

In Praise of Boredom - dnetesn
http://harpers.org/archive/2015/08/in-praise-of-boredom/

======
jasode
The article is ~1700 words. It takes the author ~950 words to get past her
autobiographical background and finally start the meat of the message:

 _> , and, glued to our devices, playing video games, or checking theDaily
Mail, we waste enormous amounts of time — even while pretending otherwise.

>, they’re busy with text messages and Snapchat, with Tumblr and Vine.

>If my son spends his afternoons watching FIFA videos on YouTube, or my
daughter studying nail-painting tutorials, these are no worse ways to spend
time than watching Get Smart or Diff’rent Strokes — arguably, they are better.
Their world, however, is more monolithic. _

Lastly, it closes with:

 _> It’s all here, inside and in the room — not on the screen — before us._

In essence, it's another " _stop and smell the roses_ " essay. Similar
templates for essays would be the " _slow living_ "[1], or " _be in the
present moment_ "[2], and " _power of now_ " type of messages.

If you're not already familiar with those themes, you may find something new
in the essay. Otherwise, it's just another author's take on the same material.

[1][https://www.google.com/search?q=slow+living](https://www.google.com/search?q=slow+living)

[2][https://www.google.com/search?q=be+present+zen](https://www.google.com/search?q=be+present+zen)

~~~
felideon
Ironic how your comment kind of epitomizes the whole gist of the article.

It was well written, and the take away for me was not the closing sentence you
quoted. As a father, it echoed a similar sentiment I've been thinking and have
read about recently, namely:

> _They’d have to learn to lie on the lawn watching ants scale the grass
> blades; they’d have to linger, digits pruning, in the bathtub; they’d have
> to stop, to be still, and then to wait, and wait, and wait, allowing time to
> fatten around them, like a dewdrop on the tip of a leaf. And then, only
> then, who knows what they might imagine or invent?_

~~~
jasode
If you like that, you might also like Thoreau's 1854 book "Walden"[1]

It is over 100,000 words about ignoring the silly distractions in town and
making close observations of nature that help one to "discover oneself".

For example, he writes about how he closely watches ant colonies fighting and
compares them to the armies in The Iliad, etc, etc.

But I do understand that ~1700 words in a magazine article is more digestible
than 100k words from a 160 year old book if the themes are unfamiliar to the
reader.

[1][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walden](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walden)

~~~
mgob
My favorite line from that book:

 _" I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately, to front only
the essential facts of life, and see if I could not learn what it had to
teach, and not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived. I did not
wish to live what was not life, living is so dear; nor did I wish to practise
resignation, unless it was quite necessary. I wanted to live deep and suck out
all the marrow of life, to live so sturdily and Spartan-like as to put to rout
all that was not life, to cut a broad swath and shave close, to drive life
into a corner, and reduce it to its lowest terms, and, if it proved to be
mean, why then to get the whole and genuine meanness of it, and publish its
meanness to the world; or if it were sublime, to know it by experience, and be
able to give a true account of it in my next excursion."_

~~~
aswanson
That is an incredibly deep soliloquy. Statements like that scared me as a
child, they force you to confront the ultimate worth of existence.

------
colemonster
In Praise of Idleness by Bertrand Russell[1] has some interesting ideas in
this vein

[1] [http://www.zpub.com/notes/idle.html](http://www.zpub.com/notes/idle.html)

------
mcphage
> Their world, however, is more monolithic.

How is YouTube, Instagram, Facebook—all sites with millions of people sharing
what they've created in thousand of small, interconnected communities—how
could that possibly be more monolithic than everyone reading the same book, no
matter how nourishing _Buddenbrooks_ happens to be?

~~~
secstate
Best guess is that by monolithic the author means homogeneous. Watching
instructional videos on nail care is more educational than Family Ties, for
sure, but it's easier to get stuck on a very specific value system or culture
on the internet.

The smorgasboard of teh internets means that we never have to consume anything
we don't already like. In a perverted way, having access to billions of small
pieces of content homogenizes our personal experiences. When there's only a
few pieces of content, the differentiation comes in our experiences with it.
You and I may have something to talk about if we're both reading Walden. But
if you've been watching unboxing videos of new laptops and I've been catching
up on how to build fairy houses it doesn't matter that we're both living in
the same house. That's a little sad.

~~~
Nadya
_> but it's easier to get stuck on a very specific value system or culture on
the internet._

It's even easier to do that offline.

 _> You and I may have something to talk about if we're both reading Walden.
But if you've been watching unboxing videos of new laptops and I've been
catching up on how to build fairy houses it doesn't matter that we're both
living in the same house. That's a little sad._

Only if the person interested in laptop specs and the person interested in
building fairy houses never share their interests with one another. Perhaps
both have more to learn, not just about each other, but things in general than
if both were reading Walden?

~~~
secstate
That's a fair argument, but in my experiences those two people do not share
their interests. If you live with children in the house, you know how that
goes.

Now going offline with things is no promise that there will be more shared
culture, but there's more of a chance than a world where we have access to
exactly what we're interested in all the time (via cellphones, especially).

There is a feedback loop to our lives online that is not present when we're
forced into social situations with people that we don't necessarily see eye to
eye with. Note, it's not always fun to be with people we don't see eye to eye
with (witness: family car trips) but if we don't learn conflict resolution and
tolerance there, the internet sure isn't going to help.

~~~
Nadya
_> That's a fair argument, but in my experiences those two people do not share
their interests. If you live with children in the house, you know how that
goes._

Having 5 younger siblings - I know very well how this goes. But is it a
problem? If they lack similar interests what difference does it make if
they're both reading books if the books are different? If one is reading
romance literature and the other Stephen King, are they in any better a
situation?

Myself and the eldest of my siblings talk a lot about our personal interests,
though we share very little of the same interests. We both enjoy learning and
make a great effort to empathize with each other and understand each others'
hobbies and do our best to encourage them. This close relationship, sadly,
does not exist with my other siblings. I largely blame the age gap. I'm only 3
years older than the eldest but over 12 years older than the rest of them.

I don't disagree that offline has more potential for running into
contradictory opinions and viewpoints. That's why I find comment sections so
important, although they are often dwindling and filled with flamebaiting
trolls they are also one of the few sources of contradicting opinions that
some people face.

But that same offline experience shows me that many people live in their own
social bubbles of people with similarly-held beliefs. Religious institutions
are my best example for this. How often do you find a Christian at a Mosque or
reading the Quran? They're mostly attending their own Church and associating
with other people who go to that Church who largely hold the same beliefs they
do. This extends to fanclubs, school cliques, and more social structures.
People don't tend to branch out.

Offline or online the scenario, to me, is largely the same and just as sad.

~~~
swsieber
I'm mostly addressing the last half of your comment.

I agree that polarization is very bad (about trolls vs. yes men in comments).
It prevents real discussion.

Perhaps, but consider the following, which will be a reason to encourage off-
topic conversations. You have multiple 'similar-interest groups' that you
belong to that are orthogonal - my work buddies have different religious views
and my fellow congregational members have different occupations than I.

IIRC, Facebook edits what they show you in the feed based on what you click a
lot - so what you are provided with tends to be what you agree with. And other
non-interactive material make it harder to have conversation. Lastly, I think
things done online usually happen in the context of an online community that
tends to anchor the conversation there - not necessarily bad, but potentially
if the conversation/community is homogenous.

Really the solution is to try and talk about things we disagree about - and
with children, it probably happens rarely unless we consciously try to do so.

~~~
Nadya
_> IIRC, Facebook edits what they show you in the feed based on what you click
a lot - so what you are provided with tends to be what you agree with. And
other non-interactive material make it harder to have conversation. Lastly, I
think things done online usually happen in the context of an online community
that tends to anchor the conversation there - not necessarily bad, but
potentially if the conversation/community is homogenous._

This depends entirely on what sort of sites you visit. I agree that sites like
FB and Twitter that do that are harmful and promote homogeneity.

 _> Perhaps, but consider the following, which will be a reason to encourage
off-topic conversations. You have multiple 'similar-interest groups' that you
belong to that are orthogonal - my work buddies have different religious views
and my fellow congregational members have different occupations than I._

My friend from Australia whom I play video games with is studying to become a
geophysicists. While a lot of what he learns is a bit over my head, I enjoy
discussing what he is learning with him to the best of my ability. I'd
consider that orthogonal.

Just like you can ask your congregational members about their occupations -
you can ask your online friends about theirs as well!

Perhaps its a part of "internet etiquette" that people don't go off-topic as
often as they might offline?

I don't deny that the internet might promote homogeneous communities more-so
than offline, but by no means is it a limit or barrier that cannot be passed
once someone becomes aware of it and desires to change the behavior.

