シャドーイング練習: What the actual science says about "brain rot" - 動画で英語スピーキングを学ぶ

練習モードを選ぶ

各モードは全画面の練習ルームで開きます。

362 文

文が短すぎたり長すぎる場合は、Editをタップして調整してください。

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 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.

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 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.

I cannot physically bring myself to study.

I'm addicted too.

We're all addicted to this.

Oh no. It's horrible for you.

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 viewers.

If brain rot is real, then we might be part of the problem.

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.

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 just take the conventional wisdom.

We're not running on vibes over here.

We're trying to see if there's anything behind the vibes.

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 feeds specifically?

After 10 minutes of swiping through shorts, do people really think any worse?

First, I wanted to know what makes this new format different from the hours of television that people watch every day.

And you can hear it in how the companies talk about their own product.

See, last year a bunch of private conversations between TikTok employees came to light after 14 U .S states investigated

and sued the company.

This is multiple lawsuits coming from individual states' attorney general.

And the action alleges that TikTok exploits and harms young users.

The state attorneys had agreed to black out the confidential materials.

And I found the breadth of these redactions odd.

That's a local reporter named Sylvia Goodman 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 all of those redactions.

I'll be honest, my jaw was on the floor reading some of this.

The documents showed TikTok employees openly grappling with the potential harm of the bold glamour filter.

Bold glamour filter.

This is without the filter.

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 Wellbeing.

TikTok's success can largely be attributed to strong out -of -the -box personalization and automation, which limits user agency.

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 want to zero in on that last part about how the interface limits user agency.

They're saying that TikTok 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 minds.

And since we use that word feed, let's roll with the food analogy.

The restaurants we know have a menu.

You browse, you pick something, you eat it.

Streaming television is that kind of restaurant.

YouTube is too.

Or it was.

Their big innovation is that the menus are personalized based on what you've eaten there in the past.

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 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.

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 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.

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.

This restaurant is TikTok and Reels 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 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 agency, you arrive at short form.

We've seen this happen before with Tinder.

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, and an algorithm that encodes our subconscious responses more than our reflective intentions.

Maybe you noticed that all the dating apps became Tinder.

So is all of media becoming TikTok?

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.

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 YouTube have made to the rise of TikTok.

Reels already makes up more than 20 % of the time, 50 % of the time that people spend on Instagram.

Over 15 billion views each day.

30 billion daily views.

50 billion plus.

70 billion.

We now average over 200 billion daily views on YouTube shows.

Social media has gone through two eras so far.

First was when all content was from friends, family, and accounts that you follow directly.

The second was when we added all of the creator 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.

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.

No one can eat just one.

And it makes me wonder if Howtown Shorts are kind of like, do you know those like pea -shaped potato chips?

Uh -huh, right, right, right.

I know what you're talking about.

It's like a green Cheeto.

100

There's a version of this that's like, but our chips are made of vegetables.

101

Yeah.

102

I suppose it's no surprise that a bottomless personalized mystery snack dispenser could take over our media diets.

103

But there is such thing as a healthy snack, right?

104

So I'm going to tell you about all the research that I've read about this, and then maybe we can decide how we feel about it.

105

Yeah, great.

106

Yeah.

107

It's interesting.

108

As you've been researching all this, I have been feeling especially scatterbrained.

109

I'm like distracted by the news.

110

I've been moving between two different continents.

111

So it's a happy coincidence that the sponsor for this week's episode is Headspace, the mental health platform.

112

Did you try it?

113

Yeah, yeah.

114

They sent me a free subscription and I've been taking their Finding Focus course, which is basically 10 minute sessions of guided meditation.

115

And it's been really nice, honestly, to have that break of my day.

116

A couple of days ago, I actually just did one while I was waiting for the bus.

117

You know, I've done a fair amount of reporting on mindfulness meditation over the years, and there's a real growing body of evidence from some pretty robust studies that it can improve your working memory,

118

it can improve your ability to sustain attention.

119

In one study, people who meditated with headspace for a month were less distractible than a control group who did these standard brain training exercises, things like puzzles and memory tasks.

120

So if you, 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.

121

You can start Headspace for free by following the link in our description box or scanning this QR code that's on screen.

122

Usually it's just a two -week trial, but with this link, you get a full 60 days completely free.

123

Before we get to TikTok, there's a bigger question to answer.

124

Have our attention spans really shrunk?

125

According to a 2015 post by Time Magazine, yes.

126

They're now shorter than a goldfish.

127

But this is one of those myths that won't die.

128

Here's a fun fact.

129

Some researchers have concluded that our attention span is now shorter than a goldfish.

130

That's a scientific fact!

131

The claim came from a report published by Microsoft, which had this graphic showing our attention span declining from 12 seconds to 8 seconds.

132

But they were citing something called Statistic Brain, which in turn cited these sources. And

133

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.

134

So what would it really take to measure attention spans?

135

Well, I talked to one of the few people who have tried.

136

My name is Gloria Mark.

137

She's written a book called Attention Span.

138

And way back in 2003, she convinced an investment management company to let her peek over the shoulders of 14 of their employees as they worked.

139

And we would just observe them.

140

And with stopwatches, every time they changed to do something else, we would click on the stopwatch and it was very, very tiring.

141

Those employees spent about two and a half minutes working on their computers before they switched to checking email.

142

or doing something else.

143

Fast forward to 2012, she convinces another workplace to let her install software

144

that tracks how often their employees click from one window to another and finds that they switch every 75 seconds on average.

145

Now it's closer to 40.

146

So yes, empirically we can say that on screens, attention spans have shortened.

147

It's a little tricky because obviously we have this method switch.

148

Like without that dot at 2004, the trend doesn't look as dramatic, right?

149

It's sort of funny to me to think about

150

the adjudicators or the watchers in that first test were also having their attentions tested.

151

Like, were they able to catch, like they're also having to focus.

152

The other big question I would have is like,

153

is this measuring our ability to focus or just how much distracting stuff there is in our lives?

154

What I'm worried about is

155

that I'm no longer able to read a book for six hours like I did when I was 12.

156

Has something changed about your brain?

157

Yeah, has something changed about the ability of my brain?

158

It's obvious to me that something has changed about the way that computers work.

159

Like, yeah, I've just got notifications.

160

There's literal sounds that are telling me you should be distracted by this other thing right now.

161

And so I still have, I'm still curious about like, if there's actual damage being done to our mental systems, I guess.

162

The advantage of Gloria Mark's approach is that it captures real life.

163

It's not just bringing people into a laboratory, having them sit for an hour in front of a computer,

164

but we actually observed what people did over the day in the course of their actual work.

165

The limitation is that it can't distinguish between these three different influences on our ability to focus.

166

There's our attentional capacity, that's what we generally think of when we say attention span.

167

Then there's our motivation, how much we need or care about focusing on this task.

168

And there's competition, how much is our environment distracting us.

169

Now in a lab, they can get closer to controlling for motivation and competition.

170

But the tasks that they give people don't look anything like real life.

171

Let me show you.

172

This is a classic attention test.

173

They tell you to memorize this image.

174

And then you go through these rows, crossing out the items that match the one that you memorized.

175

You get 20 seconds per row.

176

There's 14 rows.

177

They look at how many errors you make, how fast you work, whether you get worse over time.

178

And on this test, performance in adults has actually been increasing.

179

That's according to a study that compiled scores from three decades and 32 countries.

180

In children, overall performance hasn't changed, but their test -taking style has.

181

They've become faster, making more errors, but also completing more items.

182

Now, researchers who run lab tests like these don't claim to be measuring attention span.

183

I think we often in daily life, and I even do this myself, we just talk about attention and it feels obvious like we know what it means to pay attention.

184

But actually, if we give people different tasks, we can see that there's distinct components of attention that aren't necessarily related to each other.

185

Monica Rosenberg studies patterns of brain activity during attention tests.

186

When I'm watching a really engaging movie, like my lab collected data as people watched a Hitchcock film and YouTube videos about cooking.

187

Is this the same kind of attention

188

or is there something fundamentally different about being engaged in a narrative

189

that I'm motivated to follow versus forcing myself to do this boring task?

190

And, you know, it turns out there's some similarities, but there's also some differences. And

191

so I think how well I do on one task with

192

pictures is not indicative of how well I pay attention all the time in all contexts.

193

It's certainly related, but it's not a perfect measure.

194

So let's set aside the concept of attention spans.

195

It's a really fuzzy term.

196

It's hard to measure.

197

The sharper question to ask is, if you binge short form video, what exactly gets worse?

198

Is it your memory, your reasoning?

199

That's what the next few studies are trying to pin down.

200

If you ask, do people who say they're addicted to short form video also have trouble focusing?

201

So far the answer to that seems to be yes.

202

A recent review of 14 studies found that increased SFV use, that's short form video, was associated with poorer cognition,

203

including attention and inhibitory control.

204

But whenever you see that term was associated with, that's scientist's code for, we're not saying this causes the problem.

205

Right.

206

It's sort of our social media and teen health all over again,

207

where it's are depressed teens becoming depressed because they are on social media or are they seeking it out?

208

Yeah, I think this is the question with basically all of the harmful effects

209

that people are attributing to these new technologies is almost all the research can't distinguish correlation from causation.

210

But there are a few experimental studies that I wanted to highlight.

211

There are at least two different cognitive tests where people perform worse after scrolling a shorts feed.

212

One is a kind of trick question quiz

213

and the other is about whether you can remember to do something that you plan to do.

214

So first, there's a measure based on these three questions.

215

A bat and a ball cost $1 .10 in total.

216

The bat costs $1 more than the ball.

217

How much does the ball cost?

218

This is supposed to capture analytical thinking.

219

To get these questions right, you have to switch out of autopilot.

220

Like your gut is screaming 10 cents and you need to override that.

221

72 college students at Peking University in Beijing took this test after either spending 30 minutes scrolling TikTok or 30 minutes reading.

222

And the TikTok group did worse.

223

The researchers wanted to know, does what you watch matter?

224

So they ran a second study, but this time people watched either a cute animals playlist or a science experiments playlist.

225

They also changed how people watch.

226

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 what they found.

227

It didn't matter whether you watched animals or science, but the swiping groups consistently did worse on the cognitive reflection test.

228

They got 0 .38 fewer questions right out of the three questions total.

229

That's 12 % of the scale after 30 minutes from just swiping alone.

230

Okay, interesting.

231

So if you're subjected to essentially just a montage of videos that you don't have control over,

232

you are not degrading your analytical thinking as much as

233

if you're swiping through and getting to just skip whenever you are bored.

234

It's sort of interesting because you think of that decision is interacting with the interface, right?

235

That decision is cognitively more intense than just sitting back and letting something happen to you, right?

236

Yeah, unless boredom is cognitively intense in a way that we don't recognize.

237

Okay, so that's one test that short -form video makes you worse at.

238

The other is a test of prospective memory, which is when you remember to do something that you intended to do,

239

like picking up the dry cleaning or joining a Zoom meeting or taking a medication that you're supposed to take.

240

Researchers at the University of Munich wanted to know how short form video feeds affect that ability.

241

Because it was coming from a general observation that like, if you scroll a bit, you feel like, I don't want to say that you feel like new,

242

but like you kind of...

243

Dissociate.

244

Yeah, yeah, dissociate a bit.

245

So it was something like, okay, it's actually really happening.

246

Like, and we felt that.

247

So we said, okay, let's figure out how we can,

248

you know, make this solid user study and investigate what can be a cognitive function that would be associated.

249

So how would you test perspective memory?

250

Boy, oh boy.

251

Well, it feels like, yeah, we're getting tested all the time.

252

If you tell me to do something and then you wait 30 minutes and see if I did it, is that long enough to be considered perspective memory?

253

Or does it have to be like, I know I have a meeting on Wednesday at one.

254

And do you show up at the meeting?

255

Is that is there a timescale involved in what is considered perspective memory?

256

Yeah, well, I mean, the way that the way

257

that psychologists define it for their purposes is even much shorter than

258

that because they need a way to measure it in the lab with subjects

259

that they don't have access to for very long.

260

So the way they try to capture perspective memory, which is this idea of remembering a previous goal or intention, is they embed a task within a task.

261

So you're going to try this out.

262

No, great.

263

I should have slept more last night.

264

The subjects were told to press N on their keyboard if the word on the screen is a real word.

265

My heart is racing.

266

And an M if it's a fake word.

267

But if they saw the words blue, purple, or green, they were supposed to press Q, W, or E respectively.

268

That's the perspective memory task.

269

Nope, I did it wrong.

270

I got it wrong already.

271

I already know.

272

Houseman?

273

Joust.

274

Green.

275

I love green.

276

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,

277

or scrolled TikTok, and then they took the test again.

278

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.

279

But for the blue -purple -green task, where they needed to remember that second intention, one group saw a big drop in their scores.

280

It was the group that scrolled TikTok during the break.

281

Thank you.

282

What this is basically getting at is if you should be keeping something in mind, you lose that with the scrolling behavior.

283

But not just scrolling, because Twitter is a scroll behavior as well.

284

Right, that's true.

285

It's short -form video specifically.

286

That study took place in Germany, but I was able to give this test to Adam in English

287

because researchers in the UK replicated it in their own sample of 45 students.

288

And this time, they tested different ways of watching short -form video.

289

One group was limited to 10 swipes, the other group was allowed to swipe as much as they wanted, and there was a control group that just sat quietly.

290

The group that watched shorts but was limited to 10 swipes didn't see a drop in their performance.

291

The unlimited swiping group did.

292

So again, it's like something about just being able to do this mindlessly is the problem.

293

So if you're watching this in a clipped short, don't swipe away.

294

Actually, what you should do is download all the Howtown shorts, but watch them in one big stream.

295

There you go.

296

So that's basically where we're at with the research.

297

There's a few of these experimental studies.

298

They're using a few different types of cognitive tests, none of which really map on to our popular conception of attention span,

299

but our related cognitive skills.

300

And they're raising a few red flags,

301

but obviously the caveats of small samples and tasks that are very different from our everyday lives.

302

Now I want to know if I'm scrolling TikTok every night before bed for two hours, am I just generally having a worse perspective memory in my life

303

or is that confined to just right after I use it?

304

Long -term studies would actually really inform and maybe guide better ethics and policy in designing the interface.

305

I think this is actually something that could really impact the quality of life of people, probably, and provide the evidence that maybe something has to change.

306

In 1890, the pioneering American psychologist William James wrote, My experience is what I agree to attend to.

307

My experience is what I agree to attend to.

308

And there's more.

309

He said, Only those items which I notice shape my mind.

310

Without selective interest, the consciousness of every creature would be a gray, chaotic, indiscriminateness impossible for us even to conceive.

311

135 years later, a consciousness of chaotic indiscriminateness is not impossible to conceive.

312

It's how I often feel when I lose myself in a feed.

313

Even when that feed is full of things that are educational and funny or beautiful or really useful, Genuinely, my relationship to mangoes will never be the same.

314

And yet, I keep coming back to this question of user agency, or what James called selective interest.

315

Agency is at the heart of both analytical thinking and perspective memory.

316

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.

317

It's not just your intentions that get lost.

318

Feeds that nudge the customers into autopilot tend to nudge the cooks into autopilot too.

319

Scientists just created...

320

Here's what would happen...

321

Scientists just...

322

Here's what would happen...

323

Scientists just...

324

I bet you...

325

I bet you...

326

But not everyone.

327

Last time I checked Smarter Every Day, you guys had not posted anything into the shorts feed.

328

Is that still the case?

329

That's the case.

330

I have elected not to do that because I don't think it's good for people.

331

I don't think the infinite scroll is healthy for our minds.

332

It's easy for me to say this because Smarter Every Day has been around for a while.

333

And there's a lot of really awesome people that support the channel.

334

But I think saying no to shorts is powerful.

335

And I think it ultimately increases trust in the creator.

336

I could be wrong about that, but I don't know.

337

That's where I'm at.

338

Dustin's such a good guy.

339

Yeah, I mean, I think, you know, obviously, we want to be acting with integrity

340

and sort of like living our values in all parts of our life, including the way we make this channel.

341

But like having bite sized information, you know, when I was at NPR, we would make three minute radio pieces all the time, right?

342

That was like a pretty typical length.

343

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.

344

I thought like, oh, this is good.

345

Like, someone is learning something that they wouldn't otherwise know.

346

The question is do we want to participate in this in these endless scrolls?

347

I don't know if you see these comments sometimes on our shorts.

348

This one says like your contents are the most anti brain rot Content out there actually genuine

349

and very high quality and then someone responded

350

No such thing as anti brain rot content when it's short form

351

So that's basically kind of the question that we need to answer.

352

Yeah, yeah, that's right.

353

Is there such thing as a good short?

354

As an anti -brainrod short?

355

What do you think?

356

Is this research strong enough that we should be making a change?

357

Let us know in the comments.

358

You can also find more of my conversation with Destin

359

and hear Adam and I processing all of this over on our Patreon.

360

And if you're interested in meditation, which is arguably the opposite of binging a shorts feed?

361

Click the link in our description to try Headspace free for 60 days.

362

That deal doesn't last, so try it now, see how your mind responds.

アプリをダウンロード

流暢に話すために必要なすべて

AI発音採点文ごとに採点

IPA練習すべての音をマスター

単語学習自分の単語帳を作る

単語ゲーム遊びながら覚える

QRをスキャン

Download on theApp Store Get it onGoogle Play

同じチャンネル

FOR YOU

このレッスンの語彙とスピーキングのポイント

このB2レベルのスピーキングレッスンは、動画「What the actual science says about "brain rot"」を教材にしています。この動画には、シャドーイング用の文が362文、単語が4405語あります。音声の長さは25:29です。話す速さは1分あたり約173語で、日常会話に近い自然なペースです。単語の83%は英語の頻出3,000語に含まれます。残りは練習の前に確認しておきましょう。

この動画の重要語彙

動画の中で特に難しい単語15語を、発音と意味つきで紹介します。

単語	発音	意味
scroll 名詞	/skɹoʊl/	巻物, スクロール
researcher 名詞	/ˈɹiˌsɝ.t͡ʃɚ/	研究員, 研究者
autopilot 名詞	/ˈɔtoʊˌpaɪlət/	オートパイロット
distract 動詞	/dɪˈstɹækt/	気をそらす
interface 名詞	/ˈɪn(t)ɚˌfeɪs/	インターフェース
goldfish 名詞	/ˈɡoʊldfɪʃ/	金魚
addict 名詞	/ˈæd.ɪkt/	中毒者
snack 名詞	/snæk/	軽食, スナック
conceive 動詞	/kənˈsiːv/	妊娠する, 孕む
playlist 名詞	/ˈpleɪˌlɪst/	プレイリスト, 再生リスト
distinguish 動詞	/dɪˈstɪŋ.ɡwɪʃ/	区別する
bore 動詞	/boɹ/	いらいらさせる
vibe 名詞	/vaɪb/	氛囲気
algorithm 名詞	/ˈælɡəɹɪðm̩/	アルゴリズム, 演算手順
observe 動詞	/əbˈzɜːv/	守る, 従う

動画に出てくる句動詞

単語	意味
cross out 動詞	棒引きにする
go back 動詞	戻る, 帰る
pick up 動詞	拾う, 拾い上げる
sit down 動詞	座る, 腰掛ける
slow down 動詞	遅らせる
take over 動詞	引き受ける
track down 動詞	追い詰める, 〜を見つけ出す

繰り返し練習したい文

動画に出てくる短く完結した文です。日常会話でそのまま使えます。

We're all addicted to this.
We're not running on vibes over here.
Have our attention spans really shrunk?
Has something changed about your brain?
Is it your memory, your reasoning?

この動画の文法

話し手がよく使っている文型を、動画の実際の表現とともに紹介します。

文型	動画での表現
現在完了進行形 have/has been + -ing — 以前に始まり今も続いている動作	I've been wanting · I've been trying · you've been researching
現在完了形 have/has + 過去分詞 — 過去の出来事が今も関係している	I've been · has actually tested · has introduced
受動態 be + 過去分詞 — 誰がするかより、何が起きるかに焦点を当てる	had not been done · be attributed · are personalized
関係詞節 who / which + 節 — 人や物について情報を加える	course, which is · people who meditated · people who have

注意したい発音

話し手はdon't, I'm, I'veなど、短縮形や弱形を76回使っています。聞こえたとおりの短い形で発音しましょう。

「th」の音: algorithm /ˈælɡəɹɪðm̩/, altogether /ɔl.tuˈɡɛð.ɚ/, ethics /ˈɛθ.ɪks/
「sh」と「zh」の音: goldfish /ˈɡoʊldfɪʃ/, redaction /ɹəˈdækʃən/, meditation /mɛdɪˈteɪʃn̩/, dissociate /dɪˈsoʊ.ʃi.eɪt/, personalization /ˌpɝs(ə)nəlaɪˈzeɪʃən/
長い単語（アクセントの位置に注意）: autopilot /ˈɔtoʊˌpaɪlət/, analytical /ˌæn.əˈlɪt.ɪ.kəl/, cognitively /ˈkɑɡ.nɪ.tɪv.li/, dissociate /dɪˈsoʊ.ʃi.eɪt/, personalization /ˌpɝs(ə)nəlaɪˈzeɪʃən/

日本語話者が苦手な音：

/r/ と /l/ の区別 — /l/ は舌先を歯茎につけ、/r/ はどこにもつけない: scroll /skɹoʊl/, morsel /ˈmɔɹsəl/, algorithm /ˈælɡəɹɪðm̩/, reflection /ɹɪˈflɛkʃən/
/v/ — /b/ にならないように、上の歯を下唇に当てる: cognitive /ˈkɑɡ.nɪ.tɪv/, cognitively /ˈkɑɡ.nɪ.tɪv.li/, conceive /kənˈsiːv/, selective /səˈlɛktɪv/, vibe /vaɪb/
/f/ — 「フ」ではなく、上の歯と下唇で出す: interface /ˈɪn(t)ɚˌfeɪs/, goldfish /ˈɡoʊldfɪʃ/, flavor /ˈfleɪvə/, smartphone /ˈsmɑɹtfoʊn/, inform /ɪnˈfɔɹm/

この動画での練習方法

まず声を出さずに動画を最後まで聞き、知らない単語をメモします。
まず0.75倍速で一文ずつシャドーイングし、慣れてきたら通常の速度に戻します。
自分の声を録音して元の音声と比べます。scroll, researcher, autopilotなどの単語に特に注意しましょう。

シャドーイングとは？英語上達に効果的な理由

シャドーイング（Shadowing）は、もともとプロの通訳者養成プログラムで開発された言語学習法で、多言語習得者として知られるDr. Alexander Arguelles によって広く普及されました。方法はシンプルですが非常に効果的：ネイティブスピーカーの英語を聞きながら、1〜2秒の遅延で声に出してすぐに繰り返す——まるで「影（shadow）」のように話者を追いかけます。文法ドリルや受動的なリスニングと異なり、シャドーイングは脳と口の筋肉が同時にリアルタイムで英語を処理・再現することを強制します。研究により、発音精度、抑揚、リズム、連音、リスニング力、そして会話の流暢さが大幅に向上することが確認されています。IELTSスピーキング対策や自然な英語コミュニケーションを目指す方に特におすすめです。

シャドーイングのやり方: ステップ別の完全ガイドを読む →

シャドーイング練習: What the actual science says about "brain rot" - 動画で英語スピーキングを学ぶ

練習モードを選ぶ

アプリをダウンロード

同じチャンネル

The only good nuclear accident

Why is this one spot not warming?

Dog vision, explained

Do we need more kids? A research showdown.

When Siberia thaws, what emerges?

おすすめ動画

10 Habits Secretly Causing Brain Rot | Fix it Now

I think AI slop is about to trigger a renaissance, actually

The truth about peptides, NAD, & other longevity treatments | Rachele Pojednic, Ph.D.

What happens to your brain when you’re dreaming

How Social Media Is Rewiring Our Brains

Forget Your Reading Journal, Do This Instead

Is smart technology making us dumb? | GMF compact

Blindboy discovers the link between gut health and mental health

Why Life Seems to Speed Up as We Age

How Do I Reverse Brain Rot?

Your Brain Isn't Rotting. Here's What Doomscrolling Actually Does

What Happens To Your Brain When You Do Nothing?

このレッスンの語彙とスピーキングのポイント

この動画の重要語彙

動画に出てくる句動詞

繰り返し練習したい文

この動画の文法

注意したい発音

この動画での練習方法

シャドーイングとは？英語上達に効果的な理由