HW 14

In the excerpt from "Everything Bad Is Good for You" on video games, suggests that they actually help those who play them. Is reading books more effective in improving our intelligence than games and other media entertainment? according to the author I think the answer would be not necessarily because though reading is important and being a good reader is a good skill to have, video games aren't as bad as people make them out to be.Video games engage the player and allows them to use different "sensory and motor cortices". Video games allows the player to be active and to use their senses, but books on the other hand don't allow for any interaction. It becomes just the reader and the book. With video games it becomes the player and the game world filled with other players. Playing video games allows one to be more social. Reading may not be as good for us as it has been made out to be. with reading you have no control of the outcome or the story because it already has been written. But while playing a video game you are able to make the moves.

Video games and reading both very different things each have their own benefits. Reading allows us to us our minds. It calls for our focus and effort. Being a skilled reader could also help to get you a better job because you are using your brain to makes sense of the words and story on the pages. Video games may have it's benefits as well, they may not be a complete waste of time after all. Video games help you hand-eye coordination , memory and visual intelligence. The video game world it seems can be very different from the real world. It also may not always be fun. Playing a game can be hard work- the players run into obstacles they have to get over. With playing a video game you are free, it's your world-you fill in the missing information yourself or with the help of a guide.

The except on TV in "Everything Bad is Good For You" spoke about the influence it has on us. The author argues that television even though it is less active than video games, sparks our mind and allows us to think in different ways despite the subject matter of the program we may be watching. For example if you were watching a show like CSI then you would have to follow the storyline to make sense of the mystery or crime and by doing so maybe you will be able to solve it on your own before the end of the episode. "Televised intelligence is on the rise" due to the ways (technology) in which we choose to watch it and the demands on the people who watch it. How the TV shows over the years have improved their plot lines and the structure of the show (interconnected subject matter and narrative). How the shows we watch follow specific threads (plots) based on episodes and how the show develops throughout the season.

The author brings up "the sleeper curve" which implies that over the years the audience (views of television) has grown smarter. We are more able to understand TV show s with complex story lines thanks to the many threads these shows have included in their episodes. The proof is in the ratings and the success of the shows we watch. It seems like TV and movies use the same techniques (the flashing arrow) as books do so that they keep the viewers interested and aware of what is going on.
therefore all the audience needs to do in order to follow along is pay attention to the details or the flashing arrows. But the audience doesn't necessarily need he arrows because it takes "the fun out of watching" because the viewers of today are smarter and can figure out what is going on in the show on their own without the help of the arrows.

Substance and texture are two things according to the author that everything we watch needs to have in order to make sense of what is going on. The texture of the program doesn't need to be relevant to the rest of the narrative, it's just there to add to the substance of the show. We as the audience have to use our intelligence to figure out the story line. Which makes us smarter viewers.

I agree that TV and TV shows have developed over the years in many ways and the viewers have developed and grown with it as well. We are now able to make sense of more complicated stories lines allowing there to be more threading involved. We as the audience are smarter now than say the audience a couple of years ago (sleeper curve). I also agree with all the authors points on reading, it is important to be a good reader but maybe reading isn't everything. Video games could also be apart of helping improve our intelligence and skills. I'm not sure about this. I think that the stuff in the end about guide books and cheat sheets was a bit unnecessary.

It seems like "Feed" and "Everything Bad is Good For You" are two different books. In "Feed" the author tries to demonstrate through the characters and the plot how bad video games, TV and the internet are for people. How people's "feeds" are making them lazy and stupid. But in "Everything Bad Is Good For You" the author tries to argue how that might be the case. How media entertainment like video games and watching TV actually improves our intelligence. How our "feeds" are actually good for us and not the opposite.