Brainrot
Originally published in Heraldo Filipino Volume 38, Double Issue
Overabundance in internet usage continuously results in changes in personality, language, and thinking as more of its contents become norms. The term “brainrot,” a slang term used mostly in Tiktok, describes this phenomenon when it reaches an extreme.
Forbes says that the average age of people worldwide having internet access reaches as low as 15 years old, which makes the seemingly odd brainrot start to look not so unusual. This then entails a shift in the very purpose of internet consumption and the worth of its accessibility.
Are we that cooked?
People classified
Social media allows us to have a public platform wherein we can share our thoughts and opinions regarding nearly everything. From the man or bear debate to whether a married woman should be employed, the accessibility of the internet lets us join conversations which, in hindsight, should enhance our societal knowledge. However, having the amount of information makes it easy for users to fall into one-sided opinions—ones which could be boiled down to a reduced personality trait. This has come to a point where people can be categorized into alpha males, tradwives, and more.
Chronically online people are blinded by confirmation bias from pages that have algorithms which adjust to the content they consume. If personality relies this much on For You Pages (FYPs), then the best thing we can do is hope that the right content falls on FYPs.
This becomes a larger problem when considering the age people usually start watching online content. Because of how young children start using the web, their developmental stages revolve around it. No wonder their personality is tied to it. An example of popular content among youth is “Skibidi Toilet” which displays an overstimulated animation style. Mohammad Hashim wrote about how watching this can expose children to violence, stereotypes, and materialism, in accordance with Albert Bandura’s Social Learning Theory—which relies on environmental learning or imitation—and George Gerbner’s Cultivation Theory—which talks about the effects of constant media exposure.
We’ve become so vague that we can be classified. I guess, at least we end up belonging somewhere.
Man of a few words
Brainrot has, most prominently, seeked its way into language. Internet slang is now so popular and extensive—even if you are online 24/7, it is hard to keep up with the lingo. Terms like “mogging” or “rizz” have taken over, with many using it despite having no idea what it means.
Although language is ever-changing, it is concerning how some know what these terms mean but fail to understand Filipino. I remember a conversation with my 8-year-old cousin. I told her, “Nahugasan mo na ‘yung pinggan?” She responded, “Pinggan?” At first, I thought it was just her lack of familiarity with Filipino words since she mostly watches Youtube videos in English. Then, I noticed she was doom scrolling on Tiktok. So, I asked her if she knew what skibidi was. She then proceeded to give me a full explanation, as if this word was one of the first she learned.
It worries me more how repetitive these words are used, limiting vocabulary. Besides its annoying nature, words tied with brainrot can usually be used in any part of a sentence. So, as a child, why would there be a need to learn new words when you can construct a full sentence using these ones?
Being in tune with the trending lingo is normal—it can’t be helped, especially with how accessible the internet is. But, lacking the ability to learn words outside our screens is aberrant.
I think, therefore I am
Moreover, our viewpoints most likely conform with our FYPs, causing others to slack on their own research and rely on what information pops up. We end up thinking like how everybody else does, making it difficult to form our own opinions. A true echo chamber.
The dangers of having an algorithm which adjusts to our liking is that we no longer venture outside perspectives. If I were to like a picture of a dog, my homepage would suggest more pictures of puppies. As I like more of these, I may just end up being a dog person, even if I didn’t even give other pets like cats a chance because I didn’t even think of them. This applies in other issues such as politics. If I were to “heart react” on the post of a politician I planned to vote for, then the following posts are most likely campaigns about that same politician. The consequence would be a bias from the absence of other running politicians being shown to me. I may think they are inactive, or at least just not as active as the one I followed first, when in reality it’s just my FYP.
As much as the internet is meant to open us up to new thoughts, it also hinders us by its ability to comply with what we reacted to first. It begs the question, do we choose our FYPs or does it choose us?
***
The internet, a platform meant for individuals to share their lives, has caused a lack of individuality. Fads throughout the years are unavoidable, but it lately really has been lacking substance. The Newport Institute has even considered brain rot as a condition—mental fogginess, lethargy, reduced attention span, and cognitive decline coming from prolonged screen time. Truly, our brains are starting to reduce down to what’s online.
As Heraclitus said, “There is nothing permanent except change.” But, we usually control change, or at least choose what changes us. With the emergence of the internet, most importantly among the youth, development now revolves around it. Being chronically online may not seem like a big deal due to the amount of people who are, but it leaves a stain on the personality, language, and even thinking, which not even Tide pods can erase.
If we really are what we eat, and we continue to consume whatever lands on our FYPs, then yes—maybe we are cooked.
Art slider by Hannah Nicole Bercasio
