|
|
|
|
|
by squigz
211 days ago
|
|
> Even if you're just watching turtles for 30 seconds, the loop and the switch to next video are fast-paced context switching, which is stimulating. I'll agree that it's stimulating... I guess the question is then: how stimulating it is, vs how stimulating the content itself is? As the initial comment said, we need more data on the specific types of content. |
|
On the content side, I think the content editing can have more of an impact than the subject itself. For example, I can watch something like a fast-paced action movie with a reasonable amount of camera tricks for a couple hours without any noticeable strain, but 30 mins of a modern cooking show can be exhausting just because the average time between camera cuts and zooms is only a few seconds. The latter jams so much stimulation into a small window that baking a cake is on par with a car chase.
On the format side, regardless of content, the loop and video switch gives me similar vibes to the editing tricks, but ofc the short video probably also contains similar editing, so it's a double whammy, and likely spread across different subjects as you scroll every minute or so. Bonus points if the content itself is stimulating.
If the modern cooking show I described is cocaine, doom scrolling shorts is crack cocaine. Harder, faster, more addictive.