The Alarm We Keep Silencing

In the summer of 2014, a team of psychologists at the University of Virginia and Harvard asked a simple question that turned out to be quietly alarming. What would people do if you left them alone with nothing but their own thoughts? Not for an afternoon. Not even for an hour. For six to fifteen minutes, in a plain room, with no phone, no book, no window worth looking out of. Just a chair, a person, and the interior weather of a human mind.

What the researchers found has since become one of the most cited curiosities in modern psychology. Many participants hated the experience so much that they took an unusual step to end it. Before the study began, they had been given a small taste of a mild electric shock, the kind that stings without harming, and asked whether they would pay money to avoid feeling it again. Most said yes, they would pay to never feel it again. Then the researchers left them alone in the room with a button that delivered exactly that shock.

Sixty-seven percent of the men and a quarter of the women pressed it. Not once, in most cases, but repeatedly. One man administered the shock to himself 190 times in a single fifteen-minute session ¹. Given a choice between their own company and physical pain, a striking number of people chose pain. The lead author, Timothy Wilson, put the finding plainly: people would rather be doing something, he wrote, even something unpleasant, than be alone with their thoughts ¹.

It is tempting to read this as a comment on human frailty, a joke about our short attention spans. But the more you sit with the result, the stranger it becomes. Boredom is supposed to be the most trivial of feelings, a minor inconvenience we brush away in seconds. Yet here were ordinary adults treating it as an emergency worth hurting themselves to escape. The experiment did not reveal that people are weak. It revealed that boredom is far more powerful, and far more misunderstood, than we tend to assume.

A Feeling Without a Name

For most of recorded history, no one studied boredom seriously, in part because there was barely a word for it. The English term is surprisingly young. It gained wide currency only in the middle of the nineteenth century, and Charles Dickens is often credited with helping to popularize it in his 1852 novel Bleak House, where the aristocratic Lady Dedlock is described as being “bored to death” ². Before that, English speakers reached for older and vaguer language: ennui borrowed from the French, tedium, weariness, the medieval sin of acedia that monks feared as a spiritual listlessness pulling them from their devotions.

The absence of a precise word meant an absence of precise thinking. Boredom was treated less as a mental state to be understood than as a character flaw to be corrected. It was the province of the idle and the ungrateful. If you were bored, the reasoning went, the fault lay with you: you lacked discipline, imagination, or moral seriousness. Well into the twentieth century, science largely ignored the feeling, as though it were too small and too shameful to merit attention.

That began to change when a handful of researchers decided the empty feeling deserved a proper definition. Chief among them is John Eastwood, a psychologist at York University in Toronto, who spent years trying to pin down what boredom actually is. His answer, developed with colleagues, is careful and worth quoting closely. Boredom, they proposed, is “the aversive experience of wanting, but being unable, to engage in satisfying activity” ³. It is the unfulfilled desire for meaningful engagement.

Notice what that definition does and does not say. Boredom is not the same as having nothing to do. You can be surrounded by options and still be bored stiff, because none of them feels worth doing. Nor is it simple tiredness, though the two often travel together. Eastwood’s framing locates boredom in a specific kind of frustration: your attention wants somewhere to land, some target worthy of your engagement, and it cannot find one. The world is happening, but it refuses to become meaningful to you. This is the peculiar cruelty of the feeling. It is not that life is empty. It is that a full life can somehow feel empty from the inside.

The Signal, Not the Noise

If Eastwood gave boredom a definition, James Danckert gave it a purpose. A neuroscientist at the University of Waterloo, Danckert came to the subject through an unusual door. His brother had suffered a serious car accident, and in the long recovery that followed, something in his personality shifted. Activities he had once loved, drumming among them, no longer held him. He seemed restless, disengaged, chronically bored in a way he never had been before the injury ⁴.

That observation sent Danckert toward a body of research on patients with damage to the brain’s attention networks, particularly regions of the frontal lobe. Many such patients report a striking increase in boredom, as though the very machinery that lets us lock our attention onto the world has been knocked out of alignment. From this, Danckert built a case that boredom is fundamentally a problem of attention. It is what happens when the mind wants to engage but cannot successfully direct itself toward anything ⁵.

The implication reframes the whole experience. Rather than a defect or a moral failing, boredom starts to look like a signal, closer in function to hunger or pain than to laziness. Hunger tells you the body needs fuel. Pain tells you something is damaging your tissue and demands your attention. Boredom, in Danckert’s view, delivers its own message: this, whatever you are doing or failing to do, is not working. Your resources are going unused. Find something that matters. He describes it as a call to action, an internal prompt that something must change ⁵.

The brain imaging supports the idea that boredom is anything but a switching-off. Sammy Perone, a developmental scientist at Washington State University, has induced boredom in the laboratory and watched what the brain does while it happens. Far from going quiet, the bored brain shows a distinctive and effortful pattern of activity in the frontal regions, consistent with a mind actively searching for something to engage with and failing to find it ⁶. Boredom is not the brain at rest. It is the brain straining against a locked door.

This is why the empty room in Wilson’s experiment felt so intolerable. The participants were not relaxing. They were fighting a rising internal alarm, and for many of them the alarm grew loud enough that a genuine electric shock felt like relief. The shock was not really the point. The doing was the point. Any action, even a painful one, quieted the signal for a moment.

The Cost of an Ignored Alarm

An alarm you cannot switch off is one you become desperate to silence, and the ways people silence boredom form a troubling pattern. A growing body of research links a susceptibility to boredom, measured by psychologists as boredom proneness, to a range of self-destructive behaviors. People who are more easily and chronically bored report higher rates of problem gambling, overeating, and substance use ⁷. Among adolescents, boredom is one of the more reliable predictors of experimentation with drugs and alcohol, a finding that has appeared across multiple studies ⁸.

The logic is uncomfortably consistent with everything else we have seen. If boredom is an aversive signal demanding action, and if the person cannot find a meaningful outlet, then the mind will accept an unhealthy one. The pull toward risk is not incidental. Boredom-prone people tend to seek out stimulation and novelty precisely because the ordinary texture of experience fails to hold them, which can translate into a willingness to take larger financial or physical risks in pursuit of a thrill. The shock button in the laboratory has countless echoes in ordinary life: the impulsive purchase, the third drink, the reckless bet, the compulsive check of a phone. Each is a press of the button, a way of feeling something rather than nothing.

And we press these buttons often. One frequently cited survey estimated that the average person spends the equivalent of many days a year feeling bored, a figure that suggests boredom is not a rare intrusion but a steady background condition of modern life ⁹. What makes this especially strange is that we live in the most stimulating environment human beings have ever built. Endless feeds, infinite video, notifications engineered to arrive at the exact moment our attention flags. By any naive accounting, boredom should be extinct.

Instead, it may be intensifying, and the reason cuts to the heart of the problem. The constant availability of easy stimulation does not cure boredom. It lowers our tolerance for it. The more reliably we escape the feeling at its first flicker, the less practice we get in sitting with it, and the more unbearable even brief stretches of quiet begin to feel. A silence of thirty seconds at a bus stop becomes a small crisis to be resolved by reaching for the phone. Each escape trains us to escape faster the next time. We are not defeating boredom. We are raising the volume on the alarm and then racing to smother it.

The Gift Inside the Discomfort

Here the story turns, because the same restlessness that drives people toward the shock button also drives something far more valuable. Boredom, it turns out, is one of the more reliable engines of creativity we have.

The evidence for this is direct. In a set of studies published in 2014, the psychologists Sandi Mann and Rebekah Cadman gave participants a deliberately dull task, in one case copying numbers out of a telephone directory, before asking them to complete a creative exercise, such as generating as many uses as they could for a pair of plastic cups. The bored participants consistently outperformed those who had not been bored first. Mann and Cadman concluded that boredom, by leaving the mind understimulated, prompts it to seek stimulation from within, setting off the kind of daydreaming and associative wandering from which creative ideas emerge ¹⁰.

This fits what many people already know intuitively about where their best ideas arrive. Rarely do they come in the thick of frantic activity. They surface in the shower, on a long walk, in the drifting moments before sleep, in exactly those undemanding stretches when the mind, given nothing pressing to do, begins to generate its own material. Boredom clears the stage. It empties the working mind of external clamor and, in doing so, opens space for the wandering, associative thought that busyness tends to crowd out. The idle mind, denied a target, starts inventing its own.

Which means the discomfort of boredom and its creative payoff are not two separate phenomena but two faces of the same thing. The restlessness is the search. When that search is aimed at a screen designed to absorb it, the search ends immediately and produces nothing. When the search is allowed to continue, to roam without an easy answer, it can arrive somewhere genuinely new. The signal that feels like an emergency is also an invitation.

Sitting With the Empty Room

The writer Dorothy Parker is often credited with the line that “the cure for boredom is curiosity, and there is no cure for curiosity.” Whatever its exact origin, the sentiment captures something the research keeps confirming. Boredom is not the disease. It is the symptom, and the underlying condition it points to is a life or a moment that has stopped feeling meaningful. Curiosity is what happens when we answer the signal honestly rather than smothering it.

This reframes the danger. The peril was never boredom itself. Boredom is a messenger, and like hunger or pain it exists to protect us, to prod us toward change when our attention and effort are going to waste. The danger lies entirely in how we respond. When we treat the feeling as an intolerable void and reach immediately for the fastest available relief, we silence the messenger without hearing the message. We press the button. We open the app. We choose the small numbing pain over the productive discomfort of listening.

The participants in Wilson’s experiment were not foolish or weak. They were doing what most of us do a hundred times a day, only with more honest instruments. Faced with the demand to sit and simply be, they found an escape and took it. The rest of us have subtler buttons, but we press them just as compulsively, and often at greater long-term cost.

There is a different possibility, and it requires almost nothing. The next time the restlessness rises, the itch to reach for the phone, it is worth trying to leave the hand still for a moment longer. To stay in the empty room a little past the point of comfort. Boredom is not a void to be filled but a question being asked, and the question is worth answering: what is missing here, and what would it take to make this matter? The alarm is not malfunctioning. It is doing its job. The only real mistake is to keep silencing it before we have listened to what it came to say.

Sources

1. Wilson, T. D. et al., “Just think: The challenges of the disengaged mind,” Science, 2014. — https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1250830
2. Dickens, Charles, Bleak House, Bradbury and Evans, 1852-1853. — https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/1023
3. Eastwood, J. D. et al., “The Unengaged Mind: Defining Boredom in Terms of Attention,” Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2012. — https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1745691612456044
4. Danckert, James and Eastwood, John, Out of My Skull: The Psychology of Boredom, Harvard University Press, 2020. — https://www.hup.harvard.edu/books/9780674984677
5. Danckert, J. and Merrifield, C., “Boredom, sustained attention and the default mode network,” Experimental Brain Research, 2018. — https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00221-016-4617-5
6. Perone, S. et al., “Boredom and the neural correlates of an attention-driven state,” Psychophysiology / WSU research, 2019. — https://news.wsu.edu/press-release/2019/07/23/boredom-brain-study/
7. Vodanovich, S. J., “Psychometric Measures of Boredom: A Review of the Literature,” The Journal of Psychology, 2003. — https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00223980309600625
8. Weybright, E. H. et al., “Boredom and adolescent substance use,” Journal of Adolescent Health, 2015. — https://www.jahonline.org/article/S1054-139X(15)00082-8/fulltext
9. Chapman, “How much of our lives do we spend bored?” survey reporting, 2016. — https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/boredom-time-spent-bored-day-life-a7440416.html
10. Mann, S. and Cadman, R., “Does Being Bored Make Us More Creative?” Creativity Research Journal, 2014. — https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10400419.2014.901073

Related reading

• The Argument Your Brain Loses Before You Speak
• The Weight of Things

More from the Mind edition →