Is short video affecting the way modern people think?

Recently, I was chatting with a friend and mentioned a very interesting point: with the continuous rise of Shake, Hand, video number, bringing hundreds of millions of users per day, short videos have undoubtedly "invaded" every aspect of life, and whether it will ultimately change people's way of thinking? My answer is that it is bound to change.

The way people think about issues is often highly correlated with the way they receive information. As the old saying goes, "ten deaf, nine dumb", due to the difference in receiving information, which directly leads to the difference in the output of the information. And because of the difference in the reception of information, the brain nerve receives a different stimulus frequency band, in the long run, we think, cognitive structure, there will be a comprehensive change.

By the same token, what is the difference between short videos and traditional graphic content? Pulling the time back to ten years ago, after the rise of microblogging, many people exclaimed that this kind of communication content centered on 140 characters would change the way we think. People stopped thinking about long sentences and used shorter language to communicate, which was reflected in the reluctance to spend time reading a "big" physical book, and gradually shifted their energies to accessing information through the Internet.

Daniel Kahneman's "Thinking, Fast and Slow" mentions that the structure of human thinking is divided into System 1 and System 2, and System 1 is a way of thinking that saves energy by making quick judgments through emotional sensations, which plays a huge role in human survival activities. For example, if a fire burns our hands, we can avoid the danger by pulling our hands back without thinking, instead of avoiding the fire after thinking, "The temperature is over 50 degrees, which will denature my proteins". For example, if a lion suddenly appears in front of us, we don't need to think that the beast has horrible teeth and is strong, but rather we should run away or play dead immediately. Both of these scenarios use System One thinking to conserve energy and make judgments in a very short period of time. However, this kind of judgment does not play much of a role in complex cognition, and may even be "carried away". The headline party and fragmented views on microblogging quickly trigger not the user's cognition and thoughts on the matter, but the user's emotional state of joy, anger, sadness, happiness, sadness and fear. Whether it's a short sentence or a short video, the user's preference for these "fast-moving products" in the field of content consumption does not essentially promote thinking, but only increases the emotional experience.

It's easy to see that the human brain actually prefers system 1. A woman in an angry state, with mean words and disturbing volume, is unconscious and effortless behavior.

System 2 is more difficult, despite the fact that there is a great deal of logical reasoning that seeks to produce more accurate judgments. Multiplying seventeen by twenty-four is difficult to derive immediately, and the arithmetic process is mind- and energy-consuming.

People are willing to brush soap operas, preferring simple emotional judgments, and are not willing to do in-depth thinking in their spare time. Based on this, short videos are popular.

Looking back at the way information is disseminated, it has evolved and developed along the lines of text to pictures, to audio, and then to video. Video as the richest content carrier, it contains moving pictures (24 frames per second), sound, text, set a variety of information in one form. It makes it easy to receive the highest density of information within three seconds. And this information only needs to be received passively. In contrast to this is book information, which one needs to actively access. This is the fundamental reason why watching a movie is relaxing, while reading a book can be very tiring.

Most importantly, humans have lived in a live video stream since birth, and what we see and hear is a "video", which is the least expensive form of presentation for the human brain to receive information. When you read a book, you need to fill in the images in the text. And those still pictures, also need to think of the story behind them. Compared to text and pictures, video is the most direct way to experience an interactive experience.

Short videos are not without harm. People who brush short videos for a long time can develop serious physical and mental problems. Just like eating only refined rice, it will make the human body lack some specific nutrients, and even lead to impaired chewing ability, affecting the normal function of teeth. Similarly, the stimulation system of the human brain to eat the kind of "low-quality", "high-calorie" garbage information (short video), will make the brain's second decision-making system (logic, reasoning, proof system) long-term exercise, which will lead to a serious decline in the brain's decision-making ability.

So I think there must be a phenomenon of short videos changing the way people perceive and think. In a sense, the "dyslexia" of a certain group of people is caused by too many short videos. As a workplace, we can not consume content all the time, on the contrary, work needs to create content, need to form some reasoning and judgment. Since we can't avoid the "erosion" of short videos, we might as well face up to these content "fast-consuming products" and not just immerse ourselves in the momentary sensory stimulation, try to read or systematically study certain courses to exercise the brain reaction, in order to improve the ability to think in depth.

Although short videos are good, don't be "greedy"! I would like to encourage all of you to do the same.