T
載入中...
載入中...
In 2022, a lab in Munich did something that I've been wanting to see. They gave 60 people a cognitive test, then sent them away for a 10-minute break, and
2022年，慕尼黑的一個實驗室做了一件我一直想看到的事。他們讓60個人做認知測試，然後讓他們休息10分鐘，
then tested them again. Now, the difference was the break. Some people just sat there, some scrolled on Twitter, some watched a normal YouTube video, and some went on TikTok.
然後再次測試他們。不同之處在於休息方式。有些人只是坐著，有些人滑Twitter，有些人看普通的YouTube影片，有些人刷TikTok。
So, whose brain changed during that time? This is one of the few experiments that I've been able to dig up that has actually tested the idea of brain rot. But the science is starting
那麼，誰的大腦在那段時間發生了變化？這是我能找到的少數真正測試過「大腦退化」這個概念的實驗之一。但科學正在開始
to catch up to the fact that short form video feeds are everywhere. And almost all of the commentary says that they're making us dumber.
跟上短影片無處不在的事實。而幾乎所有的評論都說它們讓我們變笨。
>> I cannot physically bring myself to study.
我實在沒辦法讓自己讀書。
>> I'm addicted, too. We're all addicted to this.
我也上癮了。我們都對這個上癮。
>> Oh, no. It's >> horrible for you.
天啊。這對你太糟糕了。
>> Oh, and we're giving kids just the attention span of a walnut. This is awkward because we make shorts and it has introduced us to a bunch of new
而且我們讓孩子的注意力只剩核桃那麼大。這有點尷尬，因為我們製作短影片，而且它讓我們接觸到很多新
viewers. If Brain Rod is real, then we might be part of the problem.
觀眾。如果大腦退化是真的，那我們可能是問題的一部分。
>> I do have a lot of skepticism whenever there's a claim that like some new thing is fundamentally changing the way that humans operate.
每當有人聲稱某些新事物正在從根本上改變人類運作方式時，我都會相當懷疑。
>> Yeah. Apparently, Socrates thought that writing was going to ruin our minds and you know, people worried about novels being addictive and the telegraph and all of that. Like on Howtown, we don't
是的。據說蘇格拉底認為寫作會毀掉我們的思維，而且，人們擔心小說會讓人上癮，還有電報等等。在Howtown，我們不會
just take the conventional wisdom. >> We're not running on vibes over here.
只是接受傳統觀念。我們不是憑感覺做事的。
We're trying to see if there's anything behind the vibes.
我們試圖看看感覺背後是否有什麼實質。
>> So, I went hunting for evidence. We've heard about shrinking attention spans since the start of the smartphone era, but how can we measure those? And what are the studies saying about the video
所以，我去尋找證據。自從智慧型手機時代開始，我們就聽說注意力持續時間在縮短，但我們如何測量這些？關於影片
feeds specifically? After 10 minutes of swiping through shorts, do people really think any worse?
feed的研究具體說了什麼？滑了10分鐘的短影片後，人們真的會想得更差嗎？
First, I wanted to know what makes this new format different from the hours of television that people watch every day.
首先，我想知道是什麼讓這種新格式與人們每天看的電視不同。
And you can hear it in how the companies talk about their own product. See, last year, a bunch of private conversations between Tik Tok employees came to light
你可以從這些公司談論自己產品的方式聽出來。去年，TikTok員工之間的一堆私人對話曝光了
after 14 US states investigated and sued the company.
在美國14個州調查並起訴這家公司之後。
>> This is multiple lawsuits coming from individual states attorney general, and the action alleges that Tik Tok exploits and harms young users. The state attorneys had agreed to black out the
這是來自各州檢察長的多起訴訟，訴訟指控TikTok剝削和傷害年輕用戶。各州檢察長同意塗黑
confidential materials, and I found the breadth of these redactions odd. That's a local reporter named Sylvia Goodman.
機密材料，我發現這些塗黑的範圍很奇怪。那是一位名叫Sylvia Goodman的當地記者。
She discovered that the redactions in the Kentucky complaint had not been done correctly. I copy and pasted it all out into a fresh document, and I could read
她發現肯塔基州投訴中的塗黑沒有正確完成。我把它全部複製貼上到一個新文件中，我可以讀到
all of those redactions. I'll be honest, my jaw was on the floor reading some of this. The document showed Tik Tok employees openly grappling with the potential harm of the bold glamour
所有那些塗黑的內容。老實說，讀到其中一些內容時我驚呆了。該文件顯示TikTok員工公開討論大膽美顏
filter. bold glamour filter. This is without the filter.
濾鏡的潛在危害。大膽美顏濾鏡。這是沒有濾鏡的樣子。
>> They admitted that those screen time reminders were a good talking point, but not altogether effective. One sentence that really stood out to me came from an internal document titled digital well-being.
他們承認那些螢幕時間提醒是很好的談資，但並不真正有效。有一句話讓我印象深刻，來自一份題為數位健康的內部文件。
>> Tik Tok's success can largely be attributed to strong out-of-the-box personalization and automation, which limits user agency.
TikTok的成功很大程度上歸功於強大的開箱即用個性化和自動化，這限制了用戶的自主權。
>> We hear a lot about that personalization. That's the famous algorithm that decides what to show you based on what you watch and what people with similar watch behavior watch. But I
我們經常聽到關於個性化的事。那就是著名的演算法，它根據你看什麼以及有相似觀看行為的人看什麼來決定給你展示什麼。但我
want to zero in on that last part about how the interface limits user agency.
想重點關注最後那部分，關於界面如何限制用戶自主權。
They're saying that Tik Tok wins by making fewer things feel like your decision. And I think that's the key to understanding what short form video feeds might be doing to our
他們說TikTok之所以贏，是因為讓更少的事情感覺像是你的決定。我認為這是理解短影片可能對我們
minds. And since we use that word feed, let's roll with the food analogy.
大腦做了什麼的關鍵。既然我們用「feed」這個詞，那就用食物來類比吧。
The restaurants we know have a menu. You browse, you pick something, you eat it.
我們知道的餐廳有菜單。你瀏覽，你選擇，你吃。
Streaming television is that kind of restaurant. YouTube is too, or it was.
串流電視就是那種餐廳。YouTube也是，或者說曾經是。
Their big innovation is that the menus are personalized based on what you've eaten there in the past.
他們的大創新是菜單根據你過去在那裡吃過什麼來個性化。
Now, imagine a restaurant without menus where you sit down, open your mouth, and a device places a morsel of something onto your tongue. You don't get another
現在，想像一個沒有菜單的餐廳，你坐下，張開嘴，一個裝置把一小口東西放到你舌頭上。你不會得到另一
bite until you eat it or spit it out. By measuring your chew time, the restaurant can adjust the lineup of bites to feature more of the flavors that you tend to swallow.
口，除非你吃掉它或吐出來。通過測量你的咀嚼時間，餐廳可以調整一口口食物的順序，讓更多你傾向於吞下的口味出現。
But they don't just hit you with the same flavor time after time. They can also test out some unexpected morsels because even if it's not your favorite, it's just a bite. And there's
但他們不會一次又一次給你同樣的口味。他們也可以測試一些意想不到的小口，因為即使不是你的最愛，也只是一口。而且還有
another one waiting that might be amazing. Without a menu, you lose the experience of choosing, but you gain the experience of being surprised over and over and over again.
另一口在等著，可能會很棒。沒有菜單，你失去了選擇的體驗，但你獲得了一次又一次被驚喜的體驗。
Plus, a lot more people can make morsels than can make a whole menu. So, this restaurant can recruit way more cooks trying way more tricks to make their morsels tasty.
而且，能做小口食物的人比能做整份菜單的人多得多。所以，這家餐廳可以招募更多廚師，嘗試更多技巧來讓他們的小口食物美味。
This restaurant is Tik Tok and reals and YouTube shorts and all of the other imitators. and it is probably the most engaging media interface that I've ever seen. Just in terms of sheer
這家餐廳就是TikTok和Reels和YouTube Shorts以及所有其他模仿者。它可能是我見過的最吸引人的媒體界面。就純粹的
entertainment by watch time. There's a catch, though. This sequential feeding system wouldn't work if the dishes were big or complicated. It only works with morsels. If you take away the user's
觀看時間而言的娛樂。但有個問題。這種順序餵食系統如果菜餚很大或很複雜就不會起作用。它只適用於小口食物。如果你拿走用戶的
agency, you arrive at short form. We've seen this happen before with Tinder.
自主權，你就會得到短形式。我們以前在Tinder上見過這種情況。
Instead of a dating app based on a menu, they showed one profile at a time, forcing feedback from the swiper. And what happened? The profiles became short form. Just photos, a couple of words,
他們沒有基於菜單的約會app，而是一次只顯示一個檔案，強制滑動者提供反饋。發生了什麼？檔案變成了短形式。只有照片，幾個字，
and an algorithm that encodes our subconscious responses more than our reflective intentions. Maybe you noticed that all the dating apps became Tinder.
還有一個演算法，它編碼我們潛意識的反應而非我們反思性的意圖。也許你注意到所有約會app都變成了Tinder。
So, is all of media becoming Tik Tok?
那麼，所有媒體都在變成TikTok嗎？
I've been trying to figure out just how much human attention has shifted into these feeds, but only the platforms know that and they don't release the data.
我一直試圖弄清楚有多少人類注意力已經轉移到這些feed中，但只有平臺知道那些數據，而且他們不公開。
But they do these quarterly calls with investors. And if you go back through the past few years, you can kind of hear just how big of a response Meta and
但他們會與投資者進行季度電話會議。如果你回顧過去幾年，你可以聽出Meta和
YouTube have made to the rise of Tik Tok.
YouTube對TikTok崛起的回應有多大。
>> Reals already makes up more than 20% of the time, 50% of the time that people spend on Instagram.
Reels已經佔據了人們在Instagram上花費時間的20%以上，50%的時間。
>> Over 15 billion views each day. 30 billion billion plus 70 billion.
每天超過150億次觀看。300億，再加700億。
>> We now average over 200 billion daily views on YouTube shorts.
我們現在YouTube Shorts平均每天超過2000億次觀看。
>> Social media has gone through two eras so far. First was when all content was from friends, family, and accounts that you followed directly. The second was when we added all of the creator
社群媒體到目前為止經歷了兩個時代。首先是所有內容都來自朋友、家人和你直接關注的帳號。第二個是當我們添加了所有創作者
content. Now, as AI makes it easier to create and remix content, we're going to add yet another huge corpus of content on top of those.
內容。現在，隨著AI讓創作和混剪內容變得更容易，我們將在這些之上再添加另一大批內容。
It's really easy for me to think of this as the bowl of potato chips that someone sticks on the table that you didn't order, but it's there, so you snack on it.
對我來說，很容易把這想成是有人放在桌上的一碗薯片，你沒點但它在那裡，所以你就吃了。
>> No one can eat just one. >> And it makes me wonder if How town shorts are kind of like, do you know those like pe-shaped potato chips?
沒人能只吃一片。這讓我想知道Howtown的短影片是不是有點像，你知道那種豌豆形狀的薯片嗎？
>> Uh-huh. Right. Right. Right. I know what you're talking about.
嗯。對對對。我知道你在說什麼。
>> It's like a green Cheeto. >> There's a version of this that's like, but our chips are made of vegetables. I suppose it's no surprise that a bottomless personalized mystery snack
就像綠色的起司條。有一種版本是說，但我們的薯片是蔬菜做的。我想無底的個性化神秘零食
dispenser could take over our media diets, but there is such thing as a healthy snack, right? So, I'm going to tell you about all the research that
分配器能接管我們的媒體飲食並不令人驚訝，但確實有健康零食這種東西，對吧？所以，我要告訴你我讀過的所有關於這方面的研究
I've read about this and then maybe we can decide how we feel about it.
然後也許我們可以決定我們對此的感受。
>> Yeah. Great. Yeah. It's interesting. As you've been researching all this, I have been feeling especially scatterbrained.
是的。太好了。是的。很有趣。當你在研究這些的時候，我一直感覺特別心不在焉。
I'm like distracted by the news. I've been moving between two different continents. So, it's a happy coincidence that the sponsor for this week's episode is Headspace, the mental health platform.
我被新聞分心了。我一直在兩個不同的大陸之間搬家。所以，很巧的是本週節目的贊助商是Headspace，一個心理健康平臺。
>> Did you try it? >> Yeah. Yeah. They sent me a free subscription and I've been taking their finding focus course, which is basically 10-minute sessions of guided meditation, and it's been really nice,
你試過嗎？是的。他們給了我一個免費訂閱，我一直在上他們的專注力課程，基本上是10分鐘的引導冥想，真的很不錯，
honestly, to have that break in my day.
老實說，在我的一天中有那樣的休息。
A couple days ago, I actually just did one while I was waiting for the bus. You know, I've done a fair amount of reporting on mindfulness meditation over
幾天前，我實際上在等公車的時候做了一次。你知道，這些年來我做過相當多關於正念冥想的報導，
the years, and there's a real growing body of evidence from some pretty robust studies that it can improve your working memory. It can improve your ability to sustain attention. In one study, people
而且有越來越多的證據來自一些相當穩健的研究，表明它可以改善你的工作記憶。它可以改善你維持注意力的能力。在一項研究中，人們
who meditated with headsp space for a month were less distractable than a control group who did these standard brain training exercises, things like puzzles and memory tasks. So, if you,
用Headspace冥想一個月後，比做標準大腦訓練練習的對照組更不容易分心，比如拼圖和記憶任務。所以，如果你，
dear viewer, want to help your brain to focus, you want to learn to meditate, maybe you just want to have these calm moments built into your day, you can
親愛的觀眾，想要幫助你的大腦集中注意力，想學習冥想，也許你只是想讓這些平靜的時刻融入你的日常，你可以
start Headspace for free by following the link in our description box or scanning this QR code that's on screen.
通過點擊我們描述框中的連結或掃描螢幕上的二維碼免費開始Headspace。
Usually, it's just a twoe trial, but with this link, you get a full 60 days completely free. Before we get to Tik Tok, there's a bigger question to answer. Have our attention spans really
通常只是兩週試用，但通過這個連結，你可以獲得完整60天完全免費。在我們談到TikTok之前，有一個更大的問題要回答。我們的注意力持續時間真的
shrunk? According to a 2015 post by Time magazine, yes, they're now shorter than a goldfish. But this is one of those myths that won't die.
縮短了嗎？根據時代雜誌2015年的一篇文章，是的，它們現在比金魚還短。但這是那些不會消失的迷思之一。
>> Here's a fun fact. >> Some researchers have concluded that our attention span is now shorter.
這裡有個有趣的事實。一些研究人員得出結論，我們的注意力持續時間現在更短了。
>> Shorter than a goldfish. >> That's a scientific fact.
比金魚還短。這是科學事實。
>> The claim came from a report published by Microsoft which had this graphic showing our attention span declining from 12 seconds to 8 seconds. But they were citing something called statistic
這個說法來自微軟發布的一份報告，其中有個圖表顯示我們的注意力持續時間從12秒下降到8秒。但他們引用的是一個叫做統計大腦的東西
brain which in turn cited these sources. And when journalists tried to track down those sources, they didn't exist. The numbers were entirely made up for both the humans and the goldfish. So what
而這又引用了這些來源。當記者試圖追蹤這些來源時，它們根本不存在。人類和金魚的數字都是完全捏造的。那麼
would it really take to measure attention spans? Well, I talked to one of the few people who have tried. My name is Gloria Mark. She's written a book called Attention Span. And way back
真正測量注意力持續時間需要什麼？我和少數嘗試過的人之一談過。我叫Gloria Mark。她寫了一本書叫《注意力持續時間》。早在
in 2003, she convinced an investment management company to let her peek over the shoulders of 14 of their employees as they worked.
2003年，她說服了一家投資管理公司讓她在14名員工工作時觀察他們。
>> And we would just observe them and with stopwatches, every time they changed to do something else, we would click on the the stopwatch and it was very, very tiring. Those employees spent about
我們只是觀察他們，用秒錶，每當他們換做其他事情時，我們就按秒錶，這非常非常累人。那些員工大約花了
2 and 1/2 minutes working on their computers before they switched to checking email or doing something else.
兩分半鐘在電腦上工作，然後就切換去查郵件或做其他事情。
Fast forward to 2012. She convinces another workplace to let her install software that tracks how often their employees click from one window to another and finds that they switch every 75 seconds on
快進到2012年。她說服另一個工作場所讓她安裝軟體，追蹤他們的員工多久從一個視窗點擊到另一個，發現他們平均每75秒切換一次
average. Now it's closer to 40. >> So yes, empirically we can say that on screens attention spans have shortened.
現在接近40秒。所以是的，我們可以從經驗上說在螢幕上注意力持續時間確實縮短了。
>> It's a little tricky because obviously we have this method switch like without that dot at 2004 the trend doesn't look as dramatic, right? It's sort of funny
有點棘手，因為顯然我們有這種方法切換，如果沒有2004年那個點，趨勢看起來就沒那麼戲劇性，對吧？有點好笑
to me to think about the adjudicators or the watchers in that first test were also having their attentions tested.
想到第一次測試中的裁判或觀察者，他們的注意力也在被測試。
Like were they able to catch like they're also having to focus? The other big question I would have is like is this measuring our ability to focus or just how much
比如他們能不能注意到，他們也必須保持專注？我想問的另一個大問題是，這是在測量我們專注的能力還是只是
distracting stuff there is in our lives. What I'm worried about is that I'm no longer able to read a book for 6 hours like I did when I was 12.
我們生活中有多少讓人分心的東西。我擔心的是我不再能像12歲時那樣讀6小時的書了。
>> Has something changed about your brain? >> Yeah. Has has something changed about the ability of my brain? It's obvious to me that something has changed about the way that computers work. Like, yeah,
你的大腦發生了什麼變化嗎？是的。我大腦的能力發生了什麼變化嗎？對我來說很明顯，電腦的工作方式發生了變化。是的，
I've just got notifications. There's literal sounds that are telling me you should be distracted by this other thing right now. And so, I still have I'm still curious about like if there's
我有通知。有實際的聲音告訴我你現在應該被這個其他東西分心。所以，我仍然好奇是否有
actual damage being done to our mental systems. I guess >> the advantage of Gloria Mark's approach is that it captures real life. It's not just bringing people into a laboratory,
對我們心理系統造成的實際損害。我想Gloria Mark方法的優勢在於它捕捉了真實生活。不只是把人帶到實驗室，
having them sit for an hour in front of a computer, but we actually observed what people did over the day in the course of their actual work. The limitation is that it can't distinguish
讓他們在電腦前坐一小時，而是我們實際觀察人們在一天中實際工作過程中做了什麼。限制是它無法區分
between these three different influences on our ability to focus. There's our attentional capacity. That's what we generally think of when we say attention span. Then there's our motivation, how
這三種不同因素對我們專注能力的影響。有我們的注意力容量。那就是當我們說注意力持續時間時通常想到的。然後是我們的動機，
much we need or care about focusing on this task. And there's competition. How much is our environment distracting us?
我們有多需要或關心專注於這個任務。還有競爭。我們的環境有多分散我們的注意力？
Now, in a lab, they can get closer to controlling for motivation and competition. But the tasks that they give people don't look anything like real life. Let me show you. This is a
在實驗室裡，他們可以更接近控制動機和競爭。但他們給人們的任務看起來完全不像真實生活。讓我給你看。這是一個
classic attention test. They tell you to memorize this image. And then you go through these rows, crossing out the items that match the one that you memorized. You get 20 seconds per row.
經典的注意力測試。他們告訴你記住這個圖像。然後你瀏覽這些行，劃掉與你記住的那個匹配的項目。每行你有20秒。
There's 14 rows. They look at how many errors you make, how fast you work, whether you get worse over time. And on this test, performance in adults has actually been increasing. That's
有14行。他們看你犯了多少錯誤，你工作有多快，你是否隨著時間變差。在這個測試中，成人的表現實際上一直在提高。那是
according to a study that compiled scores from three decades and 32 countries. In children, overall performance hasn't changed, but their test taking style has. They've become faster, making more errors, but also
根據一項匯編了三十年和32個國家分數的研究。在兒童中，總體表現沒有變化，但他們的答題風格變了。他們變得更快，犯更多錯誤，但也
completing more items. Now, researchers who run lab tests like these don't claim to be measuring attention span. I think we often in daily life, and I even do this myself, we just talk about
完成更多項目。進行這類實驗室測試的研究人員並不聲稱在測量注意力持續時間。我認為我們在日常生活中經常，我自己也這樣做，我們只是談論
attention, and it feels obvious, like we know what it means to pay attention, but actually if we give people different tasks, we can see that there's distinct components of attention that aren't
注意力，感覺很明顯，比如我們知道專注意味著什麼，但實際上如果我們給人們不同的任務，我們可以看到注意力有不同的組成部分，它們彼此並不
necessarily related to each other. >> Monica Rosenberg studies patterns of brain activity during attention tests.
一定相關。Monica Rosenberg研究注意力測試期間大腦活動的模式。
the same. >> When I'm watching a really engaging movie, like my lab collected data as people watched a Hitchcock film and YouTube videos about cooking, is this
不一樣。當我看一部真正吸引人的電影時，我的實驗室收集了人們觀看希區考克電影和烹飪YouTube影片時的數據，這是
the same kind of attention or is there something fundamentally different about right being engaged in a narrative that I'm motivated to follow versus forcing myself to do this boring task? Um, and
同一種注意力，還是被吸引到一個我有動力跟隨的敘事中，與強迫自己做這個無聊任務之間有根本不同的東西？
it, you know, it turns out there's some similarities, but there's also some differences. And so I think how well I do on one task with pictures is not
你知道，結果是有一些相似之處，但也有一些差異。所以我認為我在一個有圖片的任務上做得多好並不能
indicative of how well I pay attention all the time in all contexts. It's certainly related, but it's not a perfect measure. So let's set aside the concept of attention spans. It's a
代表我在所有情況下一直多好地專注。這當然是相關的，但不是完美的衡量。所以讓我們把注意力持續時間的概念放一邊。這是一個
really fuzzy term. It's hard to measure. The sharper question to ask is if you binge short form video, what exactly gets worse? Is it your memory? Your reasoning? That's what the next few
非常模糊的術語。很難測量。更尖銳的問題是如果你狂看短影片，到底什麼會變差？是你的記憶？你的推理？這就是接下來幾項
studies are trying to pin down. If you ask, do people who say they're addicted to short form video also have trouble focusing? So far, the answer to
研究試圖確定的。如果你問，說自己對短影片上癮的人是否也有專注困難？到目前為止，答案
that seems to be yes. A recent review of 14 studies found that increased SFV use, that's short form video, was associated with poorer cognition, including attention and inhibitory control. But
似乎是肯定的。最近一項對14項研究的回顧發現，短影片使用增加與認知能力較差相關，包括注意力和抑制控制。但
whenever you see that term was associated with that scientist code for we're not saying this causes the problem, >> right? It's sort of our social media and teen health all over again where it's
每當你看到「相關」這個詞，那是科學家的代碼，意思是我們不是說這導致了問題，對吧？這有點像社群媒體和青少年健康的老話題，
are depressed teens becoming depressed because they are on social media or are they seeking it out?
是抑鬱的青少年因為使用社群媒體而變得抑鬱，還是他們在尋求它？
>> Yeah, I think this is the question with basically all of the harmful effects that people are attributing to these new technologies is almost all the research can't distinguish correlation from
是的，我認為這是人們歸因於這些新技術的幾乎所有有害影響的問題，幾乎所有研究都無法區分相關性和
causation. But there are a few experimental studies that I wanted to highlight. There are at least two different cognitive tests where people perform worse after scrolling a shorts
因果關係。但有一些實驗研究我想強調。至少有兩種不同的認知測試，人們在滑短影片
feed. One is a kind of trick question quiz and the other is about whether you can remember to do something that you plan to do. So first there's a measure
feed後表現更差。一個是一種陷阱問題測驗，另一個是關於你能否記得做你計劃做的事。所以首先有一個測量
based on these three questions. >> A bat and a ball cost $110 in total. The bat cost $1 more than the ball. How much does the ball cost?
基於這三個問題。一個球棒和一個球總共花費1.10美元。球棒比球貴1美元。球多少錢？
This is supposed to capture analytical thinking. To get these questions right, you have to switch out of autopilot like your gut is screaming >> 10 cents and you need to override that.
這應該捕捉分析思維。要答對這些問題，你必須切換出自動駕駛模式，因為你的直覺在尖叫10美分，你需要覆蓋它。
72 college students at Ping University in Beijing took this test after either spending 30 minutes scrolling Tik Tok or the Chinese version of Tik Tok or 30 minutes reading. And the Tik Tok group
北京平穀大學的72名大學生在花30分鐘滑TikTok或中國版TikTok或30分鐘閱讀後接受了這個測試。TikTok組
did worse. The researchers wanted to know does what you watch matter? So, they ran a second study, but this time people watched either a cute animals playlist or a science experiments
表現更差。研究人員想知道你看什麼重要嗎？所以，他們進行了第二項研究，但這次人們觀看的是可愛動物播放列表或科學實驗
playlist. They also changed how people watch. Some could swipe through the videos like a normal feed. Others had to sit and watch the same clips stitched together into one long video. And here's
播放列表。他們還改變了人們觀看的方式。有些人可以像正常feed一樣滑動瀏覽影片。其他人必須坐著觀看相同的片段拼接成一個長影片。這是
what they found. It didn't matter whether you watched animals or science, but the swiping groups consistently did worse on the cognitive reflection test. They got 38 fewer questions right out of the three
他們發現的。看動物還是科學沒有關係，但滑動組在認知反思測試中一直表現更差。在三個問題中少答對38%
questions total. That's 12% of the scale after 30 minutes from just swiping alone.
這是12%的量表，僅僅30分鐘，僅僅因為滑動。
>> Okay. Interesting. So, if you're you're subjected to essentially just a montage of videos that you don't have control over, you are not degrading your analytical thinking as much as if you're
好的。有趣。所以，如果你基本上只是被迫看一系列你無法控制的影片，你的分析思維下降程度不如你
swiping through and getting to just skip whenever you are bored. It's sort of interesting because you you think of that decision is interacting with the interface, right? That decision is
滑動瀏覽並可以在你無聊時跳過。這有點有趣，因為你會認為那個決定是在與界面互動，對吧？那個決定
cognitively more intense than just sitting back and letting something happen to you, right?
在認知上比只是坐著讓事情發生更intense，對吧？
>> Yeah. Unless boredom is cognitively intense in a way that we don't recognize.
是的。除非無聊在認知上是以我們沒有認識到的方式很intense。
>> Okay. So, that's one test that short form video makes you worse at. The other is a test of prospective memory, which is when you remember to do something
好的。所以，這是短影片讓你變差的一個測試。另一個是前瞻記憶測試，就是當你記得做你打算做的事，
that you intended to do, like picking up the dry cleaning or joining a Zoom meeting or taking a medication that you're supposed to take. Researchers at the University of Munich wanted to know
比如去取乾洗的衣服或加入Zoom會議或服用你應該服用的藥物。慕尼黑大學的研究人員想知道
how short form video feeds affect that ability >> because it was coming from a general observation that like if you scroll a bit, you feel like don't want to say
短影片feed如何影響那種能力，因為它來自一個一般性的觀察，就是如果你滑一會兒，你會感覺像是不想說
that you feel like new, but like you kind of >> dissociate. Yeah. Yeah. Dissociated a bit. So it was something like we said okay is this actually really happening
你感覺像是新的，但就像你有點解離。是的。是的。有點解離。所以這就像我們說好的，這真的在發生嗎
like and we felt that. So we said okay let's figure out uh how we can you know make this uh solid user study and investigate what can be a cognitive um
我們感覺到了。所以我們說好吧讓我們弄清楚我們怎麼能做一個穩固的用戶研究並調查什麼可能是認知
function that be associated. >> So how would you test perspective memory?
功能相關的。那麼你會怎麼測試前瞻記憶？
>> Boy oh boy. Well it feels like yeah we're getting tested all the time. If you tell me to do something and then you wait 30 minutes and see if I did it. Is
天啊。感覺我們一直在被測試。如果你告訴我做某事，然後等30分鐘看我有沒有做。這
that long enough to be considered perspective memory or does it have to be like I know I have a meeting on Wednesday at 1 and do you show up at the
算不算長到可以被認為是前瞻記憶，還是必須像我知道我週三下午1點有個會議，你會不會
meeting? Is that is there a time scale involved in what is considered perspective memory?
出現在會議上？那是不是有時間尺度涉及什麼被認為是前瞻記憶？
>> Yeah. Well, I mean the way that the way that psychologists define it for their purposes is is even much shorter than that because
是的。好吧，我的意思是心理學家為他們的目的定義它的方式甚至比那短得多，因為
>> they need a way to measure it in the lab >> with subjects that they don't have access to for very long. So, the way they try to capture perspective memory,
他們需要一種方法在實驗室中測量它，而他們無法長時間接觸受試者。所以，他們嘗試捕捉前瞻記憶的方式，
which is this idea of remembering a previous goal or intention, is they embed a task within a task. So, you're going to try this out.
也就是記住先前目標或意圖的想法，是他們在一個任務中嵌入另一個任務。所以，你要試試這個。
>> No. Great. I should have slept more last night.
不。太好了。我應該昨晚多睡一點。
>> Fly sheet. >> The subjects were told to press N on their keyboard if the word on the screen is a real word.
飛頁。受試者被告知如果螢幕上的詞是真詞就按鍵盤上的N。
>> My heart is racing. >> And M if it's a fake word.
我的心跳加速。如果是假詞就按M。
>> No. But if they saw the words blue, purple, or green, they were supposed to press Q, W, or E, respectively.
不。但如果他們看到藍色、紫色或綠色這幾個詞，他們應該分別按Q、W或E。
>> Purple is that's the perspective memory task.
紫色，那是前瞻記憶任務。
>> Nope, I did it wrong. I got it wrong already. I already know.
不，我做錯了。我已經弄錯了。我已經知道了。
Houseman joust green. I love green. They had people do this task and then take a 10-minute break in which they either just rested, scrolled Twitter, watched a YouTube video, or scrolled Tik Tok, and
Houseman joust綠色。我愛綠色。他們讓人們做這個任務，然後休息10分鐘，期間他們要麼只是休息，要麼滑Twitter，要麼看YouTube影片，要麼滑TikTok，
then they took the test again. When they compared the scores from before the break and after the break, the performance on the real word, fake word task was the same. But for the blue,
然後他們再次接受測試。當他們比較休息前和休息後的分數時，真詞假詞任務的表現是一樣的。但對於藍色、
purple, green task, where they needed to remember that second intention, one group saw a big drop in their scores. It was the group that scrolled Tik Tok during the break.
紫色、綠色任務，他們需要記住第二個意圖，有一組的分數大幅下降。那是在休息期間滑TikTok的組。
>> What this is basically getting at is if you should be keeping something in mind, you lose that with the scrolling behavior, >> but not just scrolling because Twitter
這基本上說明的是，如果你應該記住某件事，滑動行為會讓你丟失它，但不只是滑動，因為Twitter
is a scroll behavior as well, >> right? That's true. It's short form video specifically.
也是滑動行為，對吧？沒錯。是特別針對短影片。
>> That study took place in Germany, but I was able to give this test to Adam in English because researchers in the UK replicated it in their own sample of 45
那項研究在德國進行，但我能用英語給Adam做這個測試，因為英國的研究人員在他們自己的45名
students. And this time they tested different ways of watching short form video. One group was limited to 10 swipes. The other group was allowed to swipe as much as they wanted. And there
學生樣本中複製了它。這次他們測試了不同的短影片觀看方式。一組被限制只能滑10次。另一組可以想滑多少就滑多少。還有
was a control group that just sat quietly. The group that watched shorts but was limited to 10 swipes didn't see a drop in their performance. The unlimited swiping group did. So again, it's like
一個對照組只是靜靜地坐著。看短影片但被限制10次滑動的組表現沒有下降。無限滑動組下降了。所以再次，就像
something about just being able to do this mindlessly is is the problem. So, if you're watching this in a clipped short, don't swipe away.
能夠無意識地這樣做是問題所在。所以，如果你在剪輯的短影片中看這個，不要滑走。
>> Actually, what you should do is download all the Howtown shorts, but watch them in one big stream.
實際上，你應該做的是下載所有Howtown短影片，但以一個大的連續串流觀看。
>> There you go. >> Um, so that's basically where we're at with this with the research. There's a few of these experimental studies.
對。所以這基本上就是我們在研究方面的情況。有一些這樣的實驗研究。
They're using a few different types of cognitive tests, none of which really map on to our popular conception of attention span, but are related cognitive skills. and they're raising a
他們使用幾種不同類型的認知測試，沒有一種真正對應我們對注意力持續時間的流行概念，但是相關的認知技能。而且它們正在引起
few red flags, but obviously the the caveats of small samples um and tasks that are very different from our everyday lives. Now, I want to know if I'm scrolling TikTok
一些警示，但顯然小樣本的警告以及與我們日常生活非常不同的任務。現在，我想知道如果我每晚睡前滑TikTok
every night before bed for 2 hours, am I just generally having a worst perspective memory in my life, or is that confined to just right after I use it? long-term studies would actually
2小時，我是不是在生活中一般前瞻記憶都變差了，還是只局限於使用後立即？長期研究實際上會
really inform uh and maybe guide better ethics and policy in designing the interface. I think this is actually something that could really impact the quality of life of people probably and
真正提供信息，也許可以指導設計界面時更好的倫理和政策。我認為這實際上可能真的影響人們的生活質量，並
provide evidence that maybe something has to change.
提供證據表明也許有些東西必須改變。
>> In 1890, the pioneering American psychologist William James wrote, "My experience is what I agree to attend to. My experience is what I agree to attend to. And there's more.
1890年，美國開創性心理學家威廉·詹姆斯寫道：「我的經驗就是我同意關注的東西。我的經驗就是我同意關注的東西。」還有更多。
He said, "Only those items which I notice shape my mind. Without selective interest, the consciousness of every creature would be a gray chaotic indiscriminatic indiscriminately, my relationship to mangoes will never be
他說：「只有我注意到的那些項目塑造了我的思想。沒有選擇性興趣，每個生物的意識都會是灰色混沌的不加區分的，我和芒果的關係永遠不會是
the fame. And yet, I keep coming back to this question of user agency or what James called selective interest. Agency is at the heart of both analytical thinking and perspective
名聲。」然而，我一直回到這個用戶自主權或詹姆斯所說的選擇性興趣的問題。自主權是分析思維和前瞻
memory. Those weird little tests are basically asking if your brain is on autopilot or if you can slow down, make a turn, remember where you intended to go. It's not just your
記憶的核心。那些奇怪的小測試基本上是在問你的大腦是不是在自動駕駛，或者你能不能慢下來，轉個彎，記住你打算去哪裡。不只是你的
intentions that get lost. Feeds that nudge the customers into autopilot tend to nudge the cooks into autopilot, too.
意圖會丟失。將顧客推入自動駕駛的feed往往也會將廚師推入自動駕駛。
>> Scientists just created Here's what would happen.
科學家剛剛創造了。這就是會發生的事。
>> Scientist Here's what happened. Scientist, >> but not everyone. Last time I checked, Smarter Everyday, you guys had not posted anything into the shorts feed. Is that still the case?
科學家。這就是發生的事。科學家，但不是每個人。上次我查的時候，Smarter Everyday，你們還沒有在短影片feed中發布任何東西。還是這樣嗎？
>> That's the case. I have elected not to do that because I don't think it's good for people. I don't think the infinite scroll is healthy for our
是的。我選擇不這樣做，因為我認為這對人們不好。我不認為無限滾動對我們的
minds. It's easy for me to say this because Smarter Everyday has been around for a while and there's a lot of really awesome people that support the channel,
大腦是健康的。我這樣說很容易，因為Smarter Everyday已經存在一段時間了，有很多很棒的人支持這個頻道，
but I think saying no to shorts is powerful. Um, and I think it ultimately increases trust in the creator. Um, I could be wrong about that, but I don't know. That's where I'm at.
但我認為對短影片說不是有力量的。我認為這最終會增加對創作者的信任。我可能錯了，但我不知道。這就是我的立場。
>> Dustin's such a good guy. Um, yeah. I mean, I think, you know, obviously we want to be acting with integrity and sort of like living our values in all
Dustin真是個好人。是的。我的意思是，我認為，你知道，顯然我們想要誠信行事，在生活的各個方面都按照我們的價值觀生活，
parts of our life, including the way we make this channel, but like having bite-sized information, you know, when I was at NPR, we would make 3minut radio pieces all the time, right? That was
包括我們製作這個頻道的方式，但就像有bite-sized的信息，你知道，當我在NPR的時候，我們會一直製作3分鐘的廣播片段，對吧？那是
like a pretty typical length. And I didn't feel like those were bad for the world just because it was a compressed amount of information about a complex subject. I thought like, oh, this is
一個相當典型的長度。我不覺得那些對世界有害，只因為它是關於複雜主題的壓縮信息量。我想，哦，這是
good. Like someone is learning something that they wouldn't otherwise know. The question is, do we want to participate in this in these endless scrolls?
好的。比如有人學到了他們原本不會知道的東西。問題是，我們想參與這些無盡滾動嗎？
>> I don't know if you see these comments sometimes on our shorts. This one says like, "Your contents are the most anti-brain rot content out there. Actually, genuine and very high
我不知道你有沒有看到我們短影片上的這些評論。這個說，「你們的內容是最反大腦退化的內容。真正真誠而且質量很高
quality." And then someone responded, "No such thing as anti-brain rot content when it's short form." >> So, that's basically kind of the question that we need to answer.
。」然後有人回覆：「只要是短形式的，就沒有所謂的反大腦退化內容。」所以，這基本上就是我們需要回答的問題。
>> Yeah. Yeah, that's right. Is there such thing as a good short uh as an anti-brain rot short?
是的。是的，沒錯。有沒有這樣的東西，一個好的短影片，一個反大腦退化的短影片？
>> What do you think? Is this research strong enough that we should be making a change? Let us know in the comments. You can also find more of my conversation
你怎麼想？這項研究是否足夠強大，讓我們應該做出改變？在評論中告訴我們。你還可以在我們的Patreon上找到更多我與
with Destin and hear Adam and I processing all of this over on our Patreon. And if you're interested in meditation, which is arguably the opposite of binging a shorts feed, click
Destin的對話以及聽Adam和我處理這一切。如果你對冥想感興趣，這可以說是狂看短影片的相反，點擊
the link in our description to try Headspace free for 60 days. That deal doesn't last. So try it now. See how your mind responds. Thanks for watching.
我們描述中的連結免費試用Headspace 60天。這個優惠不會持續。所以現在就試試。看看你的大腦如何反應。感謝觀看。
點擊句子跳轉到對應位置
In 2022, a lab in Munich did something that I've been wanting to see. They gave 60 people a cognitive test, then sent them away for a 10-minute break, and
2022年，慕尼黑的一個實驗室做了一件我一直想看到的事。他們讓60個人做認知測試，然後讓他們休息10分鐘，
then tested them again. Now, the difference was the break. Some people just sat there, some scrolled on Twitter, some watched a normal YouTube video, and some went on TikTok.
然後再次測試他們。不同之處在於休息方式。有些人只是坐著，有些人滑Twitter，有些人看普通的YouTube影片，有些人刷TikTok。
So, whose brain changed during that time? This is one of the few experiments that I've been able to dig up that has actually tested the idea of brain rot. But the science is starting
那麼，誰的大腦在那段時間發生了變化？這是我能找到的少數真正測試過「大腦退化」這個概念的實驗之一。但科學正在開始
to catch up to the fact that short form video feeds are everywhere. And almost all of the commentary says that they're making us dumber.
跟上短影片無處不在的事實。而幾乎所有的評論都說它們讓我們變笨。
>> I cannot physically bring myself to study.
我實在沒辦法讓自己讀書。
>> I'm addicted, too. We're all addicted to this.
我也上癮了。我們都對這個上癮。
>> Oh, no. It's >> horrible for you.
天啊。這對你太糟糕了。
>> Oh, and we're giving kids just the attention span of a walnut. This is awkward because we make shorts and it has introduced us to a bunch of new
而且我們讓孩子的注意力只剩核桃那麼大。這有點尷尬，因為我們製作短影片，而且它讓我們接觸到很多新
viewers. If Brain Rod is real, then we might be part of the problem.
觀眾。如果大腦退化是真的，那我們可能是問題的一部分。
>> I do have a lot of skepticism whenever there's a claim that like some new thing is fundamentally changing the way that humans operate.
每當有人聲稱某些新事物正在從根本上改變人類運作方式時，我都會相當懷疑。
>> Yeah. Apparently, Socrates thought that writing was going to ruin our minds and you know, people worried about novels being addictive and the telegraph and all of that. Like on Howtown, we don't
是的。據說蘇格拉底認為寫作會毀掉我們的思維，而且，人們擔心小說會讓人上癮，還有電報等等。在Howtown，我們不會
just take the conventional wisdom. >> We're not running on vibes over here.
只是接受傳統觀念。我們不是憑感覺做事的。
We're trying to see if there's anything behind the vibes.
我們試圖看看感覺背後是否有什麼實質。
>> So, I went hunting for evidence. We've heard about shrinking attention spans since the start of the smartphone era, but how can we measure those? And what are the studies saying about the video
所以，我去尋找證據。自從智慧型手機時代開始，我們就聽說注意力持續時間在縮短，但我們如何測量這些？關於影片
feeds specifically? After 10 minutes of swiping through shorts, do people really think any worse?
feed的研究具體說了什麼？滑了10分鐘的短影片後，人們真的會想得更差嗎？
First, I wanted to know what makes this new format different from the hours of television that people watch every day.
首先，我想知道是什麼讓這種新格式與人們每天看的電視不同。
And you can hear it in how the companies talk about their own product. See, last year, a bunch of private conversations between Tik Tok employees came to light
你可以從這些公司談論自己產品的方式聽出來。去年，TikTok員工之間的一堆私人對話曝光了
after 14 US states investigated and sued the company.
在美國14個州調查並起訴這家公司之後。
>> This is multiple lawsuits coming from individual states attorney general, and the action alleges that Tik Tok exploits and harms young users. The state attorneys had agreed to black out the
這是來自各州檢察長的多起訴訟，訴訟指控TikTok剝削和傷害年輕用戶。各州檢察長同意塗黑
confidential materials, and I found the breadth of these redactions odd. That's a local reporter named Sylvia Goodman.
機密材料，我發現這些塗黑的範圍很奇怪。那是一位名叫Sylvia Goodman的當地記者。
She discovered that the redactions in the Kentucky complaint had not been done correctly. I copy and pasted it all out into a fresh document, and I could read
她發現肯塔基州投訴中的塗黑沒有正確完成。我把它全部複製貼上到一個新文件中，我可以讀到
all of those redactions. I'll be honest, my jaw was on the floor reading some of this. The document showed Tik Tok employees openly grappling with the potential harm of the bold glamour
所有那些塗黑的內容。老實說，讀到其中一些內容時我驚呆了。該文件顯示TikTok員工公開討論大膽美顏
filter. bold glamour filter. This is without the filter.
濾鏡的潛在危害。大膽美顏濾鏡。這是沒有濾鏡的樣子。
>> They admitted that those screen time reminders were a good talking point, but not altogether effective. One sentence that really stood out to me came from an internal document titled digital well-being.
他們承認那些螢幕時間提醒是很好的談資，但並不真正有效。有一句話讓我印象深刻，來自一份題為數位健康的內部文件。
>> Tik Tok's success can largely be attributed to strong out-of-the-box personalization and automation, which limits user agency.
TikTok的成功很大程度上歸功於強大的開箱即用個性化和自動化，這限制了用戶的自主權。
>> We hear a lot about that personalization. That's the famous algorithm that decides what to show you based on what you watch and what people with similar watch behavior watch. But I
我們經常聽到關於個性化的事。那就是著名的演算法，它根據你看什麼以及有相似觀看行為的人看什麼來決定給你展示什麼。但我
want to zero in on that last part about how the interface limits user agency.
想重點關注最後那部分，關於界面如何限制用戶自主權。
They're saying that Tik Tok wins by making fewer things feel like your decision. And I think that's the key to understanding what short form video feeds might be doing to our
他們說TikTok之所以贏，是因為讓更少的事情感覺像是你的決定。我認為這是理解短影片可能對我們
minds. And since we use that word feed, let's roll with the food analogy.
大腦做了什麼的關鍵。既然我們用「feed」這個詞，那就用食物來類比吧。
The restaurants we know have a menu. You browse, you pick something, you eat it.
我們知道的餐廳有菜單。你瀏覽，你選擇，你吃。
Streaming television is that kind of restaurant. YouTube is too, or it was.
串流電視就是那種餐廳。YouTube也是，或者說曾經是。
Their big innovation is that the menus are personalized based on what you've eaten there in the past.
他們的大創新是菜單根據你過去在那裡吃過什麼來個性化。
Now, imagine a restaurant without menus where you sit down, open your mouth, and a device places a morsel of something onto your tongue. You don't get another
現在，想像一個沒有菜單的餐廳，你坐下，張開嘴，一個裝置把一小口東西放到你舌頭上。你不會得到另一
bite until you eat it or spit it out. By measuring your chew time, the restaurant can adjust the lineup of bites to feature more of the flavors that you tend to swallow.
口，除非你吃掉它或吐出來。通過測量你的咀嚼時間，餐廳可以調整一口口食物的順序，讓更多你傾向於吞下的口味出現。
But they don't just hit you with the same flavor time after time. They can also test out some unexpected morsels because even if it's not your favorite, it's just a bite. And there's
但他們不會一次又一次給你同樣的口味。他們也可以測試一些意想不到的小口，因為即使不是你的最愛，也只是一口。而且還有
another one waiting that might be amazing. Without a menu, you lose the experience of choosing, but you gain the experience of being surprised over and over and over again.
另一口在等著，可能會很棒。沒有菜單，你失去了選擇的體驗，但你獲得了一次又一次被驚喜的體驗。
Plus, a lot more people can make morsels than can make a whole menu. So, this restaurant can recruit way more cooks trying way more tricks to make their morsels tasty.
而且，能做小口食物的人比能做整份菜單的人多得多。所以，這家餐廳可以招募更多廚師，嘗試更多技巧來讓他們的小口食物美味。
This restaurant is Tik Tok and reals and YouTube shorts and all of the other imitators. and it is probably the most engaging media interface that I've ever seen. Just in terms of sheer
這家餐廳就是TikTok和Reels和YouTube Shorts以及所有其他模仿者。它可能是我見過的最吸引人的媒體界面。就純粹的
entertainment by watch time. There's a catch, though. This sequential feeding system wouldn't work if the dishes were big or complicated. It only works with morsels. If you take away the user's
觀看時間而言的娛樂。但有個問題。這種順序餵食系統如果菜餚很大或很複雜就不會起作用。它只適用於小口食物。如果你拿走用戶的
agency, you arrive at short form. We've seen this happen before with Tinder.
自主權，你就會得到短形式。我們以前在Tinder上見過這種情況。
Instead of a dating app based on a menu, they showed one profile at a time, forcing feedback from the swiper. And what happened? The profiles became short form. Just photos, a couple of words,
他們沒有基於菜單的約會app，而是一次只顯示一個檔案，強制滑動者提供反饋。發生了什麼？檔案變成了短形式。只有照片，幾個字，
and an algorithm that encodes our subconscious responses more than our reflective intentions. Maybe you noticed that all the dating apps became Tinder.
還有一個演算法，它編碼我們潛意識的反應而非我們反思性的意圖。也許你注意到所有約會app都變成了Tinder。
So, is all of media becoming Tik Tok?
那麼，所有媒體都在變成TikTok嗎？
I've been trying to figure out just how much human attention has shifted into these feeds, but only the platforms know that and they don't release the data.
我一直試圖弄清楚有多少人類注意力已經轉移到這些feed中，但只有平臺知道那些數據，而且他們不公開。
But they do these quarterly calls with investors. And if you go back through the past few years, you can kind of hear just how big of a response Meta and
但他們會與投資者進行季度電話會議。如果你回顧過去幾年，你可以聽出Meta和
YouTube have made to the rise of Tik Tok.
YouTube對TikTok崛起的回應有多大。
>> Reals already makes up more than 20% of the time, 50% of the time that people spend on Instagram.
Reels已經佔據了人們在Instagram上花費時間的20%以上，50%的時間。
>> Over 15 billion views each day. 30 billion billion plus 70 billion.
每天超過150億次觀看。300億，再加700億。
>> We now average over 200 billion daily views on YouTube shorts.
我們現在YouTube Shorts平均每天超過2000億次觀看。
>> Social media has gone through two eras so far. First was when all content was from friends, family, and accounts that you followed directly. The second was when we added all of the creator
社群媒體到目前為止經歷了兩個時代。首先是所有內容都來自朋友、家人和你直接關注的帳號。第二個是當我們添加了所有創作者
content. Now, as AI makes it easier to create and remix content, we're going to add yet another huge corpus of content on top of those.
內容。現在，隨著AI讓創作和混剪內容變得更容易，我們將在這些之上再添加另一大批內容。
It's really easy for me to think of this as the bowl of potato chips that someone sticks on the table that you didn't order, but it's there, so you snack on it.
對我來說，很容易把這想成是有人放在桌上的一碗薯片，你沒點但它在那裡，所以你就吃了。
>> No one can eat just one. >> And it makes me wonder if How town shorts are kind of like, do you know those like pe-shaped potato chips?
沒人能只吃一片。這讓我想知道Howtown的短影片是不是有點像，你知道那種豌豆形狀的薯片嗎？
>> Uh-huh. Right. Right. Right. I know what you're talking about.
嗯。對對對。我知道你在說什麼。
>> It's like a green Cheeto. >> There's a version of this that's like, but our chips are made of vegetables. I suppose it's no surprise that a bottomless personalized mystery snack
就像綠色的起司條。有一種版本是說，但我們的薯片是蔬菜做的。我想無底的個性化神秘零食
dispenser could take over our media diets, but there is such thing as a healthy snack, right? So, I'm going to tell you about all the research that
分配器能接管我們的媒體飲食並不令人驚訝，但確實有健康零食這種東西，對吧？所以，我要告訴你我讀過的所有關於這方面的研究
I've read about this and then maybe we can decide how we feel about it.
然後也許我們可以決定我們對此的感受。
>> Yeah. Great. Yeah. It's interesting. As you've been researching all this, I have been feeling especially scatterbrained.
是的。太好了。是的。很有趣。當你在研究這些的時候，我一直感覺特別心不在焉。
I'm like distracted by the news. I've been moving between two different continents. So, it's a happy coincidence that the sponsor for this week's episode is Headspace, the mental health platform.
我被新聞分心了。我一直在兩個不同的大陸之間搬家。所以，很巧的是本週節目的贊助商是Headspace，一個心理健康平臺。
>> Did you try it? >> Yeah. Yeah. They sent me a free subscription and I've been taking their finding focus course, which is basically 10-minute sessions of guided meditation, and it's been really nice,
你試過嗎？是的。他們給了我一個免費訂閱，我一直在上他們的專注力課程，基本上是10分鐘的引導冥想，真的很不錯，
honestly, to have that break in my day.
老實說，在我的一天中有那樣的休息。
A couple days ago, I actually just did one while I was waiting for the bus. You know, I've done a fair amount of reporting on mindfulness meditation over
幾天前，我實際上在等公車的時候做了一次。你知道，這些年來我做過相當多關於正念冥想的報導，
the years, and there's a real growing body of evidence from some pretty robust studies that it can improve your working memory. It can improve your ability to sustain attention. In one study, people
而且有越來越多的證據來自一些相當穩健的研究，表明它可以改善你的工作記憶。它可以改善你維持注意力的能力。在一項研究中，人們
who meditated with headsp space for a month were less distractable than a control group who did these standard brain training exercises, things like puzzles and memory tasks. So, if you,
用Headspace冥想一個月後，比做標準大腦訓練練習的對照組更不容易分心，比如拼圖和記憶任務。所以，如果你，
dear viewer, want to help your brain to focus, you want to learn to meditate, maybe you just want to have these calm moments built into your day, you can
親愛的觀眾，想要幫助你的大腦集中注意力，想學習冥想，也許你只是想讓這些平靜的時刻融入你的日常，你可以
start Headspace for free by following the link in our description box or scanning this QR code that's on screen.
通過點擊我們描述框中的連結或掃描螢幕上的二維碼免費開始Headspace。
Usually, it's just a twoe trial, but with this link, you get a full 60 days completely free. Before we get to Tik Tok, there's a bigger question to answer. Have our attention spans really
通常只是兩週試用，但通過這個連結，你可以獲得完整60天完全免費。在我們談到TikTok之前，有一個更大的問題要回答。我們的注意力持續時間真的
shrunk? According to a 2015 post by Time magazine, yes, they're now shorter than a goldfish. But this is one of those myths that won't die.
縮短了嗎？根據時代雜誌2015年的一篇文章，是的，它們現在比金魚還短。但這是那些不會消失的迷思之一。
>> Here's a fun fact. >> Some researchers have concluded that our attention span is now shorter.
這裡有個有趣的事實。一些研究人員得出結論，我們的注意力持續時間現在更短了。
>> Shorter than a goldfish. >> That's a scientific fact.
比金魚還短。這是科學事實。
>> The claim came from a report published by Microsoft which had this graphic showing our attention span declining from 12 seconds to 8 seconds. But they were citing something called statistic
這個說法來自微軟發布的一份報告，其中有個圖表顯示我們的注意力持續時間從12秒下降到8秒。但他們引用的是一個叫做統計大腦的東西
brain which in turn cited these sources. And when journalists tried to track down those sources, they didn't exist. The numbers were entirely made up for both the humans and the goldfish. So what
而這又引用了這些來源。當記者試圖追蹤這些來源時，它們根本不存在。人類和金魚的數字都是完全捏造的。那麼
would it really take to measure attention spans? Well, I talked to one of the few people who have tried. My name is Gloria Mark. She's written a book called Attention Span. And way back
真正測量注意力持續時間需要什麼？我和少數嘗試過的人之一談過。我叫Gloria Mark。她寫了一本書叫《注意力持續時間》。早在
in 2003, she convinced an investment management company to let her peek over the shoulders of 14 of their employees as they worked.
2003年，她說服了一家投資管理公司讓她在14名員工工作時觀察他們。
>> And we would just observe them and with stopwatches, every time they changed to do something else, we would click on the the stopwatch and it was very, very tiring. Those employees spent about
我們只是觀察他們，用秒錶，每當他們換做其他事情時，我們就按秒錶，這非常非常累人。那些員工大約花了
2 and 1/2 minutes working on their computers before they switched to checking email or doing something else.
兩分半鐘在電腦上工作，然後就切換去查郵件或做其他事情。
Fast forward to 2012. She convinces another workplace to let her install software that tracks how often their employees click from one window to another and finds that they switch every 75 seconds on
快進到2012年。她說服另一個工作場所讓她安裝軟體，追蹤他們的員工多久從一個視窗點擊到另一個，發現他們平均每75秒切換一次
average. Now it's closer to 40. >> So yes, empirically we can say that on screens attention spans have shortened.
現在接近40秒。所以是的，我們可以從經驗上說在螢幕上注意力持續時間確實縮短了。
>> It's a little tricky because obviously we have this method switch like without that dot at 2004 the trend doesn't look as dramatic, right? It's sort of funny
有點棘手，因為顯然我們有這種方法切換，如果沒有2004年那個點，趨勢看起來就沒那麼戲劇性，對吧？有點好笑
to me to think about the adjudicators or the watchers in that first test were also having their attentions tested.
想到第一次測試中的裁判或觀察者，他們的注意力也在被測試。
Like were they able to catch like they're also having to focus? The other big question I would have is like is this measuring our ability to focus or just how much
比如他們能不能注意到，他們也必須保持專注？我想問的另一個大問題是，這是在測量我們專注的能力還是只是
distracting stuff there is in our lives. What I'm worried about is that I'm no longer able to read a book for 6 hours like I did when I was 12.
我們生活中有多少讓人分心的東西。我擔心的是我不再能像12歲時那樣讀6小時的書了。
>> Has something changed about your brain? >> Yeah. Has has something changed about the ability of my brain? It's obvious to me that something has changed about the way that computers work. Like, yeah,
你的大腦發生了什麼變化嗎？是的。我大腦的能力發生了什麼變化嗎？對我來說很明顯，電腦的工作方式發生了變化。是的，
I've just got notifications. There's literal sounds that are telling me you should be distracted by this other thing right now. And so, I still have I'm still curious about like if there's
我有通知。有實際的聲音告訴我你現在應該被這個其他東西分心。所以，我仍然好奇是否有
actual damage being done to our mental systems. I guess >> the advantage of Gloria Mark's approach is that it captures real life. It's not just bringing people into a laboratory,
對我們心理系統造成的實際損害。我想Gloria Mark方法的優勢在於它捕捉了真實生活。不只是把人帶到實驗室，
having them sit for an hour in front of a computer, but we actually observed what people did over the day in the course of their actual work. The limitation is that it can't distinguish
讓他們在電腦前坐一小時，而是我們實際觀察人們在一天中實際工作過程中做了什麼。限制是它無法區分
between these three different influences on our ability to focus. There's our attentional capacity. That's what we generally think of when we say attention span. Then there's our motivation, how
這三種不同因素對我們專注能力的影響。有我們的注意力容量。那就是當我們說注意力持續時間時通常想到的。然後是我們的動機，
much we need or care about focusing on this task. And there's competition. How much is our environment distracting us?
我們有多需要或關心專注於這個任務。還有競爭。我們的環境有多分散我們的注意力？
Now, in a lab, they can get closer to controlling for motivation and competition. But the tasks that they give people don't look anything like real life. Let me show you. This is a
在實驗室裡，他們可以更接近控制動機和競爭。但他們給人們的任務看起來完全不像真實生活。讓我給你看。這是一個
classic attention test. They tell you to memorize this image. And then you go through these rows, crossing out the items that match the one that you memorized. You get 20 seconds per row.
經典的注意力測試。他們告訴你記住這個圖像。然後你瀏覽這些行，劃掉與你記住的那個匹配的項目。每行你有20秒。
There's 14 rows. They look at how many errors you make, how fast you work, whether you get worse over time. And on this test, performance in adults has actually been increasing. That's
有14行。他們看你犯了多少錯誤，你工作有多快，你是否隨著時間變差。在這個測試中，成人的表現實際上一直在提高。那是
according to a study that compiled scores from three decades and 32 countries. In children, overall performance hasn't changed, but their test taking style has. They've become faster, making more errors, but also
根據一項匯編了三十年和32個國家分數的研究。在兒童中，總體表現沒有變化，但他們的答題風格變了。他們變得更快，犯更多錯誤，但也
completing more items. Now, researchers who run lab tests like these don't claim to be measuring attention span. I think we often in daily life, and I even do this myself, we just talk about
完成更多項目。進行這類實驗室測試的研究人員並不聲稱在測量注意力持續時間。我認為我們在日常生活中經常，我自己也這樣做，我們只是談論
attention, and it feels obvious, like we know what it means to pay attention, but actually if we give people different tasks, we can see that there's distinct components of attention that aren't
注意力，感覺很明顯，比如我們知道專注意味著什麼，但實際上如果我們給人們不同的任務，我們可以看到注意力有不同的組成部分，它們彼此並不
necessarily related to each other. >> Monica Rosenberg studies patterns of brain activity during attention tests.
一定相關。Monica Rosenberg研究注意力測試期間大腦活動的模式。
the same. >> When I'm watching a really engaging movie, like my lab collected data as people watched a Hitchcock film and YouTube videos about cooking, is this
不一樣。當我看一部真正吸引人的電影時，我的實驗室收集了人們觀看希區考克電影和烹飪YouTube影片時的數據，這是
the same kind of attention or is there something fundamentally different about right being engaged in a narrative that I'm motivated to follow versus forcing myself to do this boring task? Um, and
同一種注意力，還是被吸引到一個我有動力跟隨的敘事中，與強迫自己做這個無聊任務之間有根本不同的東西？
it, you know, it turns out there's some similarities, but there's also some differences. And so I think how well I do on one task with pictures is not
你知道，結果是有一些相似之處，但也有一些差異。所以我認為我在一個有圖片的任務上做得多好並不能
indicative of how well I pay attention all the time in all contexts. It's certainly related, but it's not a perfect measure. So let's set aside the concept of attention spans. It's a
代表我在所有情況下一直多好地專注。這當然是相關的，但不是完美的衡量。所以讓我們把注意力持續時間的概念放一邊。這是一個
really fuzzy term. It's hard to measure. The sharper question to ask is if you binge short form video, what exactly gets worse? Is it your memory? Your reasoning? That's what the next few
非常模糊的術語。很難測量。更尖銳的問題是如果你狂看短影片，到底什麼會變差？是你的記憶？你的推理？這就是接下來幾項
studies are trying to pin down. If you ask, do people who say they're addicted to short form video also have trouble focusing? So far, the answer to
研究試圖確定的。如果你問，說自己對短影片上癮的人是否也有專注困難？到目前為止，答案
that seems to be yes. A recent review of 14 studies found that increased SFV use, that's short form video, was associated with poorer cognition, including attention and inhibitory control. But
似乎是肯定的。最近一項對14項研究的回顧發現，短影片使用增加與認知能力較差相關，包括注意力和抑制控制。但
whenever you see that term was associated with that scientist code for we're not saying this causes the problem, >> right? It's sort of our social media and teen health all over again where it's
每當你看到「相關」這個詞，那是科學家的代碼，意思是我們不是說這導致了問題，對吧？這有點像社群媒體和青少年健康的老話題，
are depressed teens becoming depressed because they are on social media or are they seeking it out?
是抑鬱的青少年因為使用社群媒體而變得抑鬱，還是他們在尋求它？
>> Yeah, I think this is the question with basically all of the harmful effects that people are attributing to these new technologies is almost all the research can't distinguish correlation from
是的，我認為這是人們歸因於這些新技術的幾乎所有有害影響的問題，幾乎所有研究都無法區分相關性和
causation. But there are a few experimental studies that I wanted to highlight. There are at least two different cognitive tests where people perform worse after scrolling a shorts
因果關係。但有一些實驗研究我想強調。至少有兩種不同的認知測試，人們在滑短影片
feed. One is a kind of trick question quiz and the other is about whether you can remember to do something that you plan to do. So first there's a measure
feed後表現更差。一個是一種陷阱問題測驗，另一個是關於你能否記得做你計劃做的事。所以首先有一個測量
based on these three questions. >> A bat and a ball cost $110 in total. The bat cost $1 more than the ball. How much does the ball cost?
基於這三個問題。一個球棒和一個球總共花費1.10美元。球棒比球貴1美元。球多少錢？
This is supposed to capture analytical thinking. To get these questions right, you have to switch out of autopilot like your gut is screaming >> 10 cents and you need to override that.
這應該捕捉分析思維。要答對這些問題，你必須切換出自動駕駛模式，因為你的直覺在尖叫10美分，你需要覆蓋它。
72 college students at Ping University in Beijing took this test after either spending 30 minutes scrolling Tik Tok or the Chinese version of Tik Tok or 30 minutes reading. And the Tik Tok group
北京平穀大學的72名大學生在花30分鐘滑TikTok或中國版TikTok或30分鐘閱讀後接受了這個測試。TikTok組
did worse. The researchers wanted to know does what you watch matter? So, they ran a second study, but this time people watched either a cute animals playlist or a science experiments
表現更差。研究人員想知道你看什麼重要嗎？所以，他們進行了第二項研究，但這次人們觀看的是可愛動物播放列表或科學實驗
playlist. They also changed how people watch. Some could swipe through the videos like a normal feed. Others had to sit and watch the same clips stitched together into one long video. And here's
播放列表。他們還改變了人們觀看的方式。有些人可以像正常feed一樣滑動瀏覽影片。其他人必須坐著觀看相同的片段拼接成一個長影片。這是
what they found. It didn't matter whether you watched animals or science, but the swiping groups consistently did worse on the cognitive reflection test. They got 38 fewer questions right out of the three
他們發現的。看動物還是科學沒有關係，但滑動組在認知反思測試中一直表現更差。在三個問題中少答對38%
questions total. That's 12% of the scale after 30 minutes from just swiping alone.
這是12%的量表，僅僅30分鐘，僅僅因為滑動。
>> Okay. Interesting. So, if you're you're subjected to essentially just a montage of videos that you don't have control over, you are not degrading your analytical thinking as much as if you're
好的。有趣。所以，如果你基本上只是被迫看一系列你無法控制的影片，你的分析思維下降程度不如你
swiping through and getting to just skip whenever you are bored. It's sort of interesting because you you think of that decision is interacting with the interface, right? That decision is
滑動瀏覽並可以在你無聊時跳過。這有點有趣，因為你會認為那個決定是在與界面互動，對吧？那個決定
cognitively more intense than just sitting back and letting something happen to you, right?
在認知上比只是坐著讓事情發生更intense，對吧？
>> Yeah. Unless boredom is cognitively intense in a way that we don't recognize.
是的。除非無聊在認知上是以我們沒有認識到的方式很intense。
>> Okay. So, that's one test that short form video makes you worse at. The other is a test of prospective memory, which is when you remember to do something
好的。所以，這是短影片讓你變差的一個測試。另一個是前瞻記憶測試，就是當你記得做你打算做的事，
that you intended to do, like picking up the dry cleaning or joining a Zoom meeting or taking a medication that you're supposed to take. Researchers at the University of Munich wanted to know
比如去取乾洗的衣服或加入Zoom會議或服用你應該服用的藥物。慕尼黑大學的研究人員想知道
how short form video feeds affect that ability >> because it was coming from a general observation that like if you scroll a bit, you feel like don't want to say
短影片feed如何影響那種能力，因為它來自一個一般性的觀察，就是如果你滑一會兒，你會感覺像是不想說
that you feel like new, but like you kind of >> dissociate. Yeah. Yeah. Dissociated a bit. So it was something like we said okay is this actually really happening
你感覺像是新的，但就像你有點解離。是的。是的。有點解離。所以這就像我們說好的，這真的在發生嗎
like and we felt that. So we said okay let's figure out uh how we can you know make this uh solid user study and investigate what can be a cognitive um
我們感覺到了。所以我們說好吧讓我們弄清楚我們怎麼能做一個穩固的用戶研究並調查什麼可能是認知
function that be associated. >> So how would you test perspective memory?
功能相關的。那麼你會怎麼測試前瞻記憶？
>> Boy oh boy. Well it feels like yeah we're getting tested all the time. If you tell me to do something and then you wait 30 minutes and see if I did it. Is
天啊。感覺我們一直在被測試。如果你告訴我做某事，然後等30分鐘看我有沒有做。這
that long enough to be considered perspective memory or does it have to be like I know I have a meeting on Wednesday at 1 and do you show up at the
算不算長到可以被認為是前瞻記憶，還是必須像我知道我週三下午1點有個會議，你會不會
meeting? Is that is there a time scale involved in what is considered perspective memory?
出現在會議上？那是不是有時間尺度涉及什麼被認為是前瞻記憶？
>> Yeah. Well, I mean the way that the way that psychologists define it for their purposes is is even much shorter than that because
是的。好吧，我的意思是心理學家為他們的目的定義它的方式甚至比那短得多，因為
>> they need a way to measure it in the lab >> with subjects that they don't have access to for very long. So, the way they try to capture perspective memory,
他們需要一種方法在實驗室中測量它，而他們無法長時間接觸受試者。所以，他們嘗試捕捉前瞻記憶的方式，
which is this idea of remembering a previous goal or intention, is they embed a task within a task. So, you're going to try this out.
也就是記住先前目標或意圖的想法，是他們在一個任務中嵌入另一個任務。所以，你要試試這個。
>> No. Great. I should have slept more last night.
不。太好了。我應該昨晚多睡一點。
>> Fly sheet. >> The subjects were told to press N on their keyboard if the word on the screen is a real word.
飛頁。受試者被告知如果螢幕上的詞是真詞就按鍵盤上的N。
>> My heart is racing. >> And M if it's a fake word.
我的心跳加速。如果是假詞就按M。
>> No. But if they saw the words blue, purple, or green, they were supposed to press Q, W, or E, respectively.
不。但如果他們看到藍色、紫色或綠色這幾個詞，他們應該分別按Q、W或E。
>> Purple is that's the perspective memory task.
紫色，那是前瞻記憶任務。
>> Nope, I did it wrong. I got it wrong already. I already know.
不，我做錯了。我已經弄錯了。我已經知道了。
Houseman joust green. I love green. They had people do this task and then take a 10-minute break in which they either just rested, scrolled Twitter, watched a YouTube video, or scrolled Tik Tok, and
Houseman joust綠色。我愛綠色。他們讓人們做這個任務，然後休息10分鐘，期間他們要麼只是休息，要麼滑Twitter，要麼看YouTube影片，要麼滑TikTok，
then they took the test again. When they compared the scores from before the break and after the break, the performance on the real word, fake word task was the same. But for the blue,
然後他們再次接受測試。當他們比較休息前和休息後的分數時，真詞假詞任務的表現是一樣的。但對於藍色、
purple, green task, where they needed to remember that second intention, one group saw a big drop in their scores. It was the group that scrolled Tik Tok during the break.
紫色、綠色任務，他們需要記住第二個意圖，有一組的分數大幅下降。那是在休息期間滑TikTok的組。
>> What this is basically getting at is if you should be keeping something in mind, you lose that with the scrolling behavior, >> but not just scrolling because Twitter
這基本上說明的是，如果你應該記住某件事，滑動行為會讓你丟失它，但不只是滑動，因為Twitter
is a scroll behavior as well, >> right? That's true. It's short form video specifically.
也是滑動行為，對吧？沒錯。是特別針對短影片。
>> That study took place in Germany, but I was able to give this test to Adam in English because researchers in the UK replicated it in their own sample of 45
那項研究在德國進行，但我能用英語給Adam做這個測試，因為英國的研究人員在他們自己的45名
students. And this time they tested different ways of watching short form video. One group was limited to 10 swipes. The other group was allowed to swipe as much as they wanted. And there
學生樣本中複製了它。這次他們測試了不同的短影片觀看方式。一組被限制只能滑10次。另一組可以想滑多少就滑多少。還有
was a control group that just sat quietly. The group that watched shorts but was limited to 10 swipes didn't see a drop in their performance. The unlimited swiping group did. So again, it's like
一個對照組只是靜靜地坐著。看短影片但被限制10次滑動的組表現沒有下降。無限滑動組下降了。所以再次，就像
something about just being able to do this mindlessly is is the problem. So, if you're watching this in a clipped short, don't swipe away.
能夠無意識地這樣做是問題所在。所以，如果你在剪輯的短影片中看這個，不要滑走。
>> Actually, what you should do is download all the Howtown shorts, but watch them in one big stream.
實際上，你應該做的是下載所有Howtown短影片，但以一個大的連續串流觀看。
>> There you go. >> Um, so that's basically where we're at with this with the research. There's a few of these experimental studies.
對。所以這基本上就是我們在研究方面的情況。有一些這樣的實驗研究。
They're using a few different types of cognitive tests, none of which really map on to our popular conception of attention span, but are related cognitive skills. and they're raising a
他們使用幾種不同類型的認知測試，沒有一種真正對應我們對注意力持續時間的流行概念，但是相關的認知技能。而且它們正在引起
few red flags, but obviously the the caveats of small samples um and tasks that are very different from our everyday lives. Now, I want to know if I'm scrolling TikTok
一些警示，但顯然小樣本的警告以及與我們日常生活非常不同的任務。現在，我想知道如果我每晚睡前滑TikTok
every night before bed for 2 hours, am I just generally having a worst perspective memory in my life, or is that confined to just right after I use it? long-term studies would actually
2小時，我是不是在生活中一般前瞻記憶都變差了，還是只局限於使用後立即？長期研究實際上會
really inform uh and maybe guide better ethics and policy in designing the interface. I think this is actually something that could really impact the quality of life of people probably and
真正提供信息，也許可以指導設計界面時更好的倫理和政策。我認為這實際上可能真的影響人們的生活質量，並
provide evidence that maybe something has to change.
提供證據表明也許有些東西必須改變。
>> In 1890, the pioneering American psychologist William James wrote, "My experience is what I agree to attend to. My experience is what I agree to attend to. And there's more.
1890年，美國開創性心理學家威廉·詹姆斯寫道：「我的經驗就是我同意關注的東西。我的經驗就是我同意關注的東西。」還有更多。
He said, "Only those items which I notice shape my mind. Without selective interest, the consciousness of every creature would be a gray chaotic indiscriminatic indiscriminately, my relationship to mangoes will never be
他說：「只有我注意到的那些項目塑造了我的思想。沒有選擇性興趣，每個生物的意識都會是灰色混沌的不加區分的，我和芒果的關係永遠不會是
the fame. And yet, I keep coming back to this question of user agency or what James called selective interest. Agency is at the heart of both analytical thinking and perspective
名聲。」然而，我一直回到這個用戶自主權或詹姆斯所說的選擇性興趣的問題。自主權是分析思維和前瞻
memory. Those weird little tests are basically asking if your brain is on autopilot or if you can slow down, make a turn, remember where you intended to go. It's not just your
記憶的核心。那些奇怪的小測試基本上是在問你的大腦是不是在自動駕駛，或者你能不能慢下來，轉個彎，記住你打算去哪裡。不只是你的
intentions that get lost. Feeds that nudge the customers into autopilot tend to nudge the cooks into autopilot, too.
意圖會丟失。將顧客推入自動駕駛的feed往往也會將廚師推入自動駕駛。
>> Scientists just created Here's what would happen.
科學家剛剛創造了。這就是會發生的事。
>> Scientist Here's what happened. Scientist, >> but not everyone. Last time I checked, Smarter Everyday, you guys had not posted anything into the shorts feed. Is that still the case?
科學家。這就是發生的事。科學家，但不是每個人。上次我查的時候，Smarter Everyday，你們還沒有在短影片feed中發布任何東西。還是這樣嗎？
>> That's the case. I have elected not to do that because I don't think it's good for people. I don't think the infinite scroll is healthy for our
是的。我選擇不這樣做，因為我認為這對人們不好。我不認為無限滾動對我們的
minds. It's easy for me to say this because Smarter Everyday has been around for a while and there's a lot of really awesome people that support the channel,
大腦是健康的。我這樣說很容易，因為Smarter Everyday已經存在一段時間了，有很多很棒的人支持這個頻道，
but I think saying no to shorts is powerful. Um, and I think it ultimately increases trust in the creator. Um, I could be wrong about that, but I don't know. That's where I'm at.
但我認為對短影片說不是有力量的。我認為這最終會增加對創作者的信任。我可能錯了，但我不知道。這就是我的立場。
>> Dustin's such a good guy. Um, yeah. I mean, I think, you know, obviously we want to be acting with integrity and sort of like living our values in all
Dustin真是個好人。是的。我的意思是，我認為，你知道，顯然我們想要誠信行事，在生活的各個方面都按照我們的價值觀生活，
parts of our life, including the way we make this channel, but like having bite-sized information, you know, when I was at NPR, we would make 3minut radio pieces all the time, right? That was
包括我們製作這個頻道的方式，但就像有bite-sized的信息，你知道，當我在NPR的時候，我們會一直製作3分鐘的廣播片段，對吧？那是
like a pretty typical length. And I didn't feel like those were bad for the world just because it was a compressed amount of information about a complex subject. I thought like, oh, this is
一個相當典型的長度。我不覺得那些對世界有害，只因為它是關於複雜主題的壓縮信息量。我想，哦，這是
good. Like someone is learning something that they wouldn't otherwise know. The question is, do we want to participate in this in these endless scrolls?
好的。比如有人學到了他們原本不會知道的東西。問題是，我們想參與這些無盡滾動嗎？
>> I don't know if you see these comments sometimes on our shorts. This one says like, "Your contents are the most anti-brain rot content out there. Actually, genuine and very high
我不知道你有沒有看到我們短影片上的這些評論。這個說，「你們的內容是最反大腦退化的內容。真正真誠而且質量很高
quality." And then someone responded, "No such thing as anti-brain rot content when it's short form." >> So, that's basically kind of the question that we need to answer.
。」然後有人回覆：「只要是短形式的，就沒有所謂的反大腦退化內容。」所以，這基本上就是我們需要回答的問題。
>> Yeah. Yeah, that's right. Is there such thing as a good short uh as an anti-brain rot short?
是的。是的，沒錯。有沒有這樣的東西，一個好的短影片，一個反大腦退化的短影片？
>> What do you think? Is this research strong enough that we should be making a change? Let us know in the comments. You can also find more of my conversation
你怎麼想？這項研究是否足夠強大，讓我們應該做出改變？在評論中告訴我們。你還可以在我們的Patreon上找到更多我與
with Destin and hear Adam and I processing all of this over on our Patreon. And if you're interested in meditation, which is arguably the opposite of binging a shorts feed, click
Destin的對話以及聽Adam和我處理這一切。如果你對冥想感興趣，這可以說是狂看短影片的相反，點擊
the link in our description to try Headspace free for 60 days. That deal doesn't last. So try it now. See how your mind responds. Thanks for watching.
我們描述中的連結免費試用Headspace 60天。這個優惠不會持續。所以現在就試試。看看你的大腦如何反應。感謝觀看。