, author Steven Johnson develops his theses:

1. "This is the Sleeper Curve: The most debased forms of mass diversion -- video games and violent television dramas and juvenile sitcoms -- turn out to be nutritional after all" (p. 9).

2. "But the dominant motif is one of decline and atrophy: we're a nation of reality program addicts and Nintendo freaks. Lost in that account is the most interesting trend of all: that the popular culture has been growing increasingly complex over the past few decades, exercising our minds in powerful new ways" (p. 13).

3. "I am to persuade you of two things: 1. By almost all the standards we use to measure reading's cognitive benefits -- attention, memory, following threads, and so on -- the nonliterary popular culture has been steadily growing more challenging over the past thirty years. 2. Increasingly, the nonliterary popular culture is honing different mental skills that are just as important as the ones exercised by reading books" (p. 23).

4. "Some environmental factor (or combination of factors) must be responsible for the increase in the specific forms of intelligence that IQ measures: problem solving, abstract reasoning, pattern recognition, spatial logic" (p. 142).

5. "Parents can sometimes be appalled at the hypnotic effect that television has on toddlers; they see their otherwise vibrant and active children gazing silently, mouth agape at the screen, and they assume the worse: the television is turning their child into a zombie. ...But these expressions are not signs of mental atrophy. They're signs of focus" (p. 181).


Johnson argues that video games, television, movies, and the internet add to one's ability to understand complex patterns, to probe for answers, and to better understand humans and the human drama. Toward that end, after noting there exist few studies confirming his hypotheses, he notes "But these studies are still rarities, which means the strong argument of the Sleeper Curve is still conjecture" (p. 208).

What do I think? I think Johnson is looking for the ether filling all the space in the universe. And he won't find it.

I happen to agree that the mental exercising in some video games is remarkable. I see less of it in Seinfeld (and I am a fan), and less still in the megafilm Lord of the Rings. The issue Johnson doesn't address, and it is critical, is how much exposure to these stimuli do you need to get the benefits he suggests? Johnson gives no amount here, thus seems to state that 10 hours is good, 100 hours is better, and 1000+ hours is best. I keep thinking that addition and times tables work great, up to a point. When do you practice them, and when do you go on to other things? I mean, 1000 hours of times tables? Don't you pick up most of your skill in World of WarCraft in the first 10 levels? Even if you pick up new skills/connections/threads/patterns every level up to level 60, do you still get something out of playing for another 100 hours?

And I kept being confused with the unspoken alternatives. Of course, if you are not watching television or playing video games, you are doing something else. And what part of driving downtown in a car does not involve complex pattern recognition? Isn't life complex? Doesn't Sense and Sensibility allow for complex thoughts? You can perform addition with a calculator or with an abacus. When you are proficient with one or the other, does it make sense to argue that one teaches you more things than another? Hmm.

Finally, it is interesting that Johnson left out the societal problems with obesity, type II diabetes (previously called adult onset diabetes until too many children developed symptoms), and a reduction in writing and speaking skills. Do video games and television assist with these problems, or add to them? I think it is ast

I've been playing video games since I was 7, spend some of my time carefully deciding which TV shows/DVDs I will watch, and also find myself attracted to "crappy" reality TV. (I also read, have a degree, etc--that isn't my point). I have always participated in a lot of activities which "make you dumb" or "waste your brain," yet I'm an intelligent, educated person. My friends' parents and adult relatives always seemed to think I was the exception that proved the rule, but I knew otherwise. It's about time someone like Steven Johnson came along and backed up my opinion with scientific evidence. Not only will this book change your mind on a lot of pop-culture activities, but it will entertain you while it does. And, if you're like me and a firm believer that video games don't rot your cerebrum, it's worth reading to learn what games and TV HAVE done for your mind. I actually learned why my mind seems to work differently than my parents'. Highly recommended for just about everyone. My parents (who know nothing about video games or high-falutin science talk) both read the book and loved it too.