- Home
- Find a Therapist
- Topics
- Tests
- Magazine
- Psych Basics
- Blogs
- Diagnosis Dictionary
Historians and anthropologists who have studied boredom have often concluded that it is not a universal affliction, but is instead a problem that is largely confined to contemporary society. Read More
I disagree
"...as opportunities for entertainment proliferated, people began to compare their daily experience to the adventure and romance and glamour of the worlds they could experience through entertainment."
If I'm understanding correctly, you're saying that as forms of entertainment became available, they enabled people to compare it with their lives and thus expect more adventure, romance, etc. and thus people became bored.
I would say, as the standard of living increased due to the Industrial Revolution, people had more time, became bored, and created a demand that made entertainment financially feasible. Increased affluence -> more free time -> bored people -> demand for entertainment -> entertainment industry. The opposite of boredom isn't entertainment, but challenge / work / purpose. When "engaged in activities where there is a perceived match between their abilities and the challenge of the task," people aren't bored.
It's true that an entertainment-saturated environment may cause people to expect entertainment at all times, but even in such an environment, someone whose life is challenging will never be bored. Is it really true that people only became bored recently? I thought that nobility in the old days would have been quite bored with not much to do.
You're right
You've caught me in an oversimplification. You are correct to point out that without the economic changes of the Industrial Revolution, the leisure industry would not have developed. You are also correct to say that people are not bored when they are working productively. I'd sum it up by saying that really the opposite of boredom is engagement, whether in work or play.
Still, however, I stick to my point that boredom isn't just a personal problem, and that a highly arousing culture of entertainment is part of the reason people seem so dissatisfied when they aren't being stimulated. Psychologist Richard DeGrandpre has made a similar argument in discussing the epidemic of ADHD diagnoses over the last several decades:
http://www.amazon.com/Ritalin-Nation-Rapid-Fire-Transformation-Conscious...
That brings me to the nobility. The historians I have read say that if the medieval aristocracy was bored, they didn't write about it or even talk about it, because the word didn't exist. The closest term they had was acedia, but this was considered a personal failing akin to sloth, and it wasn't the sort of thing you would admit to. Looking back from our perspective, it looks like the life of the nobility would have often been boring (of course, there's always warfare). However, this doesn't mean they perceived it that way. Remember, these were people with a strong sense of honor and obligation, and being bored is sort of self-indulgent. (These thoughts follow Patricia Spacks, she's linked in the original post)
Very thoughtful comment, thanks.
Oops
Well, I think you've caught me too. =) I assumed the nobility were bored, but the whole point is that maybe they weren't bored, and it's only my primed expectations of engagement for work and play that make me bored. A hundred years ago people probably weren't as concerned about finding a fulfilling occupation as Gen Yers are today.
fulfillment
Yes, you choose just the right word here, "fulfilling." Today we believe very strongly that everyone has a right to a fulfilling life, but this would have been a completely foreign idea several centuries ago. If you want to consult a really big (and really good) book on this, see Charles Taylor, The Sources of the Self.
http://www.amazon.com/Sources-Self-Making-Modern-Identity/dp/0674824261/...
Bored at school, bored at work
Mr. Stromberg, I think you are completely right.
According to the Scientific American article
"Television Addiction is no Mere Metaphor":
"The Experience Sampling Method permitted us to look
closely at most every domain of everyday life: working,
eating, reading, talking to friends, playing a sport,
and so on. We wondered whether heavy viewers might
experience life differently than light viewers do. Do
they dislike being with people more? Are they more
alienated from work? What we found nearly leaped off
the page at us. Heavy viewers report feeling significantly
more anxious and less happy than light viewers do in
unstructured situations, such as doing nothing,
daydreaming or waiting in line. The difference
widens when the viewer is alone."
"Subsequently, Robert D. McIlwraith of the University
of Manitoba extensively studied those who called themselves
TV addicts on surveys. On a measure called the Short Imaginal
Processes Inventory (SIPI), he found that the self-described
addicts are more easily bored and distracted and have poorer
attentional control than the nonaddicts. The addicts said
they used TV to distract themselves from unpleasant thoughts
and to fill time. Other studies over the years have shown
that heavy viewers are less likely to participate in community
activities and sports and are more likely to be obese than
moderate viewers or nonviewers."
http://www.commercialalert.org/issues/culture/television/television-addi...
But I especially like your analysis that there are strong
market forces (i.e. people) working to make us as bored
as possible.
I also think that this is a big reason that so many kids
are having problems in school (it's boring) and why so
many adults are dissatisfied and bored at work, even
though work is more interesting and much less back-breaking
than in the past.
boredom and addiction
It's interesting that you begin by linking boredom and addiction. This is not necessarily an obvious connection, but I think it's an important one. It is almost as if boredom could be considered as a symptom of withdrawal from the strong stimulation of--in the case you bring up--TV viewing.
Some people will undoubtedly object that TV addiction is not a "real" addiction, but this simply reflects the common but incorrect view that there are certain sorts of addiction (e.g. opiate addiction) that conform perfectly to the medical model of addiction. In any case, boredom may also be a factor in the development of drug addictions. In a study of early stage smoking among college students, we found that one of the most frequent explanations for deciding to smoke a cigarette was "I was bored". See
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17265190
Also, Bruce K. Alexander's excellent book The Globalization of Addiction constructs an extensive case for the relationship between our economy and addiction.
http://www.amazon.com/Globalisation-Addiction-Bruce-Alexander/dp/0199230...
I really learned something from this comment, thanks.
Post new comment