Disclaimer: I don't own Johnny Test. It's owned by Cartoon Network.
Let me get this clear: this is a parody. If the University of Virginia team which conducted the SpongeBob study decided to conduct a follow up study, then I would personally fly all the way to Virginia to fine those "scientists" for destroying my childhood.
Once time, I was babysitting when Johnny Test came on Cartoon Network. My brother just LOVES that show. Unfortunately, I don't share his enthusiasm. This is purely for my entertainment. I'm sorry if I offend anyone with my opinion. Okay? Again, I just didn't want to get off on the wrong foot.
Now that that's over with, Enjoy!
New York Times- Sunday, February 12
Psychologists at the University of Virginia have done a follow up study to their earlier study where sixty four-year old children watched the popular television show SpongeBob SquarePants, the PBS educational program, Caillou, or drew with crayons. Children did their designated activity for about nine minutes before scientists administered a series of tests to evaluate their mental abilities after viewing. The results were that the children who had watched SpongeBob scored significantly lower than their peers who took part in the other activities. It was concluded that watching fast paced cartoons, such as SpongeBob Squarepants, impacted children's short-term mental abilities. However, the researchers are unsure of the long term impact these cartoons may have on children.
Critics have also found many questions left unanswered by the study. Many have said that 60 pre-school age children of similar financial, ethnic and family background do not really represent the total viewing population for a show such as SpongeBob which is viewed by millions each week and has viewers of all backgrounds. Viacom, the owner of Nickelodeon and its related franchises claims that SpongeBob is not targeted at audience of that age and is aimed mostly at children aged 6-11. Regardless, SpongeBob viewers younger than six years old are common. Another problem is that the psychologists did not test the children prior to completing their designated activity. If the researchers do not know the children's intelligence, then the test results prove nothing, since the children in the study could have varied levels of attention, intelligence, etc.
Another factor to consider is that it is very unlikely those nine minutes of exposure would accurately represent the total viewing time that children would have throughout their lives. The effects of sustained exposure to said fast-paced cartoon shows have not been thus far studied. Even if it has been determined that children who watched SpongeBob do temporarily suffer inferior mental abilities in the short term, does watching fast-paced cartoons on a regular basis really have a long term impact?
To answer this and other questions left unanswered by their previous study, the University of Virginia psychologists who administered the SpongeBob study have decided to seek the answers in a follow-up study. Through applications, they selected a group of twenty four children of all ages and groups. This time they plan to allow the children watch a television cartoon with a similar viewer demographic, Johnny Test, a cartoon about an 11-year-old boy who is constantly subject to outrageous science experiments by his genius 13 year-old twin sisters. However, the show does contain many things that, in the real world, would be impossible. Johnny, the protagonist of the show owns a dog that walks on two legs and has the ability to talk. The majority of the sisters' inventions defy the current constraints on technology and science. The University of Virginia team also plans on studying the effect of a warped reality on children's developing minds. Children enrolled in the study will watch Johnny Test on a regular basis for at least half and hour a day over a period of three or more years.
Regardless of whether it ends up being remembered in a positive or negative light, already, this study promises to be one of the most publicized in the 21st Century. Critics note that the University of Virginia has maybe set its bar too high. Similar long term studies often prove to be costly and fail to make any significant breakthroughs in research. Other details about the study have not been currently published, but the researchers say with emphasis that this study must be treated with extreme open mindedness yet approached with caution. It is not even clear what the University of Virginia plans to make of the study, as unlike its predecessor, its results could tip the scales in any direction. However, like any scientific endeavor, the seed of progress is always planted in the land of controversy.
Author's Note: I'll probably write another chapter soon, given it's Thanksgiving Break and I have all the time in the world to write. All reviews are duly appreciated by yours truly. I always love hearing what you have to say. ;)
