Boredom before computers

[Norgy]

I was rarely bored as a kid 20-30 years ago.
There were several options and sources for entertainment:
1) Playing some game outdoors with the neighbourhood kids
2) Reading, drawing, writing, building stuff with Lego, wood or assorted stuff found at homes, such as tampons
3) Pestering my parents into doing something with me, preferably me getting ice cream
4) Prank phone calls. This was our equivalent to Internet trolling.
5) Spying on the neighbours, stealing apples or similar
6) Sleep

The vast number of choices were mind-boggling and low-cost.

[The Brain]

I'm bored as fuck WITH computers.

If you think I'm aggressive you can suck my cock.

[Malthus]

I submit that you in fact veg about as much as makes you happy, and go out and do other things about as much as makes you happy. I think this is true for most people, overall.

Notice that in fact you do NOT veg out in front of the TV for five hours all the time but instead choose to go do other things because you know in fact that vegging out for 5 horus all the time will not actually maximize your happiness.

You have the ability to make that choice for yourself, and you strike some balance between activities that you find to be optimal.

Why should we presume that that is not generally true for everyone else?

Actually, I am presuming that my case *is* generally true for everyone else - that not all of my choices do, in fact, maximize my happiness. Some choices are made out of laziness, because I fail to make the small investment in energy needed to do something *better* - even though I know full well that it will. Just like sometimes I eat junk food, and only later remember that it makes me feel like crap.

Now, I'm not arguing that it would be better if the choice were removed and all of us were *forced* to do one thing or another. To my mind, developing self-discipline and the ability to make good choices is the key - not removing the possibility for bad choices. That is why I'm not in favour of criminalization of drugs, which exposes this situation in spades - there are people I know who do nothing but smoke pot all day - can anyone really argue that this is a good idea because subjectively they must be happier doing that, having chosen to do it? Most people recognize that, while they may have chosen to be waistoids, both objectively and subjectively speaking they would be much happier if they weren't.

Moreover, most people recognize at least the possibility of similar compulsive-type behaviours in themselves - be it the harmful variety (like doing drugs or drinking) through to the relatively harmless (watching too much TV, Internet surfing, computer games). Obviously it is better to engage in any of these things to moderation, but some people (I think everyone to an extent at one time or another) can engage in things to an excess - leading to unhappiness in spite of concious choices.

Now that being said, anything may be taken to an excess, even stuff like exercise - but there are certain things that people are much more likely to take to an excess. Naturally, such things are bound to be very popular.

[Berkut]

Meh, I am still not buying into the idea that people are somehow less happy overall because they have choices to do more things. I think overall people generally make those choices that maximize their happiness. It isn't perfect of course, since there are often external factors involved.

Who is to say what is "to excess" though, when it comes to deciding for someone else what it is that makes someone else happy? Maybe doing things to excess is in fact what makes them happy. How do you tell?

When it comes to drugs, we are talking about addictions, which include some measure of artificially making the choice to forgo painful (less happy), so that is not really comparable to whether BB should play some more WoW or go canoing. To the extent that activities become addictive, tehn certainly choosing to engage in them could be counter to greater happiness - but isn't that the definition of addictive? Or "compulsive"?

I don't think anyone would describe the kinds of activities we are talking about as addictive or compulsive though - at least not necessarily so.

[szmik]

I agree with Malthus.
I'm much happier when playing football (soccer for you) or volleyball than sitting in front of my screen playing games, but I spend much more time doing the latter.   

[crazy canuck]

We are all working on the assumption that previously it was okay to have a lot of different recreational time & activities. Was it the case?
In a rural society, atleast around here, previous to the introduction of TV, it doesn't look like it was.

You didnt have a road, a net, a puck and a few friends with hockey sticks.....

[Grey Fox]

We are all working on the assumption that previously it was okay to have a lot of different recreational time & activities. Was it the case?
In a rural society, atleast around here, previous to the introduction of TV, it doesn't look like it was.

You didnt have a road, a net, a puck and a few friends with hockey sticks.....

Of course I did, I was born in the 80s. I meant more in the 40s & before with Adult recreation time.

[crazy canuck]

I find it amusing that the opinion that people are basically capable of doing that which makes them happy overall is considered so "aggressive" and worth of such scorn.

Its not your idea but your aggressive manner of posting generally.

You have also misunderstood my main point which is that before computers and TV sucked up most leisure time, people were more social, got out more and generally had more contact with other people.

You counter by making the claim that people act in order to maximize their happiness.  When we point out that people do all kinds of things that dont actually maximize their happiness but instead are more likely to increase the chances of unhappiness through unhealthy life styles you simply fall back on the logical fallacy that if they are doing it, it must be because that is what makes them most happy.

Your argument is a tad weak.

[crazy canuck]

We are all working on the assumption that previously it was okay to have a lot of different recreational time & activities. Was it the case?
In a rural society, atleast around here, previous to the introduction of TV, it doesn't look like it was.

You didnt have a road, a net, a puck and a few friends with hockey sticks.....

Of course I did, I was born in the 80s. I meant more in the 40s & before with Adult recreation time.

In the 40s people were busy fighting a war and had no time to be bored.

[Malthus]

Meh, I am still not buying into the idea that people are somehow less happy overall because they have choices to do more things. I think overall people generally make those choices that maximize their happiness. It isn't perfect of course, since there are often external factors involved.

Who is to say what is "to excess" though, when it comes to deciding for someone else what it is that makes someone else happy? Maybe doing things to excess is in fact what makes them happy. How do you tell?

When it comes to drugs, we are talking about addictions, which include some measure of artificially making the choice to forgo painful (less happy), so that is not really comparable to whether BB should play some more WoW or go canoing. To the extent that activities become addictive, tehn certainly choosing to engage in them could be counter to greater happiness - but isn't that the definition of addictive? Or "compulsive"?

I don't think anyone would describe the kinds of activities we are talking about as addictive or compulsive though - at least not necessarily so.

I'm not so sure that there is a huge difference between the effect of doing drugs, and the effect of engaging in any other sort of highly attractive behaviour, like watching TV or playing video games.

In both cases, on a neurological level what causes an activity to be "pleasurable" is the effect on brain chemistry - the release of substances such as endorphins.

Naturally, this is true of *any* activity - the difference is usually expressed as being that the one set of activities has a worth that sets it aside from the other (doing drugs). Taking chemicals directly rather than (say) 'earning' them through activities such as exercise or exposure to great works of art is I suppose a sort of cheating; all of the pleasure with none of the effort.

Of course that leads into the sort of value-judgments aside from "happiness" which you do not wish to make. The difficulty is that, taken to its extreme, isn't sticking a needle into the pleasure centres of our brains or taking heroin the ultimate in pure "happiness" - assuming one did not develop a physical dependency? What, if anything, makes that a bad choice in terms of the pursuit of happiness? What would be wrong with Huxley's "Soma"?

To my mind there is a continuum - some activities cause happiness to be sure, but there are other factors which ought to influence one's choices - because indulging in no-effort happiness can lead to addictive or compulsive behaviour which is not condusive to happiness in the long run. That is one reason why smoking pot all day is "bad" (quite aside from the health effects - pot does not cause physical dependency) and it is also why watching TV too much is also "bad".

As for how much is "too much" - that is a balancing act; the question here is, is a person activly missing out on other important and pleasurable activities on a regular basis because of it, to the extent that they and those around them regret the fact? That's one guide. Usually after a certain point, the person (or their spouse, parents or children) can tell it's a problem.   

[Berkut]

Its not your idea but your aggressive manner of posting generally.

You have also misunderstood my main point which is that before computers and TV sucked up most leisure time, people were more social, got out more and generally had more contact with other people.

You counter by making the claim that people act in order to maximize their happiness.  When we point out that people do all kinds of things that dont actually maximize their happiness but instead are more likely to increase the chances of unhappiness through unhealthy life styles you simply fall back on the logical fallacy that if they are doing it, it must be because that is what makes them most happy.

Your argument is a tad weak.                

The fact that you like to go after the form of my argument rather than its content suggests that the content is a tad strong.

And no, I did not mis-understand your argument, I simply disputed the idea that before computers and TV people were more happy because they got out more and had more contact with people.

Lastly, it is no fallacy, logical or otherwise, to claim that absent evidence to the contrary, people are better judges of what will make themselves happy than others, and in fact do those things that make them happy.

I suppose this disagreement could come down to what we define as "happy". You seem to think it must be tied to some outside measure of what is "best for them" as defined by you. I think people are quite happy doing things that in fact are not that good for them as defined by you (or me).

[Malthus]

In the 40s people were busy fighting a war and had no time to be bored.

Sort of like a giant 3-D MMORPG. 

[The Brain]

Berkut, you need mysticism to be happy. Or "really" happy, whatever the fuck that is.

[Malthus]

Berkut, you need mysticism to be happy. Or "really" happy, whatever the fuck that is.

Whereas all you need is a trip to a blind farmer's barn. 

[Barrister]

And no, I did not mis-understand your argument, I simply disputed the idea that before computers and TV people were more happy because they got out more and had more contact with people.

Lastly, it is no fallacy, logical or otherwise, to claim that absent evidence to the contrary, people are better judges of what will make themselves happy than others, and in fact do those things that make them happy.

I suppose this disagreement could come down to what we define as "happy". You seem to think it must be tied to some outside measure of what is "best for them" as defined by you. I think people are quite happy doing things that in fact are not that good for them as defined by you (or me).

How's this for some evidence:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3157570.stm

Nigeria has the highest percentage of happy people followed by Mexico, Venezuela, El Salvador and Puerto Rico, while Russia, Armenia and Romania have the fewest.

But factors that make people happy may vary from one country to the next with personal success and self-expression being seen as the most important in the US, while in Japan, fulfilling the expectations of family and society is valued more highly.

The survey appears to confirm the old adage that money cannot buy happiness.

While not directly touching on access to computers and TV, we can take the income levels of some countries as some indication of the various levels of access to such technologies.  In particular Nigeria would appear to have lower rates of ownership of personal computers than does western europe.

So this one survey would seem to show that happiness is rather independent and not associated with income and technology.