Is it possible that a diet of Reality TV and Grand Theft Auto can make you more intelligent? This unlikely theory is put forward by Steven Johnson in his new book Everything Bad Is Good For You. The ideas contained in the book have attracted columns in the New York Times and glowing praise from Malcolm Gladwell in the New Yorker.

Johnson observes that average IQ scores have steadily risen in the modern era and ties this among other things to the increased complexity of the television we watch, and the interactivity and problem-solving skills fostered by the post-Space Invaders/Pacman generation of video games.

For example, television shows such as "24", The Sopranos and ER contain very complex narrative structures. Many simultaneous plots interweave themselves between numerous complex characters. These plots may lie dormant for several episodes, only to reappear suddenly, requiring from the audience an instant recall of the back-story. Dialogue is often replete with technical jargon, which lends authenticity to the drama, but which must be filtered by the audience to pick out any information directly relevant to the story. Johnson contends that shows from previous generations did not challenge the audience to anywhere near the same degree, and that such shows therefore encourage multi-threaded thinking and enhanced cognitive skills. He even proposes that today's trash is more educational than that of yesteryear, suggesting that reality TV shows encourage thought and analysis of the contenders' social skills and strategies.

What I can agree with in Johnson's theory is that the post-"Hill Street Blues" genre of multi-threaded drama series places more demands on the viewer than the majority of older popular dramas. "24" is more cerebral than "Starsky and Hutch", "The Simpsons" is beyond comparison with "The Flintstones". However, it is quite a stretch to use this as evidence of a causal link to increases in intelligence.

Firstly, there are anomalies in the theory. M*A*S*H had many of the qualities Johnson points to in modern dramas, and was not considered too complicated or morally ambiguous for its enormous audience. "The Twilight Zone" deliberately set out to disorientate its viewers, and episodes stand up to repeated viewing even now. If his theory is correct, would we not expect to see similar developments in cinema? I would suggest that in the same period that cutting-edge television has become more challenging, movies have dumbed down. My theory would be that, perhaps aided by Hollywood's move toward predictable feel-good formulaic storylines, the cream of script-writers been attracted to jobs in television, leading to a migration in quality from large to small screen.

Johnson likes to compare Reality TV more to sports than game shows because of the often gladiatorial environment programme makers like to foster. He points to the fact that such shows lead to debates next-day in the office similar to those seen in the wake of sports events. This brings to my mind a comparison perhaps not intended by the author. Dedicated TV sports fans will know the in-depth life stories of hundreds of competitors. Every game is enriched by such history, and further develops the unpredictable plots which interweave continually between these protagonists. Has any drama ever been as complex as a season of Premier League soccer or Major League Baseball? To say that a show involving, say, twenty characters and twenty plot lines is breaking new ground will be news to any armchair sports addict. Watching a game also requires a great deal of focus over an extended period of time if one wishes not to miss anything. Has anyone suggested that such couch potato habits have improved intelligence?

An interesting corollary is that the trend in the US towards complex drama and comedy has not been evident at all in the UK. In the seventies and eighties, with the notable exception of M*A*S*H, I would say that the general quality of UK comedy was greatly superior to that coming out of North America, if not from the point of view of complexity, then at least in terms of writing and acting. The last twenty years have seen the bar raised considerably by the kind of American shows mentioned above. I can think of no comparable dramas coming out the UK, and only the odd comedy. Most of the successful British exports are detective shows or costume dramas, enjoyed for their production values, settings and quirky English characters. The majority are based on successful books. ER, "24", "The Sopranos" etc. are all successful imports, but the idea of home-growing such a style of programme has not been taken on.

Johnson's other main strand involves the cerebral value of video games. His contention is that the premise of many of the more complex games, in which the player can only advance by solving what are often very complicated problems, is conducive to the development of transferrable problem-solving skills.

This idea seems to me to have more mileage than his TV-related thoughts, at least in theory. I can see the logic in the interactive "sit forward" media of the video game having more potential benefit than the "lean back" media of entertainment television. However, it is unfortunate that the development of whatever skills potentially may be offered by the playing of video games is so often linked to the meteing out violence in the context of the game. I can imagine that creative minds could potentially graft educational goals into the enjoyable, addictive format of problem-solving and overcoming challenges in a virtual environment. I am sure much work is already being done in this field, and that there will be much valuable mining of this seam as ideas about how such virtual environments can be applied to education are developed.

Once again, however, the question arises as to whether this suggests a causal link between the playing of such games and measured improvements in intelligence among today's youth? I am still skeptical. I think that technology has undoubtedly had a role to play in improving minds, but not in the way suggested by Steven Johnson. I think it is more likely that the fact that more general technological developments both at work and at home have taken over many of the repetitive time-intensive chores of the past, leaving people to fill their work and leisure time with what are often more mentally challenging activities. Rather than entertainment media pushing the envelope, I'd suggest that increased automation has encouraged our mental development. Modern computing has also encouraged multi-tasking, making our brains more used to spreading our concentration over several subjects at once, rather than going in-depth concentration on one item. Today's TV producers and game-writers are thus merely finding a market for products which entertain our increasingly multi-threaded thinking patterns. Cognitive changes drive the entertainment market, not the other way round. There may be limited cerebral benefits from such entertainment, but such benefits should not be overstated.

The complex televisual and gaming media is, without doubt, here to stay and will probably become more intricate as our various media strands continue to coalesce, with television becoming more interactive and virtual reality becoming more real, but however well developed these trends become television and video games will never offer the complexities of real life. All the problem-solving skills in the world will never be much use without in-depth knowledge of the subject, and such knowledge will at least for the foreseeable future have to be imbibed by traditional means of reading or human instruction. Moreover, excellence in lateral thinking will be of limited use if the beneficiary hasn't developed the social skills to build the human consensus to implement their innovative solution.

To end on a positive note, the growth in popularity of a more mentally challenging brand of entertainment media is to be lauded as a positive development, and if there is a benefit from the popularisation of Steven Johnson's theory it will be that pastimes such as video gaming will be less stigmatised as time-wasters, and considered as potentially more interesting ways to spend some of our leisure time in the future, particularly if the content is made more socially acceptable. However, the dull conclusion I would draw is that participation in such media is not "bad", but is only "good for you" in moderation. The printed (or virtual) word remains the best source of learning, and those seeking interactivity will always find virtual reality a poor substitute for the opportunities provided by the real thing.