The more deeply I engage with media—especially while studying in a program centered on media itself—the more I notice how easily it shapes my perception, attention, and even my habits of thought. This course has made me confront something I never really questioned before: what does it mean to maintain a healthy distance from the media systems that structure so much of our daily life? And what happens when we don’t? Will constantly scrolling through short videos or fragmented content make us less intelligent? If so, how?
Since middle school, teachers told me that I used too many vague pronouns in my writing, which affects my precision. They frequently remind me to avoid using “this” or “that” in my writing. “If you can’t find suitable words, it means your language isn’t keeping up with your thinking.” This indicates that you lack language as a tool to deeply form your own understanding and thoughts. If medium shapes cognition (McLuhan), how is constant scrolling reorganizing our ability to think? Many people intuitively think that short videos make us “dumber”, but the reasons are often misinterpreted. The issue isn’t that watching TikTok directly lowers intelligence. Instead, these platforms cultivate a discourse environment that is extremely homogeneous and structurally limited (Loupessis and Intahchomphoo). You may seem to be exposed to a lot of content every day, but in reality, it’s all just a repetitive corpus of viral phrases.
According to the article “What the Sigma?: The Sociolinguistic Applications of Gen Alpha Slang in the Digital Era,” scholars, based on Generation Alpha’s own digital slang research, cataloged 46 different examples of Gen Alpha slang and grouped them into five categories: Fresh & Creative, Flippant, Imitative, Acronym/Clipping, and more (Rodriguez). Most of those slang terms fall under the “Fresh & Creative” category — that is, they are newly coined, playful, and often tied to visual-media or short-form video contexts like “Skibidi,” “rizz,” “fanum tax,” etc. This suggests that the linguistic repertoire of Gen Alpha is not being recycled from older generations but is instead expanding—producing new vocabulary at a very fast pace and restructuring how younger people communicate.
In contrast with the more stable, formal language, this dynamic and rapidly shifting slang ecosystem emphasizes my concern: as everyday expression is increasingly shaped by fleeting memes and platform-specific references, so the linguistic resource on which thoughtfully reflective, precise expression diminishes, limiting how wide or deep our conceptual world can become.
“The limits of my language mean the limits of my world” – Ludwig Wittgenstein
In light of our course discussions, this feels connected to Wittgenstein’s insight that language structures the world we can inhabit conceptually. If, as McLuhan suggests, media environments reshape attention and cognition, then a restricted linguistic repertoire not only reflects that shift. It reinforces it, narrowing the range of ideas we are capable of forming in the first place. The convenient yet biased categorization of things, the crude grouping of people and events, the choosing of sides, and the imposition of stereotypes are often caused by the inertia of language. When language divides the world, it limits how our brains organize knowledge.
This brings me back to our discussions of Bollmer and materiality: the problem isn’t just what content says, but how platforms structure the kinds of expression that feel natural. TikTok discourse often feels “vast,” but structurally it’s incredibly limited. We scroll through thousands of videos that appear diverse but repeat the same linguistic templates, emotional beats, and forms of reaction. The result is what Adorno might call pseudo-individuality: a sense of originality inside a fundamentally homogenized system (Theodore Adorno). So my emerging argument is this: Homogenized media environments don’t just limit what we see—they limit the language we have available to describe our own experiences. And when language narrows, thought narrows.
The topic of how language shapes thought is a well-worn one, and it’s also a frequently discussed binary proposition in philosophy. A comparable concern arises in George Orwell’s notion of “Newspeak” in 1984, wherein the state deliberately reduces vocabulary so that citizens become literally incapable of forming rebellious or complex thoughts (“Language in 1984 and the Concept of Newspeak”). While our contemporary situation is not governed by authoritarian language control, the basic mechanism is similar in a way that is almost unbelievable: when available vocabulary shrinks, so shrinks the range of imaginable ideas. Neil Postman extends this argument in Amusing Ourselves to Death, contending that societies dominated by entertainment-centered media lose the capacity for sustained, rational discourse (Postman). For Postman, the danger is not censorship through force, but through distraction—when a culture becomes saturated with quick, shallow, emotionally stimulating content, people lose the cognitive habits required for critique. Both Orwell and Postman offer useful parallels to what we have discussed in class: media environments shape not only what we think about, but the very conditions under which thinking is possible. When we combine their insights with McLuhan’s “the medium is the message” and Bollmer’s claim on media materiality, a clearer pattern emerges–media forms that privilege speed, simplification, and entertainment tend to produce linguistic environments where nuance atrophies, and with it, the capacity for deeper political, ethical, and intellectual reflection.
How can we improve our expression and critical thinking skills? Read more serious books and works, or listen to insights that aren’t mass-produced. Strive for greater precision in word choice, try to describe feelings more specifically, find a precise word for vague thoughts, and then replace it with more of these words to expand your vocabulary. The vastness of our thinking is only limited by our limited language. In reality, our thoughts are incredibly vast; given better language tools, we can go much further.
Reference:
Loupessis, Iliana, and Channarong Intahchomphoo. “Framing the climate: How Tiktok’s algorithm shapes environmental discourse.” Telematics and Informatics, vol. 102, Oct. 2025, p. 102329, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2025.102329.
“Language in 1984 and the Concept of Newspeak.” Teddybarbier.Com, www.llceranglais.fr/language-in-1984-and-the-concept-of-newspeak.html#:~:text=What%20is%20Newspeak%20?,in%20totalitarian%20countries%20and%20organisations. Accessed 5 Dec. 2025.
Postman, Neil. Amusing Ourselves to Death. Pearson Education, 2007
Rodriguez, Sophia Marie. What the Sigma?: The Sociolinguistic Applications of Gen Alpha Slang in the Digital Era | by Sophia Marie Rodriguez | Medium, medium.com/@sophiamarie.rodriguez/what-the-sigma-the-sociolinguistic-applications-of-gen-alpha-slang-in-the-digital-era-b7ef7e489af0. Accessed 5 Dec. 2025.
Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer, mariabuszek.com/mariabuszek/kcai/PoMoSeminar/Readings/AdornoHork.pdf. Accessed 5 Dec. 2025.
Cover: https://www.pinterest.com/pin/784752303855969869/
Written by Gina Chang
I really liked the reference to Orwell’s Newspeak, and Neil Postman’s idea of censorship through distraction. You post really articulates a lot of what I have been thinking about for a while too. And though you said that our diminishing vocabularies are not a result of an authoritarian government, I feel like the dumbification of society is one of the aims of the conglomerates that own our modes of communication. Obviously, I’m treading into conspiracy theory territory here, but as you said, these platforms are designed to be structurally limited and I don’t think that’s on accident.
I wholly agree with you on the fact that there is a systematic control of our modes of communication, especially with the internet news and social media algorithm–there are certain trends that we are forced to follow and communicate with. And that’s why pieces like Orwell and Postman’s are so essential so that we don’t get stuck in that kind of framework. I think you’re picking up on something important: even without an authoritarian government dictating language from above, we can still end up with environments where expression is narrowed and attention is fragmented. I don’t consider your point about conglomerates to be conspiracy so much as a recognition of how economic incentives shape the design of media infrastructures.
This was a very interesting read. It is true that language is a tool of expression and what we relay is greatly influenced by what we consume. Your critique of internet slang made me think of why there might be a disconnect between generations. Every generation seems to have a sense of superiority when associating with a younger or older generation. A main reason behind this would be the kind of content each generation consumes. The disconnect between people of different ages mainly happens because each age group would associate with different technological spaces. Someone who grew up with no technology is less likely to be found using tiktok, and therefore less likely to understand internet slang. This does not prove anything about either one’s intellect but rather just the lack of vocabulary to communicate between age groups.
Your blog post also made me think about Umberto Eco and his notions about collective memory. He too, mentions how our ideologies are shaped by stealing other’s memories and experiences. How everyone is a patchwork of the kind of books they read, movies they watch, etc., and one’s personality is greatly a reflection of other people; whether a social circle, digital spaces they interact with, or a formulation of the ideas of authors they read.
I really appreciate how you connected my point about linguistic limits with the generational gap. It is really a difference in mediated environments. Each generation grows up inside a distinct linguistic ecosystem shaped by the platforms, technologies, and cultural rhythms available to them. The result isn’t better or worse thinking, but, as you mentioned, a mismatch in vocabulary and reference points. In that sense, the generational “disconnect” becomes another example of how mediation structures the conditions of communication long before any of us begin to speak.
And thank you for bringing in Eco into my piece as I didn’t choose the opportunity to engage with his work deeply this term. His idea that we’re all composites of borrowed memories complements Landsberg’s prosthetic memory and my argument about homogenized media environments. If we are all patchworks of what we read, watch, and absorb, the spaces we inhabit online become powerful determinants of internalized memory, affect, and ideas.
Hi Gina! This is such a sharp and compelling post. I really love how you push the conversation beyond the cliché of “TikTok makes us dumb” to something much deeper: how media environments quietly narrow the linguistic possibilities we have for thinking. Your point about Wittgenstein and Postman really lands, it’s not just that slang changes how we speak, it’s that our vocabulary literally shapes the range of ideas we can hold.
Your argument actually reminded me of James Carey. He distinguishes between communication as simply transmitting information and communication as a ritual that shapes culture. In that sense, TikTok slang isn’t just a bunch of new words, it’s a ritualized pattern of expression that trains us into certain ways of making meaning. Carey argues that when communication becomes repetitive and formulaic, it doesn’t just reflect culture; it limits what culture can become. That feels really relevant to your concern about how linguistic homogeneity narrows our conceptual world.
Overall, I found your post incredibly thought-provoking. It made me think about how protecting our capacity for nuanced thought isn’t about avoiding media altogether, it’s about actively expanding the language we use so that our inner world doesn’t shrink without us noticing.
Yes, I’m glad you captured that deeper level of purpose and meaning I was trying to go for. I also appreciate you bringing in Carey again, as I looked into his ritual approach to communication in my first blog post. Your insight made me realize that I could make connections with him on this topic as well. His distinction between communication as transmission and communication as ritual fits well with what I’m trying to argue. Framing TikTok slang as a ritualized pattern of expression, rather than just a list of new terms, really sharpens the point: it’s not the words themselves but rather the repeated form of communication that slowly trains us into certain habits of meaning-making. If, as Carey suggests, ritual communication stabilizes culture through repetition, then the repetitive templates of TikTok aren’t just linguistic trends, but cultural infrastructures that subtly regulate how ideas take shape.