

How to stay very, very dumb. It's a fact: TV sitcoms destroy your brain. - donna
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/g/a/2008/05/14/notes051408.DTL

======
hugh
Perhaps, but I regret the tens of hours I've spent watching, (say) Frasier or
How I Met Your Mother significantly less than the minute and a half I spent
reading that article.

~~~
cheponis
Aren't you, then, the Poster Child for this article?

------
gojomo
"It's a fact" makes it sound like some actual facts supporting the title would
be in the article. Alas, no.

Noticing this was from sfgate.com, I suspected this was a Mark Morford piece
even before clicking through. Morford is such a perfect exemplar of bien-
pensant San Francisco thought, and of what passes for wit among the orthodox
politically correct, that I sometimes wonder if he's real. He's like a
character from 'Stuff White People Like' brought to life.

It's a fact: The number one reason why white people like not having a TV is so
that they can tell you that they don’t have a TV.[1]

[1]
[http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.wordpress.com/2008/01/26/28-not-...](http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.wordpress.com/2008/01/26/28-not-
having-a-tv/)

~~~
helveticaman
Seriously. I skimmed through looking for numbers, but having found nothing, I
went to the HN comments section. I feel I made a good decision by not reading
the article.

------
maxklein
Hmm, let's get this straight - Caveman had no TV, and stayed in his cave for
10 thousands of years. The Middle ages had no TV, and entertained with bloody
battles, torture and witch burning.

And right now, the age of TV is the most peaceful and innovative age in a long
time. Only marred by a few surly spots in the world - which are the same spots
that don't have any TV!

------
DmitriLebedev
The article starts with "I hate wasting time passively watching that TV
stuff", then makes a weak point admitting that wasting time on editing or
reading Wikipedia is useful. Then it ends pointing in the opposite direction:
"But let professionals do their job and let's just consume what there's on the
market".

------
blogimus
He could just as easily named the article "As seen on TV" and then it would be
cryptic and enticing, rather than sensationalist. But I guess it worked, I
read the article anyway. He makes a rather roundabout way of dissing
groupthink, but hey, its his blog.

------
slapshot
The article says nothing of the sort. It says that TV is a waste of time since
you're not making anything new or different. The same would go for watching
baseball games, going to concerts, sitting in traffic, eating at a sit-down
restaurant, etc.

------
sealedidentity
Man, that was one really poorly written article. I do agree that tv makes
people dumb, but really what a circumlocutory way to get to the point. Might
as well been wiser off agreeing with the article's headline and buzzing away.

------
mynameishere
Watch out boys, that article can make your genitalia shrivel up and fall off!
_Wham!_

(Seriously, what the hell?)

------
Jesin
This article is better than its title would suggest, and most of it is not
actually about TV or sitcoms.

------
gojomo
For a contrarian -- but reasoned -- argument, see Steven Johnson's suggestion
that TV, especially in its growing complexity compared to past decades, is a
brain-booster:

[http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/24/magazine/24TV.html?pagewan...](http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/24/magazine/24TV.html?pagewanted=all&position=)

As much as we may suspect TV erodes patience, initiative, focus, and a deep
understanding of things, there's still the 'Flynn effect', the not-completely-
understood rise in normalized IQs for as long as there's been regular testing.
The ever-growing variety and complexity of 'pop' entertainment, from early
radio and movies through to TV and the internet, might be a factor.

------
attack
Working endlessly without a break. Very, very dumb.

