Homework # 14

So i attempted the large text. And to be honest as not a very good reader I think I did pretty well reading this long text. For me in the beginning the video game excerpt was interesting as I actually had an idea of what he was writing about and I clearly knew the games and the descriptions of certain parts of the games that he used examples of. I don't exactly know if that is something for me to be proud of. His main points included his theory of "probing" (which sounds weird), and "telescoping". His idea has to do with the way people are able to notice patterns and solve patterns which can on a different level connect to skills we need in real life. He uses the example of Zelda (the best game ever!!) and shows how there is a sequences of scenarios that the player has to decode and solve to get to the bigger scenario. When I played the most real recent game of Zelda, it is true but I do not really connect his point to using my logic in the game to help figure out patterns and problem solve in real life. Although his arguments are interesting and his rewards concept might feel true and his whole book makes us feel better and gives everyone (or me) relief that there is someone on the digital side saying that there are actually intellectual things we are getting out of video games, television and internet it still does not really phase the fact that there are still negatives of all these digital concepts. There are key points that I can agree with and disagree with.

So to rewind a little, when he first tells us to imagine if video games and such have been around for centuries and suddenly books were to pop up, everyone would look as books as bad. Kids can isolate themselves just as easily when reading books as they do with video games today. The first thought that came to my mind is my oh so wonderful brother. I thought back to the point of what my dad said about my brother's antisocial behavior. My brother was a warcrafts addict and for years we figured that Warcrafts or video games were the cause of his social isolation. After a while we started to realize and analyze that it may not be the video games, have we ever considered that it might just be him? No matter what my brother was addicted to, whether it was video games or reading (which he did a lot of if he did not have warcrafts) he would always find a way to isolate himself from everyone. And let me just mention that my brother is EXTREMELY smart. He was the "smarts" of the family, and I was seen as the rebellious "not as book smart" one which most people probably cannot imagine. But yes, my brother is a amazingly good reader, a great writer, a crazily quick problem solver, and yet he never helped me with any of my homework. There were things that my brother was able to analyze and notice that were way beyond anything I can comprehend. And yet he was an extreme slacker who just barely slipped by high school. So this just gets me thinking if video games is the cause for his amazing problem solving abilities since he takes so much time of his life "probing" and "telescoping" apparently. My brother would have been a great point for Johnsons book probably. Although it greatly effect his intelligence in a positive way it did however effect his values in a negative way. He was not very family oriented and was a huge slacker. Not to say names but this might probably connect to someone in class who is a huge Warcraft addict who is kind of a slacker as well. This is something that Johnson fails to bring up as most of his points are just showing the "good".

The excerpt about the television was agonizing for me to read, there was not much of a point that Johnson made that I kind of already knew. From what I skimmed it seemed that his few points was his comparison of television or what we see on a screen is much like a book. His idea talks about how we are able to identify certain emotions or identify certain character quickly and without really realizing when watching a movie or a show. Also how we do not actually notice certain things in movies and shows that would be most obvious with just a little more thought put into it. Just like a book, when reading sometimes we do not notice certain words or sections of the books has a message that is trying to be provoked. I kinda disagree with this as a television addict I do at most time critic and notice a lot of flaws or the bigger message being provoked in what I watch. I am a "picky watcher" as I might call it and just because I watch a lot of television and some programs as stupid or clever (and entertaining) as they seem I do not just flip through channels and just watch whatever comes up. I notice things to unrealistic or false points made to clever little messages. The fact that I am able to untangle television that I am able to a book is extremely sad, which is why I am trying to work on my reading skills. Maybe take what I can do when watching television and use it when reading a book. A book such like Feed. Although there were many things in Feed that I was not able to catch as well as Andy could obbvviouuuslyyy.

Compared to the book Feed this piece of literature definitely gives us digital leech suckers feel better about being so addicted to video games, television, and the Internet. Compared to Feed which attacks our need to be addicted to technology and shows the negative effects towards our health, environment, the way we interact, and the way we are able to figure out and understand predicaments. In a way Everything Bad is Good for you is like the total opposite of the main point of what Feed is trying to make. The main character of Feed, when reading about him from Johnson's lens he would most likely been seen as a really smart individual because of his ability to be able to adapt and his good understand of the technology that is dominantly surrounding his generation. Violet would be looked down upon for her inability to be able to adapt to the advanced Feed technology around is the cause to her downfall. But Violet on the other hand was able to think on a deeper level about how the Feed works, how it is programmed to send you advertisements based on your interests. She was able to notice these patterns without her knowledge and addiction to the Feed. So there two different lenses you can read Feed in. You can read Feed through Johnson's lens about how technology is actually a good thing, it helps our ability to learn, adapt, etc. or you can read Feed through Tobins lens where technology is most likely going to be the cause of our downfall.