Boredom

Shepaints makes an excellent case for appreciating a boring job, however, and I've had one or two of those in my lifetime. When you enjoy and are totally challenged and absorbed by your work, it can suck you dry leaving you no incentive or creativity to do anything else. A boring job however almost always inspires us to do something unboring in off work hours.

The recipe for positive boredome I think is boredom in a pleasant environment. Boredom coupled with an unpleasant environment could drive one to drink, rebellion, or worse.

I'm a late-comer to this forum, but "bored" is only a symptom of a larger problem. We are all bored once-in-awhile, but long term boredom can signal a much deeper problem which should be addressed by a doc - IMHO.

Thanks for your comments, good points Foxfyre.....
hmmmm, a fascinating but exhausting occupation
or a boring occupation and fascinating leisure
hours....!!!!

CI.....can you elaborate....what if you are bored
in school? Situation or deep-seated problem?

I'm not sure, shepaints. I was never that good a student, but I can't say that I was ever "bored in school." I enjoyed school best when I got involved with student politics and ran for office. Most of the classes I took in business administration and philosophy were always challenging, and I know I studied pretty hard to make it through to get that sheepskin. My professoinal career turned out challenging and rewarding, so I was very lucky. Only you can decide whether you have a deep-seated problem or not, but if it's long-term, I would recommend that you see a professional for guidance. Life is too short to live in misery.

Thanks for your response, CI.....I am not talking
about post-secondary education where you have
more choice in the direction you are taking, possibly in line with your interests and aptitudes. I am talking about elementary and secondary school, where there are certain subjects you just have to endure....

Anyhow, tonight I was watching Gene Kelly tap
dancing. It seemed that he was not content with the art form on its own, in one routine he incorporated dancing over newspapers, using the distinctive sounds and visuals of tearing them in half, then quarters; and also included various steps on squeaky floorboards as part of the variety and rythmn. Why could he not be content with just traditional tap dance?

I once saw a drummer leave the stage during a jazz improvisation and go out into the audience and drum on the tables, chairs, glasses, shoes, ashtrays, windows etc., completely enthralling the audience. Again, he could have stayed on stage and kept his music within its traditional limits.

Could it be that some people just have a low threshold of boredom, as they said of Gene Kelly in the documentary? Maybe those inventive
types that just don't fit the mould?

quoted from

Effects of Childhood on Creativity: A Group Project
Lyndsey Burton, Teckla Dixon, Melissa Fundzak, Jessica Jewell

..............

Albert Einstein disliked school and formal education. He would perform poorly and act defiantly in class on purpose. If something did not make sense to him he would argue with the teacher until it did. Einstein was not particularly verbal; he was very much science oriented. He studied subjects that he liked, such as algebra and geometry, enthusiastically on his own from books without the help of any teacher or other person to interpret or explain anything (Gardner 90-91).

Pablo Picasso was a child prodigy. He showed great artistic talent early in life and surpassed his dad, a painter, at a very young age. Picasso hated school and tried not to attend. When he did he would perform poorly on purpose and make his dad promise him certain things to stay there. Not only did he have difficulty in learning to read and write, but he had even greater difficulty in mastering numbers. Picasso would see numbers as being part of an image, not as representing an amount. Everything Picasso learned was in terms of art because that is how he perceived the world. He barely made it through school, but he did appear to have a genuine learning problem so it was not just that he did not try (Gardner 140-141, 191).

Igor Stravinsky was not a good student and he was not a prodigy. He performed at or below the average level for his class. He always loved music but was involved in other artistic genres too, such as painting and theatre. Stravinsky was uninterested in formal schooling, preferring instead to educate himself (Gardner 190-191).

For T. S. Eliot everything revolved around the written language. He read extremely widely and was able to remember a good deal of what he read. In school he was situated squarely within the humanities and his only area of difficulty was physics. He had little interest or ability in science. Eliot was a notable student who performed very well at the Smith Academy (Gardner 229-230).

There are many people of the past with special skills that are hard to explain in terms of what we deem as normal. Mozart played piano at 3, and composed music at 6. I can't even fathom how these skills are apprehended by parents of such a gift in such a young child, and have the wherewithal to provide the necessary tools to maximize their growth. Look, honey, he said "da da," and most of us are thrilled.

I don't know if it's always necessary to , If a child is passionate about learning anything ( which is one half of talent, anyhow), all you have to supply is the basic tools and they will do learn it themselves. Having people coaching you from infancy ( like Picasso did) is one thing, but it isn't necessary.

I don't know how true this is of other disciplines, but half of being an artistic "genius" is the ability to self promote and convince others( as well as yourself) of your talent, as well as the willingness to play around. Self- confidence is very, very important. Many, many people can draw and , while Picasso could do academic drawing well, many other less famous artists had more technical skill.

I don't see why it's necessary to make everything perfect, and why everybody is forced to fit into the mould. If the work is too easy or confusing, of course the work is going to be boring for you. If you get bored and drift off in a class or two, and you don't achieve your "maximum potential" until you are grown up, so what. Childhood isn't about achieving. If teachers would just stop forcing all children to be the same , and respect their differences, there would be less ritalin and more talent not being wasted. Which is the point of that article, I suppose, but deserves to be reiteratied

Eccles, Hear, hear! I'm of the same philosophy concerning the treatment of children. Nurture their interests, and the rest will take care of themselves instead of trying to produce all children from a cookie sheet.

I would agree that it helps for the child to be passionate about something. Isn't that true of all of us at any age? I disagree that the child should be allowed to focus on that at the exclusion of the other. It is not a 'cookie cutter' approach to recognize that all people benefit from a working knowledge of core subjects--reading, writing, basic math, history, geography, government, basic science. Some of the failing schools are not even requiring the kids to speak and use correct English. I think this is child neglect and abuse and should be condoned or tolerated by nobody.

If a core subject is a child's passion, that is great, but if it isn't, the child needs to learn it nevertheless. If the child's passion is dance or music or drawing or sports or whatever, very often these things can be used as a reward for sufficiently mastering the core curriculum. It does every child no service not to believe s/he can succeed and not provide incentives for him/her to do so. There is nothing quite as satisfying or ego boosting as mastering something difficult and enjoying a measure of success.

Thanks, ci, it's nice to not always be fighting an uphill battle.

My previous post wasn't directed at anybody, just a rant at all the educational system

Absolutely, Foxfyre, education is important. I'm not saying that we need to abolish general education. God knows, that's bad enough already, and it's already nearly impossible to get a general education in this country ( Australia) if you come from an area with low socioeconomic status. A lot of people I went to highshigh school ( some who matriculated) could barely read even though there was no organic reason why they shouldn't be able to. The only plausible reason is that nobody cared enough to show them how. It would be appalling if the situation was made worse.

Foxfyre, I think that's true of any age, and I don't see any reason why being a prodigy is better than being a gifted adult, except that you are more fawned upon. I remember reading a quote from a gifted violinist that went "A genius! I;ve been practicing for 12 hours a day for fourty fortyand NOW they call me a genius!" . I'm all in favour of the "drudge" theory of ability, and the only difference between a child prodigy and a gifted adult, in my opinion, is that one found their interests and talents early, or often had adults around that recognised their abilities.


However, it would be much better to find an alternative way to teach the children core subjects rather than giving them a meaningless label like "Learning disabled" and having "ADD" ( or, if they are particularly hard to control " ADHD") and drugging them up. Let them run around until they are tired enough to be able to sit still and concentrate, or, better still, give them ways to learn that enable them to focus on their interests, and which incorporate what they are passionate about. I have worked with a number of children with "attention deficit hyperactivity disorder" that can focus intensely on a project of their choice for many hours.

I know, I know, It's a matter of resources. Teachers are understaffed, overworked, poorly educated and have usually long since given up caring about their profession. There isn't anything which can be done about the appalling state of the educational system, except perhaps hope that children are able to survive it and still make their own way in the world in spite of it.

Eccles, I'm not here to blow my own horn, but I'm one of those examples that show there are late bloomers. I did rather poorly in grade school, and barely graduated from high school - unlike my siblings who graduated in the upper end of their class. After serving in the US Air Force for four years, I eventually earned my bachelors in business administration and accounting at age 32. My first job was as an internal auditor for Florsheim Shoe Company. They promoted me to audit manager after 3.5 years, and since that time worked in management positions for the rest of my working career, and retired early at 63. I think there's a moral to this story; there's always hope.

Then again on Obill's 'stop smoking' thread in the medical forum there is a spirited discussion going on about sock lint.

We all deal with boredom in different ways. It should not be an excuse to let kids off the hook to get a decent education.

Foxfyre says: "We all deal with boredom in different ways. It should not be an excuse to let kids off the hook to get a decent education. "

......nor, I would add, teachers and administrators in providing that education!

Once again, I am too lazy to read six pages of this. Give me the Cliff Notes!

I got a real easy way to solve the bored problem. Get a job! If you are still bored, work more. This works well as a cure for bordom. You are thrilled to have nothing to do, if you work enough!

Perhaps you should read the last page, to see what we are talking about.

Foxfyre and shepaints, I agree with you, except I think, if you are assigning blame, it has to sit with the lack of funding in public schools, especially the lack of staffing. I don't think there is anybody who doesn't want these children to get an education. Throwing books at a child who is having difficulty learning and shaming them because they can't , or alternatively, telling a child off because they taught themselves the work many years beforehand, and are bored and frustrated at having to redo it ( and not getting a chance to learn at their level) doesn't help the situation.


ci, I think that there are a lot of people in situations like that.

For my part, if it wasn't possible to get into university in Australia on the basis of aptitude tests and not school records, I wouldn't be here. But I think that this system is a lot fairer. In my course, for which entry is extremely competitive , the vast majority of school-leavers come from private schools whereas the mature aged studentss (over 21, who come in from aptitude tests) are much more reflective of the wider population.

Wildflower: The Cliff Notes are the last page and a half. Read them and YOU'll have a good idea what we are discussing. Also, we weren't ever really talking about boredom in adults.

I hope this makes sense, if not, blame tiredness .


- Odd Socks (who was Eccles before she decided to reclaim her true identity)

Odd socks, what a great name, your post
makes a lot of sense!

Wildflower, many teenagers have no free
time because they are busy juggling school,
jobs, extra-curricular......

CI....I too was a late bloomer, it took me a while to find
some relevance in education.....

I remember being a bored teenager. That was when I couldn't find my friends to hang out with. My dad would immitate how I said, "I'm bored." He would give me a long list of useful things I could do around the house. I thought the poor man had lost his sanity! Why on earth would I want to go from bored to cleaning? How horrible! He thought I was pretty amusing. Now I understand why!! Energy really is wasted on youth. I need some now!

Wildflower....I remember when my parents were
boring.......Yes, youth is wasted on the young!

I found the following excerpt on the 'net and
thought it explained very well why some kids find school so excrutiatingly ......

from Dreamers, Discoverers and Dynamoes
by Dr. Lucy Jo Palladino



CONVERGENT THINKING AS THE NORM

It is a natural human tendency to assume that all minds work the same way. We tacitly agree that all minds should naturally be able to follow through on one idea at a time, from beginning to end, with attention to detail. We call convergent thinking the norm and we presume it's what comes naturally if a brain is "normal." Divergent thinkers are viewed as having "attentional problems."

We label convergent thinking as right and divergent thinking as wrong. We base the methods we use to train our children on this premise. We expect children to focus in a linear fashion for as long as we say they should. This is true at home and at school. And at school, as class sizes get larger and children get more diverse, a teacher's tolerance for a student's divergent thinking necessarily diminishes. The same curriculum gets taught to all students in the same way and at the same pace.

The brains of Edison-trait children are misunderstood, not inferior. As students they are attentionally disadvantaged because we punish, and fail to appreciate, their unique creative slant. They get blamed for not completing desk work in the allotted time. They are scolded for not staying in their seats until recess. They are forced to work at an unsuitable tempo, and then get graded down for poor handwriting, and errors in grammar, spelling, and math facts. These outcomes are inevitable artifacts of a mismatched approach.

We teach to their weaknesses, not to their strengths. We insist that they see things our way, but we won't see things theirs. These children are stunningly divergent. They are on a quest for discovery, exploration, and stimulation. Surely we can be flexible and accommodate their style. They can and will develop convergent skins, but only if their desire to learn is protected and kindled with success.