Here is how to make a child bored: first and foremost, keep him indoors so that the infinitude of nature, its endless variation and chaotic messiness is replaced by a finite, orderly, predictable realm. Second, through television and video games, habituate him to intense stimuli so that everything else seems boring by comparison. Third, eliminate as much as possible any unstructured time with other children, so that he loses his capacity for creative play and needs entertainment instead. Fourth, shorten his attention span with fast-paced programming, dumbed-down books, and frequent interruptions of his play. Fifth, hover over him whenever possible to stunt his self-trust and make him dependent on outside stimulation. Sixth, hurry him from activity to activity to create anxiety about time and eliminate the easy sense of timelessness native to the young.
A somewhat needlessly anti-media piece, but it makes for nice musing. Plus, it introduces a new phrase I think I really like: “the primal self-sufficiency of play.”
Some Thoughts on Boredom
I’ve been thinking a lot about boredom lately, after reading (and earlier today linking to) a thought-provoking blog entry on the topic by Douglas Adams – the famed creator of the ‘Dilbert’ comics trip.
In his piece, Adams brings up an old but important idea:
I read someplace that the brain needs some boredom during the day to process thoughts and generate creativity. That sounds right. My best ideas always bubble up when I’m bored. And my period of greatest creative output was during my corporate years when every meeting felt like a play date for coma patients.
Browsing back through the Danielsaurus archives, though, I came across this old piece I linked to and referenced more than a year ago: “Boredom Begins at School”. It highlights research which shows some of the physiological dangers of boredom, and shares how many scientists and education reformers are actually faulting it as one of the key reasons our education system fails.
I’ve linked to both perspectives, and I actually do believe there’s some truth in both perspectives even though they seem at odds with each other: On the one hand, boredom can be a breeding ground for creativity – and certainly, it is something I believe is vital for children to experience and have (a lot of) in their life as they grow up. On the other hands, boring places don’t make for good learning environments, at least if its inhabitants are expected to learn certain things and not how to doodle cartoons in class while ignoring the intended curriculum.
It leaves me to ask myself several, possibly overlapping questions. Wondering out loud right now:
Is boredom the same as disengagement? Is it possible, and maybe even good, to by physically bored (perhaps by a lack of intentioned activities or tasks you need to do) but mentally engaged and curious? Is there a difference between a “boring” geographic place (or person, or book, or…) and an individual person, child or adult, “being bored”? Could a boring place be the same, and perhaps more aptly described, as an “un-stimulating” place? And when we talk about “boring” classrooms and schools, are we perhaps really just talking about environments that force their users into a natural inclination toward disengagement?
This may seem like playing with semantics, but I wonder if there’s something there. Who knows, maybe there isn’t. But if there isn’t, how do we reconcile the boredom paradox? Is it simply a matter of saying “some boredom is good” but “constant boredom is bad”?
The Montreal Gazette takes a look at the intriguing science behind boredom, while considering the damage many are now saying it has wrought on our education system. (Also, since you’re wondering: yes, you can literally die from too much boredom, according to the research.)
The science is interesting, but it seems to take a backseat in the article to the discussion about education. As the piece elaborates, many education reformers are now, in fact, citing boredom as one of the primary reasons the American public education system is in crisis. As they argue, our public schools have become boring places: places where curiosity and interest are stamped out in favor of studying a required curriculum and whatever may appear on a standardized test.
McGill University professor of education Jon Bradley puts the blame squarely on political oversight of the education system.
“Teachers haven’t made it boring,” he said. “Politicians have made it boring. Every time there’s a crisis in education, we engage in a kind of fundamentalism. We say: ‘We’ve got to get back to basics.’ In every other profession we rely heavily on new research. Education is the only profession where we go: ‘What happened 50 years go is better.’ “
Schools will continue to be places of boredom, these education reformers warn, until we begin to embrace an inquiry model of learning; allow for play and exploration in schools; and enact other meaningful educational reforms.
As a point of interest: John Taylor Gatto appears later in the article as well, building upon the historic fact – popularized by Sir Ken Robinson – that schools were and still are modelled as factories, outdated relics of the industrial age. Both Gatto and Robinson offer up great perspectives on education, and have tremendous books – that is, if you’re ever bored and need something to read.
