Mobile Devices — An Intensification or the Abolition of Boredom?
Bored in Solitude
“Does the naked space of your own mind and the world around you send you screaming into oblivion when you walk across campus, across a street even?When you’re habituated to constant stimulation, when you lack it, you sort of don’t know what to do with yourself. […] When we aren’t used to having down time, it results in anxiety. ‘Oh my god, I should be doing something.’ And we reach for the smartphone. It’s our omnipresent relief from that.” — (Lynn, 2012)
We are all addicted. Everyone knows the feeling of an imaginary chain which constantly binds us to our electronic devices. Almost unconsciously our thoughts wander from an initial focus to the next as we experience omnipresent distraction. The rapid development of the mediascape has caused a wide availability of new technologies, which ultimately transform how we live, communicate and, most importantly, how our brains function. However, the potential cognitive obsession with digital media is not per se a threat to the human thinking but rather opens new ways of working, socializing and information processing. Generally, this short essay discusses the impacts of such a new technology, concretely mobile devices, on human daily life. Precisely, it explores on the hypothesis that through the ubiquitous source of distraction, the cognitive state of boredom has fundamentally changed — if not intensified. Subsequently, this effect is discussed on how autonomous thinking is endangered and, by contrast, how it could still be perceived as a positive transformation.
In order to gain a comprehensive understanding of the subject matter, one needs an initial conceptualization of the term boredom. While the Oxford English Dictionary, which formally defines it as “the state of being bored” (Oxford English Dictionary, 2017), provides little insight, the psychological attempt might be more informative. Already in 1903 Theodor Lipps, a German psychologist, attempted to draw a concept of boredom by claiming that it “is a feeling of unpleasure arising out of a conflict between a need for intense mental activity and a lack of incitement to it, or inability to be incited” (Live Science, 2012). Thus, one experiences a strong desire for mental activity, however, one is unaware of what one is apparently longing for. As Lipps implies with this definition, awareness and attention are central aspects of boredom. As a person feels bored, they is either unable to pay attention to inner stimulation or not aware of external information that could generate a satisfactory activity. Concluding, every instance of boredom involves a failure of awareness. (Live Science, 2012) The main reason I point this out is that there is a clear distinction between mere solitude and boredom. While solitude simply refers to “the glory of being alone”, boredom is the passive state of feeling a lack of activity. Hence, one can be in solitude while not being bored and vice versa. During the reading process one will notice the importance of this difference.
Why are we bored?
Still, the main question remains unresolved: Why are we bored so quickly? N. Katherine Hayles in Hyper and Deep Attention gives evidence to this question. She argues that there is a generational shift in cognitive modes towards hyper attention, which is characterized by “switching focus rapidly between different tasks, preferring multiple information streams [and] seeking a high level of stimulation”, she says. In sum, people are increasingly seeking multiple high-level stimulation streams by dividing and switching various activities in order to maintain this high degree. What one could consider as multi-tasking is rather a “rapid alternation between different tasks”.
Nevertheless, the underlying reason for this intrinsic desire for hyper media is not yet clarified. Further, Hayles argues that the environment in which we grow up decisively influences our brains. Not only what we think but more importantly how we think is fundamentally affected. “Children growing up in media-rich environment literally have brains wired differently than humans who did not come to maturity in such conditions”, she writes. This observation is intuitively explicable considering evolutionary adaptation. Contemporary environment, determined by multi-faceted, rapidly changing and high-sensory situations, increasingly call for an adaptive hyper attention to overcome these challenges. Consequently, it does not seem far-fetched that the rise of hyper attention originates from the co-evolution between the human brain and the changing environment. As the introductory quote already indicated, the constant (over-)stimulation we are seeking causes us to feel ennui as soon as we are left with “the naked space of your own mind”.
Boredom of Mind
So far, there has not been made an explicit critique on the matter of boredom. Although everyone knows there is a somehow strange feeling involved, there is nothing really bad about boredom. However, considering the argumentation presented above, one can infer that nowadays pure solitude is felt as boring. As we immerse ourselves in our thoughts, we do not feel the multi-channel information streams as preferred and thus feel a lack of, or a craving for, stimulation — or what we call boredom. A modern standardized phenomenon is to immediately turn to mobile devices to overcome this lack of sensation. The disturbing fact is thereby, that the Generation M has lost the ability to think about intimate feelings for a longer period of time and has thereby become incapable to create a sense for its own psychological state. It is not that human thought would offer a too small variety of stimulation, but that we have become unaware of how to capture and use the means available. But why is it that we rather play games on our phones, stroll through Facebook or read E-Mails over and over again instead of letting our mind wander?
Sherry Turkle has concerned herself with the rising incapability to remain in solitude and its social consequences. In her book, Reclaiming Conversation, she identifies a different cause why people tend to use their mobile devices while being alone. She argues that “it is anxiety that leads them back to their phones”. In her understanding, people are afraid to be left alone in two different ways. First of all, deep introversive thoughts involve the occupation with the sense of self. It is the time when one lets the mind wander, disconnected from all external influence, when one explores hidden anxieties, secret fears and gets rid of the false self. Mostly unpleasant act of thought but a crucial one for the establishment of an honest self-reflection, she says. Secondly, people fear to be disconnected from the outer world. They experience a feeling of loneliness rather than solitude and likewise a need to engage with their virtual social world. The consequence is that being alone, in contemporary understanding, involves being alone with your mobile device. But instead of practicing social interaction and establishing a sense togetherness, one flees to the virtually constructed safety zone and creating a world of revolving isolation.
Against Boredom
So, for all the reasons mentioned above, people escape to their mobile phones instead of being bored. However, I argue that that it is not bad to free yourself from boredom but apparently good, if done the right way. What matters is how people decide to spend their free time with. While keeping the distinction between solitude and boredom in mind, I claim that boredom is an unnecessary state of mind, which causes people to become increasingly passive actors in a virtual world.
In an environment which is dominated by increasing entertainment, two-thirds of the US population are bored on a daily basis (Live Science, 2012). Not only during single-stream stimulation, such as paper work, but even at home watching TV or scrolling through our mobile devices one experiences boredom. And exactly this is the big part of the problem — our society is overstimulated. Like in a vicious circle we crave more stimulation the more we are regularly exposed to. The more accustomed we get to the fast-moving and alternating environment, the less we can stand low-intensity stimulation. Even if online activity seems rather interactive, it turns into monotonous scrolling up and down creating just another source of boredom. (Mann, 2016)
In this, a clear analogy to Nicolas Carr’s essay Is Google making us stupid? can be observed. Likewise, he noticed that a social change is going on through which the process of thought and the ability to concentrate have essentially been changed. Contrary to Hayles, he does not only identify an internal change, but rather blames external influence on the shift of cognitive modes. The internet, as a universal medium, decisively shapes the process of thought by dividing activities into small Taylor-like steps, he says. What at first sight might seem as a rise in working efficiency could also cause the direct opposite. The increasing adaptation to machine-like thinking, such as Google or Facebook, flattens our intelligence more and more to artificial intelligence, leaving us as mere passive recipients of information. The oversaturation of information availability causes the brain to become a passive actor like an “information selector” without autonomous thinking.
Obviously, the question arises what can be done against this dilemma. On the one hand, a strong tendency towards hyper attention is obviously on the rise and especially these multi-channel stimulation is what the society seeks. On the other hand, the quick adaptation to machine-like behavior and thinking intensifies the feeling of boredom even more, thus creating a gradually passive society. What must be done is a complex balancing act between overcoming passive boredom, what I will call it, while breaking out of the vicious circle through more interactive or responsive activity. As we cannot just change the way our brains function, we must find ways so generate enough interactive stimulation to satisfy the brain’s needs with a meaningful purpose behind it. What I basically want to trigger with this is that one must implement ways to overcome boredom without just senseless activity in order not to become a bored passive actor. This is crucial for the development of new generations in so many ways. Education, work practices, social interaction and a variety of other fields of daily life will undergo a structural change due to this phenomenon — whether we want it or not.
Overcoming Boredom
With the current means available, I argue that the implementation of video games with educational purposes could revolutionize what is now perceived as pastime. Through the interaction between this high-sensory activity and a meaningful purpose behind it, actual benefit can be achieved while overcoming boredom. In my argumentation, Video games constitute the most responsive activity that can keep a dense degree of a stimulation as well as alternation. In this context, it is plausible to use down time in a positive manner and liberate oneself from boredom sustainably. The challenge, however, is to change the habit of a person so that the instant escape to the social world such as Facebook, Instagram and Co. can be avoided and eventually be replaced by video games. Breaking routines always involves a change of mind set. To achieve this in a far-reaching way, a transformation of social norms and the perception of video games is necessary.
Another aspect to consider is the fear that Sherry Turkle pointet out in her paper Reclaiming Conversation. Even if I am not going to address this subject extensively, I believe it is of relevance to mention it at this point. In her text, she refers to the utmost importance of solitude in the development of empathy, reflection of self and imagination. As I agree with her that boredom should not be overcome with simple online activity, I would disagree that we need platforms that “encourage us to disengage”. In my opinion, the fact that people are accustomed to their phones and thereby increasingly divide their activities should be used as an opportunity to turn things around. An attempt to disconnect people from their mobile devices will fail in every manner. Too much pressure is coming from the Silicon Valley influencers and mobile devices are too integrated in our daily life. Instead practical manner should be applied that foster creativity and imagination, like games where there are open boundaries to be the architect of the video game itself. Even social norms and practices can be delivered through the interaction with a virtual world. Nevertheless, one must pay attention that the engagement with the social world does not get out of hand. Besides the opportunities mobile phones carry, they bring the risk that the capability to remain in pure solitude is eventually forgotten completely. Sherry Turkle is right in her view that solitude should always remain a part of human being and that it should be encapsulated from the virtual activity.
In conclusion, whether mobile devices constitute a liberation or an abolition of boredom is dependent on its perception. In my view, the inactive consumption of media on our mobile devices causes a drastic intensification of passive boredom. It does not only turn us into bored people, but society into passive recipients of stimulation. The opposite is the case if a change of mind set can be achieved that replaces this consumption with interactive enjoyment such as educational video games. Through this, the vicious circle of boredom can sustainably be escaped and boredom positively be abolished.
This story is published in The Startup, Medium’s largest entrepreneurship publication followed by 277,994+ people.
Subscribe to receive our top stories here.
