In his essay, “Watching TV Makes You Smarter,” Steven Johnson analyzes the development of TV programs over the years in order to persuade his audience of his belief that the increase of shows with intellectual involvement is beneficial to the cognitive development of those who watch the shows. Johnson discusses a wide variety of TV genres and shows that have shown an increase in use of content that challenges the mind, ranging from dramas with multiple active storylines to reality shows that cause viewers to dissect and evaluate the behaviors of the contestants. Overall, Johnson aims to convince his readers that the increase in cognitive complexity on television has a positive effect on viewers, causing them to think more critically and analytically and stimulating intellectual growth.
To accomplish his goal, Johnson makes use of a particularly effective epigraph at the beginning of his essay. He quotes a dialogue from Woody Allen’s Sleeper, in which two scientists discuss the behavior of a subject whom asked for “wheat germ, organic honey and tiger’s milk” for breakfast, indicating that such foods had been considered to have “life-preserving properties” in the past while foods such as steak, cream pies, and hot fudge were considered unhealthy. While it is initially a bizarre quote to use, Johnson uses it later to illustrate the concept of the “Sleeper Curve,” the idea that things once considered unhealthy (in the case of Johnson’s argument, television dramas and sitcoms) can actually become beneficial for consumers after all; this idea is referred to several times throughout the essay as an essential part of Johnson’s argument. Thus, the Sleeper quote serves as an effective way for Johnson to introduce the theme of his essay, allowing readers to obtain an early understanding of Johnson’s arguments.
Personally, I can mostly agree with Johnson’s argument in his essay. Although I don’t watch any reality shows, I have watched a few dramas in the past, and those with complex story arcs that follow multiple characters are certainly more enjoyable than those that only follow one narrative. Certainly, it can be fun at times to look closely at the developments in a narrative, to see the interactions between characters, and to try to figure out what happens next; sometimes, I find myself quite satisfied when something on TV goes the way I wanted it to play out. If I had to give any sort of complaint about Johnson’s argument, it would have to be that making a show have more narratives packed into it does not necessarily make its plot more “intelligent;” there are definitely shows even today that practice the use of multiple narratives and other similar techniques, yet still have incredibly basic and predictable plotlines (most soap operas and similar shows would come to mind here.) Aside from this however, I would say that Johnson is correct in his evaluation of cognitive development in television.
Steven Young's Blog 