Boredom

As a child, I always thought that boredom was a sign of immaturity and that adults, having wider attention spans, enjoyed “boring things” (e.g. Shakespeare, classical music) more than children. I do agree that a person’s attention span increases over time. However, does the inclination to boredom decrease? Not necessarily. In fact, the more experience one gains, the likelier one will suffer from chronic boredom. The amount of boredom in one’s life usually depends on how exciting one’s life is. The people who lead lives of routine (like The Kinks’ “Well-Respected Man”) are probably more bored than the people whose lives are less predictable, never certain where they are going to be the next day or who they are going to meet. Note that I’m not saying that an unpredictable life entails happiness. It could just as well be the life of a soldier in combat who is surrounded by death.

Just as much as a life of chaos and horror can be disheartening, so can a world of little variety, where one wakes up in the morning with obligations to perform tasks that reap no intrinsic reward. Life, in that sense, is nothing more than survival. For human beings, it is not sufficient to just survive, to have food, water and shelter. Several of us become depressed when we start questioning our own value: In me being alive, what is that doing for the rest of the world? What contribution am I really making? Most people try to answer such questions by way of parenthood, meditation/prayer, therapy or various altruistic acts. While it is true that one can have a positive impact on the world, the motivation to be virtuous isn’t simply based on a moral conscience. It is also rooted in a self-interest, something as minute as a primal need for temporary distraction. Adults, especially those with extrovert personalities, can malfunction if their life becomes deprived of stimulating experiences. The likelihood that they’ll become depressed out of boredom, moreover, only grows with age/experience.

Because children have such a smaller spectrum of experience, they are interested in several things that would be very mundane and ordinary for several adults. The obvious example is nature. For a child, playing in the backyard isn’t simply performing a leisurely outdoor activity. Playing outdoors entails an exploration of a new world. Trees, grass and insects are sources of entertainment. The adults who’ve decided that science is uninteresting, an error in judgment I’ve made myself, will not regard their own backyards with the same level of fascination. Just imagine how the average American house owner deals with nature, chopping down trees and spraying away insects.

In no way, however, do I mean to criticize adults and say that children are somehow more “enlightened” because of their innocence. It is not a bad thing that adults are generally more complicated than children, to the degree that adults have such “busy” schedules that they can’t even stop to admire a rainbow. Staying focused on what is perceived to be higher priorities is integral to being a responsible person. A parent who forgets to pick up a child from school, instead stopping at a park to lie down on the grass and gaze at the beautiful blue sky, is mentally disturbed. An ability to appreciate the “finer things in life” does not cancel out one’s moral responsibilities. A mere “child,” in other words, is arguably an unfit parent, a role that involves a certain level of maturity.

There are the adults, like me, however, who have very few obligations and consequently plenty of time to have fun. Unfortunately, many of us have chosen to not explore the world around us. We’ve subscribed to the lie that Dorothy preaches at the end of The Wizard of Oz: “[…] if I ever go looking for my heart’s desire again, I won’t look any further than my own back yard. Because if it isn’t there, I never really lost it to begin with! Is that right?” I always interpreted that line as, “Be happy with what you have. You have everything you need in your own home.” Of course, Dorothy would’ve never reached such an insight if she hadn’t had her incredible experience in Oz first. She is happy because she has her comforts back—her home and family and friends. The real lesson of the film, which is not Dorothy’s own flawed conclusion, is that one has to abstain from familiar comforts to truly appreciate them. Naturally, Dorothy will become bored again and dissatisfied with her life in Kansas. She will discover that she does not have everything she needs. The right solution is having further adventures in exotic places, from which she apparently derives some enjoyment.

The wrong solution, which is what I have chosen, would be to stay home, to tell myself that I’m a fool for ever wanting to leave. If I can’t find it here, I probably can’t find it anywhere else. However, I’ve learned that I’m, in fact, a fool for not considering the danger of cabin fever or, even worse, the creation of a mental prison. Habits die hard, and the habit to lock one’s self up in one’s home can be as psychologically damaging as the worst addictions. Just as it sometimes appears that addicts could go cold turkey if they wanted to, it also seems to be that way for shut-ins. “Well, no one’s locked them in. They can leave at their own will.” The problem is, the shut-ins have lost the will to leave. They have told themselves that their self-inflicted confinement is for their own good. However, if this confinement consists of the same daily routine, the self-inflicted prisoner will inevitably grow bored. The prisoner may be in denial that they are in boredom, developing destructive habits without admitting that the sole cause is boredom.

A common catalyst for boredom is the moment when familiar comforts, which we may exploit for our own pleasure, lose their effect. For me particularly, it is food. I have fond memories of eating fast food and snack foods, and in the same way that addicts fail to re-experience that first “high,” I have failed to make myself happy with food. My household reinforced a belief that food has the power to improve one’s morale. “You won’t feel as bad if you eat something.” Like several people, I have also resorted to TV, movies, books, music and social media as escapes. With all of these outlets, I have made the mistake of assuming that they will take away my sorrow. Yes, they are temporary distractions from life’s disappointments. But they are just that. They cannot cure my unhappiness, neither can they eliminate my feelings of inadequacy as a person or boredom, which itself is rooted in a void that I don’t know will ever be filled. While this conclusion may be fairly obvious to many, I’ve been guilty of moronically hoping that food and entertainment will be enough for me to feel content.

I do think I know what happiness is, because I was fairly happy as a child. I don’t believe that my unhappiness is the result of any tragedy. My life is only tragic in its mediocrity and the little I’ve done to improve it. Moreover, the things that excited me as a child are now boring. At this point, I’m unsure as to where my happiness began and ended. Why was I happy as a child? Maybe it was because my standards for living were so stupidly simple. My desires were limited to what was readily available. I’d want something as basic as a hamburger, which my parents would buy for me if I asked them. What has made me somewhat of a disturbed person is the lie I have been feeding myself, on a very subconscious level, that I should only want what is readily available. I’ve believed that I shouldn’t desire anything that is out of reach, and to this day, several things that would make me happier are hard to come by.

Buddhism states (and I’m paraphrasing here) that desire is the root of all suffering. There may be some legitimacy to this claim, but I also believe that desire defines humanity. There is nothing wrong with desiring a lot of things. For many, desire is the foundation of the will to live. One cannot simply preserve a life without specific preferences for what that life would consist of. People are never happy on the grounds that they are surviving. I remember a neighbor, who was in eighties, once complaining, “Why does everything have to be fun?” In other words, why can’t people be grateful for being alive? Because a life limited to the activities of eating, drinking and sleeping is depressing. It’s okay to think that one’s life could always be more fun because, after all, it can be. The lengths that one is willing to go to for a more exciting life is another story.

Will Idiots Actually Inherit the Earth?

Devo has always intrigued me, especially the story behind their name. “Devo” stands for “de-evolution,” a philosophical concept created by the founding members. The concept negates the optimistic viewpoint reinforced by industrial societies: the human race as a whole is evolving, in a sense improving. Specifically, human beings have grown mentally and spiritually. While we were barely intellectually superior to  beasts tens of thousands of years ago, industrial progress has domesticated us. The warrior lifestyle is no longer necessary. We don’t have to conquer weaker peoples to sustain our ways of life (a statement that already screams bullshit). Overall, technological development has civilized and sophisticated the species.

This false theory leads to the more dangerous conclusion that proficiency in technology entails civility and sophistication. Someone can be sophisticated on the grounds that that person can drive a car, interact on Facebook and watch movies on Netflix. A person who isn’t technologically proficient meanwhile is “primitive,” resembling the human race in 10,000 B.C. more than the human race in the twenty-first century. The label “Age of Information” itself has fostered an assumption that we are processing data more rapidly than our ancestors, due to the presence of technology. If such an assumption is true, then we indeed have become more intelligent as a species.

Devo, on one hand, may have intended the concept of de-evolution to be somewhat tongue-in-cheek, as much as the song “Whip It” is tongue-in-cheek. The concept, nonetheless, has transcended its status as a rock-‘n’-roll pun and is now a common topic of debate. Not only does it negate the belief that human beings have become smarter, but it states that human beings are growing stupider. More people on a day-to-day basis are adopting this opinion. It was even the foundation of a premise in a comedy: Idiocracy!. The supporting evidence is that human beings have forgotten most of their survival instincts. Everyone agrees that an adept hunter from the Stone Age would have a better chance of survival in the wild than an urbanite who knows little about the natural world. The conclusion, according to de-evolution, is that most human beings are stupider because they’re incapable of surviving without modern amenities.

Human beings have forgotten various bodies of knowledge, a fact that is evident in the creation of the Great Pyramids. The likelier argument that human beings built them is still difficult to prove, as no one can completely pinpoint how the builders did it with such relatively limited resources. The simple explanation is that Ancient Egypt had a body of knowledge about building massive structures without machines. Modern civilizations do not have access to such knowledge, which would be invaluable to industries, anyway. Several pyramids took up to three decades to be built, and today’s technology would reduce most of the pains involved in constructing them.

As for the idea that we can retain more information than our ancestors, we have to consider the art of storytelling. The human memory, after all, used to be the sole recording device for recording information. When Confucius’s books became banned for a period of time in China centuries ago, Confucius’s followers memorized the entire texts, passing them on to the following generations.

Would a human being in today’s world be able to retain that amount of information? The answer depends on the validity of de-evolution. The band Devo certainly used the concept satirically, but several people have genuinely believed that people are getting stupider and that no one would possess the intellectual capacity to memorize multiple books.

The reason why so many people think that the human race used to be smarter is that the geniuses are typically the ones who go down in history. The truth is, the fools are usually forgotten because there have always been so many of them. Everyone remembers Jonathan Swift, but no one’s going to remember the nameless individual who bought Adolf Hitler’s claim that the Jewish race is the primary cause of syphilis. Human history is filled with cases of what we now call groupthink, destructive acts performed by those of a herd mentality. In Salem, Massachusetts, 1692, several people believed that their own neighbors practiced witchcraft. In 1938, numerous listeners believed that Martians were invading Earth when entertainer Orson Welles performed an adaptation of a H.G. Wells novel. The people who were fooled may not have been idiots in other circumstances, but their stupid responses reflect a common idiocy in humanity, one that has existed for the longest time. The hero, furthermore, is never the person who blindly goes with the crowd.

On an interesting note, many people mindlessly recite, “people are getting dumber,” in turn becoming a self-testament. Idiots often regurgitate what they find to be brilliant insights, wanting us to assume they are the smart people who are not a part of the problem. I’m now suggesting that the problem itself is nonexistent. The human race probably isn’t de-evolving any more than it is improving.

One reason for the opinion that stupidity is conquering intelligence is the public visibility of idiots. The idiots are probably more noticeable than they used to be. The Internet has permitted various idiots to share their idiocy with the world. Indeed, more idiots are probably posting videos and Facebook and Twitter posts than smart people. It’s not that smart people aren’t social networking and posting videos as well, but their presence, for the most part, is quieter. An obnoxious comment by an idiot on a message board will probably draw more attention than a thoughtful response written by a smart person. The biggest difference is that many smart people can excel in other areas besides social media and viral videos, while posting uninformed opinions on the Internet may be the only thing the idiot can do.

The idea that idiots will inherit the earth is also supported by a fear of textspeak, which for many is a symbol of the deterioration of language. The concern is that textspeak will someday become a standard form of written and verbal communication, the same way that Latin long ago lost its significance as the standard written language in Europe. On one hand, textspeak might never transcend its function as a form of shorthand that is used mostly for urgent messages. At the worst, it will become a stage in the evolution of human languages. The reason why informal registers such as textspeak would cause any breakdowns in communication is that various people still lack fluency in it. Textspeak would be an efficient form of communication if everyone mastered it.

In no way am I advocating that textspeak become standardized. I like expressing myself through the freedom of a wide vocabulary within grammatical constraints. For me personally, I derive more joy in crafting a complete sentence than simply typing “LOL.” My point, nonetheless, is that, even if textspeak did become standardized, it would in no way reflect a mass decline in intelligence.

The human race is not becoming stupider nor is it becoming smarter. The simple truth is, there are several bodies of knowledge, some more essential to our survival than others. To survive in a modern city, it is not important that one knows how to grow vegetables, hunt animals and construct some form of shelter. I’m not saying that learning such skills would be a waste of time, but they are completely futile for an urban life. While language skills and proficiency on phones and computers may be useless if one is stranded in the wilderness, such skills are vital to surviving in a technologized world. Sending an email may be extremely overwhelming for nomadic hunters from 10,000 B.C. Likewise, many of us would probably be overwhelmed by hunting a mastodon. Intelligence is not based on what one knows, but on how well one can adapt to various environments.

Doubt As a Necessary Evil

While our current society often regards doubt as an unhealthy way of thinking, doubt can sometimes be the most efficient way to gain insight. An individual’s capacity for doubt can also be a mark of maturity. Questioning a statement presented as fact reflects an awareness of distorted truth. People often lie, especially to themselves, and doubt is vital to determining the validity of a person’s statement.

For the longest time, parents of teenagers have complained of their children’s newfound skepticism. The teenagers’ flat-out rejection of traditions usually irritates the parents. On the other hand, several teenagers who go through a “rebel phase” may become as square or squarer as adults than their own parents. The rebellious teenager needed to simply test the validity of the parents’ truths. Are drugs lethal? Does crime have consequences? Is studying a good use of one’s time? Such rebellion is even a necessity if the parents’ beliefs are false. The parent may be a bigot who has accepted degrading stereotypes as fact. In questioning their parents’ narrow-minded viewpoints, teenagers acquire the freedom to find the truth of their own accord. Disagreeing with a parent, of course, can involve sacrifices, most importantly a loss of blind faith in the parent’s point-of-view. The parent, the teenager has learned, isn’t always in the right.

Distrust in a parent can be heartbreaking and often tragic, a theme reflected in the oldest surviving stories. A well-known example is the Story of Adam and Eve. The traditional Judeo-Christian interpretation corresponds with a common stance on doubt. Doubt poses a danger to one’s well being, and therefore, one must resist the temptation to doubt. The traditional interpretation of Adam and Eve teaches that questioning the authority of a parent, which is manifested as God, is sin. According to this reading, neither Adam nor Eve had reason to doubt that eating from the Tree of Knowledge would reverse their fortunes. They were wrong to disobey their father, or mother. A specifically literal interpretation, furthermore, makes the story appear misogynistic, suggesting that the first woman was responsible for the world’s troubles. However, I think that Eve may very well be the unspoken heroine.

In contrast to religious interpretations, I interpret the snake as a necessary catalyst, and Adam and Eve’s banishment as a necessary sacrifice. Before the Fall, they were basically robots who possessed the intelligence of young children. Honestly, who’d find Adam and Eve pre-the Fall in any way interesting? It was the Fall that humanized them, transforming them into well-rounded characters.

The story seems to be an extended metaphor for the painful transition from childhood to adulthood. The point that the author may have been making, in fact, is that we must leave the Garden, which, even according to traditional interpretation, is a symbol of innocence. The Fall, of course, is the loss of innocence, and in my opinion, it represents Adam and Eve’s awkward adolescent stage. We cannot function on this planet as children forever. Doubting the values of our parents at least once is vital to our survival. Can we know the consequence of eating the fruit until we take the risk? The risk, which entails the loss of innocence, is essential to furthering our development as human beings. Adam and Eve would’ve forever been children dependent on the Garden otherwise, and the Fall was what forced them to become independent adults. Some interpretations would say that fate determined Adam and Eve’s Fall. As someone who doesn’t believe in fate or God, I’d argue that Adam and Eve chose to break the rules, ultimately for their own good.

Adam and Eve never doubted anything before the arrival of the snake, and I consider their doubtlessness a characteristic of innocence. Several children whom we would consider content are hardly ever doubtful. I was one of those children. I was happy, waking up in the morning with excitement about the day ahead. I’d ask questions about life matters, but I never questioned life itself.

Furthermore, I believed that I was entitled to making high demands, which made me arrogant and aloof. For example, I was an irrationally picky eater and would refuse to eat dishes I didn’t like, not caring for the time and effort the cook may have been put into making it. I realize now that this is not untypical behavior for several children, whom we’d call “brats.” I was a brat. I had a solipsistic mindset. Everything existed for me. Nothing was more important than my specific preferences, and I would throw a tantrum if nothing went my way.

Furthermore, I was never aware of how irritating I could be. I was horrible at reading most people’s emotions, and I wouldn’t know I had annoyed people until they openly expressed their frustration. I’d be so aloof that their expressions of disapproval always came as a surprise. I’d never linger on the uncomfortable moment, however, not even thinking I might’ve made a faux pas. The simple assessment would be, “This person’s upset with me,” without any questions why.

As far as being a person with specific preferences, I’ve changed very little, and I’m a snob in many regards. One thing that has changed drastically about me, though, is my level of self-esteem. As a child, I used to not worry about looking like as an asshole. I’d be unfriendly to people, nonverbally communicating, “Leave me alone.” I still behave this way with certain strangers, usually on the grounds that they were assholes to me first. The difference is that I now ask myself, “Was I the asshole?” I often worry as to whether I’ve made a bad first impression. If someone treats me unfavorably, my automatic thought will be, “That person’s an asshole.” However, the following question is usually, “What did I do wrong?”

I became doubtful of myself during my adolescence. I suppose I had a natural albeit irrational fear of people, but the fear grew once I’d think, “Am I doing anything to make this person hate me?” Consequently, my self-confidence decreased. Another question that typically comes up is: “Am I making this person upset? Or have I already done that?” Take note: such thoughts are usually my own paranoia. The person I’m afraid of may not have any problem with me. I just now have the bogus assumption that anyone I talk to will be inevitably mad at me. Such negative thinking has its consequences. I become self-defeating, and I’ll unconsciously do or say things to upset someone, fulfilling a prophecy.

Naturally, I’m often awkward, wearing my lack of self-confidence on my sleeve. While I was even more awkward as a child, I was also fairly self-confident. In retrospect, I realize that I was never shy, simply quiet. Shy people have a fear that the people they encounter will not accept them. I had no such fear. I wanted to be accepted, but I didn’t care if someone rejected me. Whether they didn’t like me was their business. It was as simple as that.

I’d say I’m a shy person now, though. I will accept another person’s invitation to a conversation, believing that ignoring the person would be rude. The lack of self-confidence is partly a result of my belief that I’m a hopelessly rude person. There is nothing I can do or say to change that about myself. I’m still not overly fond of meeting new people. Even if I try to be polite, I’m riddled with the fear that people will catch my bluff. They’ll sense my inclination to be unfriendly. The big difference is that I now feel shame, shame for my antisocial nature and shame for my shortcomings as a human being. Politeness is important to me, even if it’s nowhere near as convenient as being rude.

In acknowledging my contempt for socializing, I doubt my goodness as a person. Good people, I believe, want to improve the lives of others. Having a strong dislike for being with others, how can I make any kind of positive impact? And if I can’t make an impact, what use do I have on this planet? Am I simply a “Parasite,” to reference Nick Drake, who drains resources and has nothing to offer in return?

As a child, I never worried whether I had any value. I now contend that it’s an important matter, and the fact that I’m concerned about whether I’m benefiting others means that I’m not a total sociopath. However, the constant doubt that I’ll ever be a better person doesn’t help. Doubting, like any chemical substance, is ultimately harmless if one applies it in moderation. However, every addiction is destructive, and doubting—as an addiction of mine—has become detrimental to my self-growth. I know that I’ll never improve if I continue to believe I won’t. Nevertheless, I have no idea of how to stop the self-doubt, and what’s worse, I doubt that it ever will stop.