Slashdot Mirror
How Mobile Devices Kill Your Creativity
FuzzNugget writes "ReadWrite has posted a thought-provoking piece on how mobile devices killing our boredom may also be killing our creativity. Quoting: 'Numerous studies and much accepted wisdom suggest that time spent doing nothing, being bored, is beneficial for sparking and sustaining creativity. With our iPhone in hand — or any smartphone, really — our minds, always engaged, always fixed on that tiny screen, may simply never get bored. And our creativity suffers. ... For example, psychology professor Gary Marcus distinguishes between the two primary types of pursuits we use to defeat boredom. "Boredom is the brain's way to tell you you should be doing something else. But the brain doesn't always know the most appropriate thing to do. If you're bored and use that energy to play guitar and cook, it will make you happy. But if you watch TV, it may make you happy in the short term, but not in the long term." So much of what we do on our smartphones, however, is decidedly short-term: a few moments playing a game while we stand in line, a minute to scan Instagram as the person in front of us at the grocery store pulls out their checkbook. ' Of course, you'll probably be reading this on a smartphone."
I'm not the creative type. So, when I'm bored I read or go lounge by the pool. I doubt anyone, no matter how intelligent, will find the cure for cancer, or the solution to Europe's economic crisis by being bored.
Sure, some people will knit, others will do woodwork, but that's about it. Then again, time you enjoy wasting isn't time wasted.
I'd much rather see people kill time with a smartphone than go get high/drunk, etc.
And I'm typing this on a Nexus 10, you insensitive clod.
If you're bored and use that energy to play guitar and cook, it will make you happy. But if you watch TV, it may make you happy in the short term, but not in the long term.
One difference is that I can actually create something using a laptop or mobile device while away from home. For example, I have a 10" laptop on which I code Python programs as a hobby while riding a bus to and from work. I can't very well play the guitar or cook in such a situation.
Don't be so ridiculously literal ... replace cooking or guitar with whatever floats your boat.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
The point is that just about any hobby you have will only make you happy in the short-term
What? The examples given provide lasting value. Things like watching TV and playing games are generally more limited in scope.
You're flipping things around. Most any hobby will provide happiness on the short term, but not all will provide happiness in the long term. The idea here is that the ones that provide both short and long term happiness are better than the ones that merely provide for the short term.
Addiction
"I bless every day that I continue to live, for every day is pure profit."
Hanging out with friends doesn't leave you with anything to show for the time spent
That phrase is not normally used so literally. Healthy, satisfying relationships ARE something you can show for your effort.
The point is that just about any hobby you have will only make you happy in the short-term
What? The examples given provide lasting value. Things like watching TV and playing games are generally more limited in scope.
You're flipping things around. Most any hobby will provide happiness on the short term, but not all will provide happiness in the long term. The idea here is that the ones that provide both short and long term happiness are better than the ones that merely provide for the short term.
I've known lots of people who played a musical instrument for a few years, and then it just collects dust in the corner. It doesn't provide any long term happiness necessarily.
If you claim that active hobbies have greater than chances of providing you with long term happiness than passive term hobbies, you might be on to something - because they are active, they can be followed on for many years, instead of at the whim of the source.
Reading, for example, has provided me with many years of happiness, and I expect it will continue to do so. Is reading any different from watching a TV show? Not really. It is still a passive activity - though I have a greater choice in books (though it is slowly changing, since I am not restricted in watching what passes for entertainment in my part of the world). Now, reading might involve imagination (like a kid who imagines himself as a Knight), but it doesn't have to.
Lasting happiness is a very strange concept - you are happy doing something now. I doubt I'd get much happiness remembering the violin I played as a kid, or the scuba diving trip I took a few years ago, or the TV show I saw a decade ago.
Lots of difference between reading and watching, In both cases we "see" events. What you see is what you get like a panther or bird. Pure sighted visuals overwhelm. But, the reader must manufacture those scenes from word associated meaning. Quite a human snark ... the reader creates! Lots different, eh hoser ...?
Is inspiration more or less likely to strike if your mind is occupied?
The creative people I speak to (musicians, mostly) say that going for a walk outside is the best source of inspiration, closely followed by listening to songs by other people and I tend to agree with this.
If cooped up indoors, disengaging the mind is helpful but it takes some practice. Meditation works really well, but it can also be done by playing a simple game on a handheld device or mindlessly scrolling through the Facebook timeline.
Peace,
Andy.
I've not sure you understand what the creative people are trying to say. Inspiration is not some Greek God blessing bestowed randomly on creative people because they are walking in the sun. Every good "inspiration" is the result of hundreds of hours of thinking about something from lots of angles and exploring the various ramifications of the ideas you are generating. You can get this from lots of walks outside with your mind free to play with ideas, you don't get it from playing simple games that occupy your brain.
Talk to a musician or scientist: every "inspiration" is the end result of lots of precursor work. As the pieces start falling into place in your mind, you know you are going to get that breakthrough in a week, or a day, or a minute. It becomes so obvious you hardly need to think about it: "it's so beautiful it must be true" is common to music and physics and math.
It seems to me to be a rather empty existence if you define your worth by nothing but what you make [...] if your definition of self is only in what you make, then what does that really say? What is the point?
You get a measure of immortality. (If you're good enough at whatever it is you do, and enough people know about it or buy it.)
Attention span is the ability to concentrate on a subject for an extended period of time. If you are only able to concentrate when there is continuous external stimulation, it's shallow concentration. This is the difference between reading a book and playing a first person shooter video game. In the video game you are continually reacting. Reading requires mentally retaining the subject matter as you read, and relating what you are reading now to previous material. One is externally organized, the other is internally organized.
Obviously, it's possible to read an ebook on a smart phone, so the device itself is not intrinsically in one mode or the other. This is why so many of the previous posts point to creative activity enabled by electronics.
Having the ability to maintain internal concentration is a learned skill. The problem with pervasive electronics is that chronic users substitute external stimulation for internal concentration. They don't know how to concentrate on their own.
This is ultimately a deficit. It's why people do really stupid things like texting while driving. There are some activities that demand a high degree of internal concentration, like doing mathematics, coding, or surgery. I guarantee that you don't want someone cutting you open who suddenly starts texting about the procedure, or a judge who is not paying attention to the trail proceeding because they are playing a game with the cellphone in their lap.
Why is Snark Required?