Shadowing Practice: What the actual science says about "brain rot" - Learn English Speaking with Video
Kies een oefenmodus
Elke modus opent een volledig scherm oefenruimte.
362 zinnen
Als zinnen te kort of te lang zijn, klik op Bewerken om ze aan te passen.
1
In 2022, a lab in Munich did something that I've been wanting to see.
2
They gave 60 people a cognitive test, then sent them away for a 10 -minute break, and then tested them again.
3
Now the difference was the break.
4
Some people just sat there, some scrolled on Twitter, some watched a normal YouTube video, and some went on TikTok.
5
So whose brain changed during that time?
6
This is one of the few experiments that I've been able to dig up
7
that has actually tested the idea of brain rot.
8
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.
9
I cannot physically bring myself to study.
10
I'm addicted too.
11
We're all addicted to this.
12
Oh no. It's horrible for you.
13
Oh, and we're giving kids just the attention span of a walnut.
14
This is awkward because we make shorts, and it has introduced us to a bunch of new viewers.
15
If brain rot is real, then we might be part of the problem.
16
I do have a lot of skepticism whenever there's a claim
17
that like some new thing is fundamentally changing the way that humans operate.
18
Yeah.
19
Apparently Socrates thought that writing was going to ruin our minds.
20
And, you know, people worried about novels being addictive and the telegraph and all of that.
21
Like on Howtown, we don't just take the conventional wisdom.
22
We're not running on vibes over here.
23
We're trying to see if there's anything behind the vibes.
24
So I went hunting for evidence.
25
We've heard about shrinking attention spans since the start of the smartphone era, but how can we measure those?
26
And what are the studies saying about the video feeds specifically?
27
After 10 minutes of swiping through shorts, do people really think any worse?
28
First, I wanted to know what makes this new format different from the hours of television that people watch every day.
29
And you can hear it in how the companies talk about their own product.
30
See, last year a bunch of private conversations between TikTok employees came to light after 14 U .S states investigated
31
and sued the company.
32
This is multiple lawsuits coming from individual states' attorney general.
33
And the action alleges that TikTok exploits and harms young users.
34
The state attorneys had agreed to black out the confidential materials.
35
And I found the breadth of these redactions odd.
36
That's a local reporter named Sylvia Goodman she discovered that the redactions in the Kentucky complaint had not been done correctly.
37
I copy and pasted it all out into a fresh document and I could read all of those redactions.
38
I'll be honest, my jaw was on the floor reading some of this.
39
The documents showed TikTok employees openly grappling with the potential harm of the bold glamour filter.
40
Bold glamour filter.
41
This is without the filter.
42
They admitted that those screen time reminders
43
were a good talking point but not altogether effective one sentence
44
that really stood out to me came from an internal document titled Digital Wellbeing.
45
TikTok's success can largely be attributed to strong out -of -the -box personalization and automation, which limits user agency.
46
We hear a lot about that personalization.
47
That's the famous algorithm that decides what to show you based on what you watch
48
and what people with similar watch behavior watch.
49
But I want to zero in on that last part about how the interface limits user agency.
50
They're saying that TikTok wins by making fewer things feel like your decision.
51
And I think that's the key to understanding what short -form video feeds might be doing to our minds.
52
And since we use that word feed, let's roll with the food analogy.
53
The restaurants we know have a menu.
54
You browse, you pick something, you eat it.
55
Streaming television is that kind of restaurant.
56
YouTube is too.
57
Or it was.
58
Their big innovation is that the menus are personalized based on what you've eaten there in the past.
59
Now imagine a restaurant without menus, where you sit down, open your mouth, and a device places a morsel of something onto your tongue.
60
You don't get another bite until you eat it or spit it out.
61
By measuring your chew time, the restaurant can adjust the lineup of bites to feature more of the flavors that you tend to swallow.
62
But they don't just hit you with the same flavor time after time.
63
They can also test out some unexpected morsels, because even if it's not your favorite, it's just a bite.
64
And there's another one waiting that might be amazing.
65
Without a menu, you lose the experience of choosing, but you gain the experience of being surprised over and over and over again.
66
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.
67
This restaurant is TikTok and Reels and YouTube Shorts and all of the other imitators.
68
And it is probably the most engaging media interface that I've ever seen, just in terms of sheer entertainment by watch time.
69
There's a catch though.
70
This sequential feeding system wouldn't work if the dishes were big or complicated.
71
It only works with morsels.
72
If you take away the user's agency, you arrive at short form.
73
We've seen this happen before with Tinder.
74
Instead of a dating app based on a menu, they showed one profile at a time, forcing feedback from the swiper.
75
And what happened?
76
The profiles became short form.
77
Just photos, a couple of words, and an algorithm that encodes our subconscious responses more than our reflective intentions.
78
Maybe you noticed that all the dating apps became Tinder.
79
So is all of media becoming TikTok?
80
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.
81
But they do these quarterly calls with investors.
82
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.
83
Reels already makes up more than 20 % of the time, 50 % of the time that people spend on Instagram.
84
Over 15 billion views each day.
85
30 billion daily views.
86
50 billion plus.
87
70 billion.
88
We now average over 200 billion daily views on YouTube shows.
89
Social media has gone through two eras so far.
90
First was when all content was from friends, family, and accounts that you follow directly.
91
The second was when we added all of the creator content.
92
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.
93
It's really easy for me to think of this as the bowl of potato chips
94
that someone sticks on the table that you didn't order, but it's there, so you snack on it.
95
No one can eat just one.
96
And it makes me wonder if Howtown Shorts are kind of like, do you know those like pea -shaped potato chips?
97
Uh -huh, right, right, right.
98
I know what you're talking about.
99
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.
App downloaden
Alles wat je nodig hebt om vloeiend te spreken
AI UitspraakScoor elke zin
IPA OefeningBeheers elk geluid
WoordenschatBouw je woordenschat op
WoordenspelLeren terwijl je speelt
📺 Zelfde Kanaal
C13
The only good nuclear accident
Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C13
Why is this one spot not warming?
IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepUniversity Students
C12
Dog vision, explained
University StudentsWorking Adults
B23
Do we need more kids? A research showdown.
IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepUniversity Students
B23
When Siberia thaws, what emerges?
IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepUniversity Students
✨ Aanbevolen Video
B29
193 zinnen
10 Habits Secretly Causing Brain Rot | Fix it Now
Business EnglishDaily ConversationUniversity Students
B21
409 zinnen
I think AI slop is about to trigger a renaissance, actually
Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C11
710 zinnen
The truth about peptides, NAD, & other longevity treatments | Rachele Pojednic, Ph.D.
Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C12
52 zinnen
What happens to your brain when you’re dreaming
Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C158
40 zinnen
How Social Media Is Rewiring Our Brains
Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
B2298 zinnen
Forget Your Reading Journal, Do This Instead
Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
B22
10 zinnen
Is smart technology making us dumb? | GMF compact
Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C11
746 zinnen
Blindboy discovers the link between gut health and mental health
Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
B21
118 zinnen
Why Life Seems to Speed Up as We Age
Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C11
781 zinnen
How Do I Reverse Brain Rot?
Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C137 zinnen
Your Brain Isn't Rotting. Here's What Doomscrolling Actually Does
Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
B21
134 zinnen
What Happens To Your Brain When You Do Nothing?
Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
Woordenschat en spreektips bij deze les
Deze spreekles op niveau B2 is gebaseerd op de video “What the actual science says about "brain rot"”. Deze video bevat 362 zinnen en 4405 woorden om na te spreken. Het gesproken deel duurt 25:29. De spreker praat in een natuurlijk tempo van ongeveer 173 woorden per minuut, dicht bij een alledaags gesprek. 83% van de woorden hoort bij de 3.000 meest gebruikte Engelse woorden; de rest kun je beter vooraf bekijken.
Belangrijke woorden in deze video
De 15 moeilijkste woorden uit de video, met uitspraak en betekenis:
| Woord | Uitspraak | Betekenis |
|---|---|---|
| scroll zelfstandig naamwoord | /skɹoʊl/ | boekrol, schriftrol |
| cognitive bijvoeglijk naamwoord | /ˈkɑɡ.nɪ.tɪv/ | cognitief |
| researcher zelfstandig naamwoord | /ˈɹiˌsɝ.t͡ʃɚ/ | onderzoeker |
| autopilot zelfstandig naamwoord | /ˈɔtoʊˌpaɪlət/ | automatische piloot |
| morsel zelfstandig naamwoord | /ˈmɔɹsəl/ | brok, hap |
| distract werkwoord | /dɪˈstɹækt/ | afleiden |
| interface zelfstandig naamwoord | /ˈɪn(t)ɚˌfeɪs/ | koppeling, aansluiting |
| goldfish zelfstandig naamwoord | /ˈɡoʊldfɪʃ/ | goudvis |
| addict zelfstandig naamwoord | /ˈæd.ɪkt/ | verslaafde |
| snack zelfstandig naamwoord | /snæk/ | tussendoortje |
| meditation zelfstandig naamwoord | /mɛdɪˈteɪʃn̩/ | meditatie, overpeinzing |
| conceive werkwoord | /kənˈsiːv/ | zwanger worden |
| dissociate werkwoord | /dɪˈsoʊ.ʃi.eɪt/ | zich scheiden, zich distantiëren |
| nudge werkwoord | /nʌd͡ʒ/ | duw geven, aanstoten |
| personalization zelfstandig naamwoord | /ˌpɝs(ə)nəlaɪˈzeɪʃən/ | personalisatie |
Phrasal verbs die je zult horen
| Woord | Betekenis |
|---|---|
| figure out werkwoord | uitvogelen, er achter komen |
| cross out werkwoord | schrappen |
| go back werkwoord | teruggaan |
| pick up werkwoord | oppakken, optillen |
| sit down werkwoord | gaan zitten |
| slow down werkwoord | afremmen |
| take over werkwoord | overnemen |
| track down werkwoord | opsporen |
Zinnen om te herhalen
Korte, volledige zinnen uit de video die je in alledaagse gesprekken kunt gebruiken:
- 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?
Grammatica in deze video
De structuren die de spreker het meest gebruikt, met de exacte woorden uit de video:
| Structuur | In de video |
|---|---|
| Present perfect continuous have/has been + -ing — iets dat eerder begon en nog bezig is | I've been wanting · I've been trying · you've been researching |
| Present perfect have/has + voltooid deelwoord — iets uit het verleden dat nu nog telt | I've been · has actually tested · has introduced |
| Lijdende vorm be + voltooid deelwoord — het gaat om wat er gebeurt, niet om wie het doet | had not been done · be attributed · are personalized |
| Betrekkelijke bijzinnen who / which + zin — extra informatie over een persoon of ding | course, which is · people who meditated · people who have |
Uitspraak om op te letten
De spreker gebruikt 76 samentrekkingen en verkorte vormen, zoals don't, I'm, I've. Spreek ze kort uit, zoals je ze hoort.
- De “th”-klanken: algorithm /ˈælɡəɹɪðm̩/, altogether /ɔl.tuˈɡɛð.ɚ/, ethics /ˈɛθ.ɪks/
- De klanken “sh” en “zh”: goldfish /ˈɡoʊldfɪʃ/, redaction /ɹəˈdækʃən/, meditation /mɛdɪˈteɪʃn̩/, dissociate /dɪˈsoʊ.ʃi.eɪt/, personalization /ˌpɝs(ə)nəlaɪˈzeɪʃən/
- Lange woorden — let op de klemtoon: autopilot /ˈɔtoʊˌpaɪlət/, analytical /ˌæn.əˈlɪt.ɪ.kəl/, cognitively /ˈkɑɡ.nɪ.tɪv.li/, dissociate /dɪˈsoʊ.ʃi.eɪt/, personalization /ˌpɝs(ə)nəlaɪˈzeɪʃən/
Klanken die Nederlandstaligen lastig vinden:
- Stemhebbende eindmedeklinker — /b/, /d/, /g/, /z/, /v/ niet verscherpen: cognitive /ˈkɑɡ.nɪ.tɪv/, conceive /kənˈsiːv/, nudge /nʌd͡ʒ/, personalize /ˈpɜː.sə.nə.laɪz/, selective /səˈlɛktɪv/
- /æ/ — opener dan de Nederlandse “e”: span /spæn/, distract /dɪˈstɹækt/, redaction /ɹəˈdækʃən/, addict /ˈæd.ɪkt/, analytical /ˌæn.əˈlɪt.ɪ.kəl/
- /g/ — een harde plofklank, geen Nederlandse “g”: cognitive /ˈkɑɡ.nɪ.tɪv/, goldfish /ˈɡoʊldfɪʃ/, cognitively /ˈkɑɡ.nɪ.tɪv.li/, glamour /ˈɡlæmɚ/, distinguish /dɪˈstɪŋ.ɡwɪʃ/
Zo oefen je met deze video
- Luister de hele video één keer zonder te spreken en noteer de woorden die je niet kent.
- Begin op 0,75× snelheid, spreek zin voor zin na en ga terug naar normale snelheid zodra het makkelijk gaat.
- Neem jezelf op en vergelijk met het origineel; let daarbij op woorden als scroll, cognitive, researcher.
Wat is de Shadowing-techniek?
Shadowing is een wetenschappelijk onderbouwde taalleermethode die oorspronkelijk is ontwikkeld voor professionele tolkentraining en gepopulariseerd door polyglot Dr. Alexander Arguelles. De methode is eenvoudig maar krachtig: je luistert naar native Engelse audio en herhaalt het onmiddellijk hardop — als een schaduw die de spreker volgt met slechts 1–2 seconden vertraging. In tegenstelling tot passief luisteren of grammaticadrills, dwingt shadowing je hersenen en mondspieren om echte spraakpatronen tegelijkertijd te verwerken en te reproduceren. Onderzoek toont aan dat het de uitspraaknauwkeurigheid, intonatie, ritme, verbonden spraak, luisterbegrip en spreekvaardigheid aanzienlijk verbetert — waardoor het een van de meest effectieve methoden is voor IELTS Speaking-voorbereiding en echte Engelse communicatie.