Why is it more recommended to prioritize books or written content over short videos when discussing awakening or cognitive enhancement? Because written information has a higher density, a slower pace, and is more conducive to analyzing logic and distinguishing facts, opinions, and emotions. In contrast, short videos are often driven by emotions and stances, easily leading viewers to emotional agreement without fully understanding the content first. When a person relies mainly on emotions to judge information, they can usually only discern “whether I like it,” but find it difficult to determine “whether it is true.” In such cases, stance, camp, and resonance are easily mistaken for awakening itself.

In fact, current discussions about “awakening” are beginning to diverge, and not all content labeled as awakening points to a higher level of cognition. Some are merely emotional venting, some are about identity recognition, and others are genuine understanding of structures, rules, and causal relationships. Without proper distinction, people can easily mistake “hearing what they want to hear” for “seeing the truth clearly.”

For example: if a family has been oppressed and unable to turn their situation around for generations, there are different ways to interpret the reality:
Is it hopeful to change the ruler?
Or to consider whether there are systemic causes behind the long-term oppression?
Or to choose to adapt to the environment and withdraw from the game?

Different answers represent different levels of cognition, not just different emotional stances. Different angles of awakening often correspond to different levels of understanding. Where you look at the problem from, and which layer of causality you see.