People who meditate can certainly reject it. I don't think it's categorically unpleasant. Confinement is unpleasant because of the high opportunity cost.
People who meditate have way more control over when it ends, what they eat and when they turn off the light. Read up about psychological effects about long term solitary confinement and sensory deprivation that goes with it. The problem is not just the high opportunity cost. The experience can cause long term psychological issues.
This is sad and a bit disturbing because it suggests that average people seem to dislike thinking. I'm quite the opposite, and 15 minutes of pure thinking for me would pass by quite easily - I feel like I can't get enough time to think more carefully about all the ideas that I have for the things I do, or want to. Then again, I'm introverted and definitely not representative of the average population.
(Of course, I'm assuming here that their test subjects weren't secretly masochists who enjoyed shocking themselves, and ignoring some of the other biases that might be present - e.g. if their participants were self-selected, most of them might be those who are bored with nothing else to do.)
Don't know why you're being downvoted, this actually came to my mind as well - I'm a big fan of HDD (thanks Rich!). I don't think this study has much bearing on it though; the study focused on "the average person", who arguably does not share the same propensity for deep thought as a developer who'd be attracted to HDD.
I read somewhere that they used device with 9V battery. We used to lick both 4.5V and 9V batteries as kids. I found 4.5V hit to be quite pleasant and I would repeat the "experiment" a lot. Licking 9V battery was less pleasant, but not really too uncomfortable. I did that multiple times too even through my room was full of toys.
Their device could generate less pleasant feelings, sure. But I am kind of skeptical of big conclusions people take out of this study.
I don't think you can conclude too much from it being a 9V battery. It depends how it is connected up. The shock from an implantable cardio defibrillator which comes from a small lithium battery hurts more than 240V through your fingers.
I went from licking 9V batteries to charging a 4700μF capacitor with a 9V battery and discharging that through two audio output transformers used "backwards" (so 8Ω primary/1kΩ secondary) using a momentary SPDT switch. Felt just a bit different, that did.
I find it quite pleasant to be alone with my thoughts. I've always liked taking long showers and walks for exactly this reason. Sometimes, when I'm working on an interesting problem, I can pass entire days mostly just thinking and pacing.
Exactly! Plenty of people like to think; not many people like to sit in a room with nothing interesting happening. Given the choice between sitting in a room with nothing to do but shock myself or stare at a wall, I'd probably play with the button. Given a choice between shocking myself and going for a walk in the woods, I'd absolutely choose to go walk in the woods every time.
I'm TERRIBLE at thinking when I'm sitting. I have to be moving or doing something, even if it's something mindless like walking.
I get the point that people may prefer external stimulation to internal thoughts. But I think the result of this study hinge on whether the electric shock was really all that unpleasant. For safety reasons, I'll assume the shock wasn't large enough to be harmful or create anything but a momentary sensation. People are curious, and it would seem a fairly safe environment. What's to stop them from simply experimenting with a new sensation. Roller coasters and scary movies should logically be avoided, but they aren't. The guy they mentioned who shocked himself 190 times clearly must have thought it was fun.
I've shocked myself badly a few times and to me at least, I'd much rather wallow in self pity for a while than do it again.
Probably the worst was one I didn't expect, I slipped when opening a plastic case and caught my fingers over a fully charged high capacity 350v capacitor. The initial hit makes every muscle in your body hurt, then a wave of panic when you realize you could have died from the moment of stupidity.
Putting your hand across phases on a 415V industrial supply will do that as well (which should never have happened but that is why we have training to show people how not to make other peoples fuckups) fortunately I was wearing heavy rubber boots and the contact was momentary.
Lesson of the day when your co-worker/trainee/friend says the supply is isolated...check anyway.
My "favorite" was deisolating a live phone wire with my teeth when I was a kid, and managing to complete the circuit via my tongue just as someone rang. It didn't actually hurt very much. But everything went white for a moment.
"""I get the point that people may prefer external stimulation to internal thoughts. But I think the result of this study hinge on whether the electric shock was really all that unpleasant."""
All of these is beside the point.
An electric shock, mild, even pleasant is a BS diversion.
People prefered BS diversion (could be even clicking a button that did nothing at all) that spending a few minutes with their thoughts.
That's the real story -- not how bad the electricity was etc.
Unless the 190 buzz guy was the norm, those people spent a lot of time not hitting themselves. Anyone who hit himself once did spent time thinking, then pressed button and then spent another time thinking.
The other thing is, I love spending time with thinking when I choose to and have something interesting to thing about. It does not mean that I will contemplate something cool at every random void moment or never get bored while waiting in queue.
I absolutely would prefer pain to boredom. I'm not afraid of being alone with my thoughts, but I am terrified of boredom.
With the shock, I can totally see myself locked in a room with the device and trying to see if I could condition myself to not react to the shock. As long as I had some sense of safety (they have a doctor and some paddles on hand) I would take days seeing how far I could push myself.
And to be clear, I hate pain. But I love to conquer that which would make me weak.
You should pick up a book on medidating, or maybe find some kind of mental hobby. For example designing programs in my head when i'm not at a computer, or reciting kanji shapes i'm learning along with their meanings and readings in my head, are productive uses of time that would otherwise be boring.
Typically I'm not without stimulus long enough to consciously work on development problems (when not at work), but when I do have that much time to myself it's glorious. +1 for quiet alone time.
the study hinges on whether the researchers who worked on it, designing it and completing many trials over time, writing it up and getting it published, on whether they thought of something that you just thought of? that the unpleasant shock had to be unpleasant?
Just because it's published is no reason not to question the validity of the study. I've been in science long enough to know that flawed work can into important journals.
The Globe article's title and the original title of the HN post focused on the electrical shocks, implying that people would prefer doing something very painful rather than think silently. I can't read the article itself, but the Science Editor's summary included this:
In fact, many of the people studied, particularly the men, chose to give themselves a mild electric shock rather than be deprived of external sensory stimuli.
Doesn't sound terribly unpleasant. That changes a lot in terms of the headline's conclusion, at least for me.
they are talking about people who would pay money to avoid the very same shocks. So, let's extend your thought, doesn't sound terribly unpleasant? nor does being alone with your thoughts sound terribly unpleasant. But they measured the two and discovered that being alone with your thoughts is MORE unpleasant.
your insight that various aspects of the experiment make a difference can be a valuable tool in order to go look deeper into the experiment, but you didn't do that. I'm saying apply a little of the rigor you are demanding to your own argument.
The real article is behind a paywall so all I have is the Globe article.There isn't much to dig into. Based on he Globe article, the researchers "asked the people how much they would pay to avoid the shock experience if they had $5 to spend." And "...of the 42 people who said they would pay to avoid the shock, two-thirds of men chose to shock themselves..." It didn't say anyone actually stood to lose any real money to avoid shocks. It also doesn't even say how much someone would pay ($5, $1, $0.1), just that they would give up some of (hypothetical) $5 they had. This combined with the fact the shocks were "mild shocks to the ankle" makes me wonder whether that was really unpleasant enough to make the point the Globe headline trumpeted.
This one elaborates a bit further, saying that the percentages of each sex that chose the shock were out of the group that had already had the shock and said they would pay not to have it again.
Still would be nice to get the original text instead of all these piecemeal, borderline blogspam articles, but it's behind a paywall at Science, here: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/345/6192/75
Isn't the main impulse behind pushing the button simple curiosity rather than boredom? I'd be sitting there thinking about what the shock would feel like until I gave into my own curiosity and pushed the button. However, I still definitely like spending time on my own with own thoughts.
> Isn't the main impulse behind pushing the button simple curiosity rather than boredom?
I thought this too at first, but it turns out they exposed everyone to the shock along with a bunch of other stimuli in preparation for this part of the experiment. Also one guy shocked himself 190 times.
This seems like a poor study to gauge peoples' desire/aversion to thinking. You put me in a room with nothing but a button I'll probably press it out of curiosity. Put me in a garden with a enjoyable drink and I'll happily contemplate whatever comes to mind until I want to get a refill.
The article says they exposed people to the shocks and other stimuli to get a response to the 5$ question. It doesn't say they took the people and gave them 15 minutes to play around with the thing. Curiosity is still very much in the game, especially when there's nothing else to do.
A much more meaningful way to do this experiment would've been to have people sit and receive regular shocks (not under their own control), and to sit with nothing else to do, provide an incentive for staying 15 minutes and see how quickly they give up.
And while i'm writing: The article also mentions they couldn't find people who enjoy the time alone, but didn't mention whether they asked people who habitually medidate.
Yes, but the mean number of times was less than 1.5, with maximum 4 if you exclude that outlier. The vast majority of cases are perfectly compatible with curiosity, a scenario the paper ignored completely, and which could have been at least partially addressed simply by asking participants why they pressed the button.
This is an OK study, sexed up in a very cynical and ignorant way.
Isn't it also a false dilemma? I'd be lost in my thoughts and will shock myself just for the kick of it too, maybe as a curiosity or maybe in a masochistic way.
The fundamental problem is that the study is substituting the author's interpretations of behaviors for a simple description of the behaviors. The authors tell the participants to think when they are in the empty room but there is no verification that thinking is the condition the participants avoid by pressing the button and equally, there's no proof that "pain" is the condition they sought by pressing the button.
That cheered me up. God only knows what was wrong with their study but when someone shocks themselves 200 times just to throw off your excel macros I think you should at least reconsider your bedside manner.
Reminds me of nothing more than a very early episode of the Simpsons
I'm curious how much of a shock it was subjectively. Small shocks could be mildly pleasurable due to the endorphin response, similar to the mechanism that makes spicy food pleasurable.
Many, many people willingly meditate ("alone with their thoughts") on their own will in order to focus and clear their mind, including me. And that's despite I do have traumatic events in my past that float up from time to time.
No thoughts of self-mutilation or electroshocking myself so far.
Either is this study flawed, or it was reported poorly (hey, what's new, right), but I'm so sick of shitty studies in popular media, I won't even try to figure out which one.
Think about the deeper implications of the experiment. Yes, people will shock themselves when there's nothing to do. However, that also means that when there's nothing to do, the majority of people will try to physically stimulate themselves because that's all there is TO do. To say that we're stupid because we would administer a painful shock to ourselves rather than sit in our own silence for 15 minutes is a very naiive way to approach the results. Come to a conclusion, dammit!
What if there was no novelty factor? Electric shocks aren't so common; I'd play with a machine that let's me have a new sensation. I might prefer it to time alone with thoughts because I believe I'll have the latter available any time I want.
Of course the journal article isn't open access. But hey, Google.
"To see whether the difficulty with “just thinking” is distinctive to college students, in study 9 we recruited community participants at a farmer’s market and a local church. The par- ticipants ranged in age from 18 to 77 (median age = 48.0 years). As in study 7, they completed the study online in their own homes, after receiving instructions to do so when they were alone and free of any external distractions. The results were similar to those found with college students. There was no evidence that enjoyment of the thinking period was related to participants’ age, education, income, or the frequency with which they used smart phones or social media (table S2)."
So apparently it's not related to the prevalence of distracting technology - according to them. I would question the second (S8) 'at home' studies which only used 15 people per experiment. This was to test whether allowing participants to distract themselves had any effect.
It's a very short paper, only a couple of pages, so I think needs a bit more digging to actually find out whether it's true or not. The whole thing seems very speculative.
It isn't surprising that we are most happy when we are able to forget ourselves.
Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi's book 'Flow - The Psychology of Optimal Experience' talks about optimal experiences. He has found that humans are generally happy in what is termed as a 'flow' experience. Activities in which we immerse ourselves fully, temporarly forgetting ourselves, like programming, are flow experiences.
A few relevant quotes from the book:
"So loss of self-consciousness does not involve a loss of self, and certainly not a loss of consciousness, but rather, only a loss of consciousness of the self. What slips below the threshold of awareness is the concept of self, the information we use to represent to ourselves who we are. And being able to forget temporarily who we are seems to be very enjoyable. When not preoccupied with our selves, we actually have a chance to expand the concept of who we are. Loss of self-consciousness can lead to self-transcendence, to a feeling that the boundaries of our being have been pushed forward."
"The similarities between Yoga and flow are extremely strong; in fact it makes sense to think of Yoga as a very thoroughly planned flow activity. Both try to achieve a joyous, self-forgetful involvement through concentration, which in turn is made possible by a discipline of the body."
"When a family has a common purpose and open channels of communication, when it provides gradually expanding opportunities for action in a setting of trust, then life in it becomes an enjoyable flow activity. Its members will spontaneously focus their attention on the group relationship, and to a certain extent forget their individual selves, their divergent goals, for the sake of experiencing the joy of belonging to a more complex system that joins separate consciousnesses in a unified goal."
I bet this is part of the reason most people are not independent & creative thinkers. And I would bet that it also has something to do with why creative people often end up with mental health issues down the road. It's definitely easier and more fun (and maybe even healthier) to whip out your smartphone and Google something you're wondering about, play a quick game, read what someone else thinks, etc. in otherwise idle moments, but doing so precludes having a bunch of potentially valuable thoughts.
"... people basically found being alone with themselves not very fun and kind of boring."
"It seems that the average person doesn’t seem to be capable of generating a sufficiently interesting train of thought to prevent them from being miserable with themselves."
While I'm totally surprised people would shock themselves after only 15 minutes, now I'm more interested in the people who did not shock themselves. What are their ages and occupations? What could explain their ability to enjoy a bit of isolation?
The title this was submitted with is pretty awful. There is a huge difference between "by themselves" and "time alone with thoughts". I was expecting a completely different argument.
Well, how long have any of us tried to simply be alone with our thoughts? 15 mins is a long time - no music, books etc, quiet room. I think I would enjoy it, but I will happily admit that I might be wishing I had a book by 10th minute.
And personally I think meditating is doing something.
81 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 150 ms ] thread(Of course, I'm assuming here that their test subjects weren't secretly masochists who enjoyed shocking themselves, and ignoring some of the other biases that might be present - e.g. if their participants were self-selected, most of them might be those who are bored with nothing else to do.)
Perhaps because someone who downvotes without replying is the sort of person who would rather click than think.
Ironically.
Their device could generate less pleasant feelings, sure. But I am kind of skeptical of big conclusions people take out of this study.
I'm TERRIBLE at thinking when I'm sitting. I have to be moving or doing something, even if it's something mindless like walking.
Probably the worst was one I didn't expect, I slipped when opening a plastic case and caught my fingers over a fully charged high capacity 350v capacitor. The initial hit makes every muscle in your body hurt, then a wave of panic when you realize you could have died from the moment of stupidity.
Lesson of the day when your co-worker/trainee/friend says the supply is isolated...check anyway.
All of these is beside the point.
An electric shock, mild, even pleasant is a BS diversion.
People prefered BS diversion (could be even clicking a button that did nothing at all) that spending a few minutes with their thoughts.
That's the real story -- not how bad the electricity was etc.
The other thing is, I love spending time with thinking when I choose to and have something interesting to thing about. It does not mean that I will contemplate something cool at every random void moment or never get bored while waiting in queue.
http://partiallyclips.com/2005/09/08/hell/
Time alone with your thoughts doesn't have to be a good thing.
Because well, they were placed in a room where they could shock themselves. Completely out of the ordinary does not describe the setup well enough.
With the shock, I can totally see myself locked in a room with the device and trying to see if I could condition myself to not react to the shock. As long as I had some sense of safety (they have a doctor and some paddles on hand) I would take days seeing how far I could push myself.
And to be clear, I hate pain. But I love to conquer that which would make me weak.
REALLY? you really think they missed that?
The Globe article's title and the original title of the HN post focused on the electrical shocks, implying that people would prefer doing something very painful rather than think silently. I can't read the article itself, but the Science Editor's summary included this:
In fact, many of the people studied, particularly the men, chose to give themselves a mild electric shock rather than be deprived of external sensory stimuli.
Doesn't sound terribly unpleasant. That changes a lot in terms of the headline's conclusion, at least for me.
your insight that various aspects of the experiment make a difference can be a valuable tool in order to go look deeper into the experiment, but you didn't do that. I'm saying apply a little of the rigor you are demanding to your own argument.
This one elaborates a bit further, saying that the percentages of each sex that chose the shock were out of the group that had already had the shock and said they would pay not to have it again.
Still would be nice to get the original text instead of all these piecemeal, borderline blogspam articles, but it's behind a paywall at Science, here: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/345/6192/75
I thought this too at first, but it turns out they exposed everyone to the shock along with a bunch of other stimuli in preparation for this part of the experiment. Also one guy shocked himself 190 times.
It says they shocked the participants before the study started so the curiosity factor was not present.
A much more meaningful way to do this experiment would've been to have people sit and receive regular shocks (not under their own control), and to sit with nothing else to do, provide an incentive for staying 15 minutes and see how quickly they give up.
And while i'm writing: The article also mentions they couldn't find people who enjoy the time alone, but didn't mention whether they asked people who habitually medidate.
This is an OK study, sexed up in a very cynical and ignorant way.
That cheered me up. God only knows what was wrong with their study but when someone shocks themselves 200 times just to throw off your excel macros I think you should at least reconsider your bedside manner.
Reminds me of nothing more than a very early episode of the Simpsons
No thoughts of self-mutilation or electroshocking myself so far.
Either is this study flawed, or it was reported poorly (hey, what's new, right), but I'm so sick of shitty studies in popular media, I won't even try to figure out which one.
New study finds researchers trolled by subjects.
"To see whether the difficulty with “just thinking” is distinctive to college students, in study 9 we recruited community participants at a farmer’s market and a local church. The par- ticipants ranged in age from 18 to 77 (median age = 48.0 years). As in study 7, they completed the study online in their own homes, after receiving instructions to do so when they were alone and free of any external distractions. The results were similar to those found with college students. There was no evidence that enjoyment of the thinking period was related to participants’ age, education, income, or the frequency with which they used smart phones or social media (table S2)."
So apparently it's not related to the prevalence of distracting technology - according to them. I would question the second (S8) 'at home' studies which only used 15 people per experiment. This was to test whether allowing participants to distract themselves had any effect.
It's a very short paper, only a couple of pages, so I think needs a bit more digging to actually find out whether it's true or not. The whole thing seems very speculative.
Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi's book 'Flow - The Psychology of Optimal Experience' talks about optimal experiences. He has found that humans are generally happy in what is termed as a 'flow' experience. Activities in which we immerse ourselves fully, temporarly forgetting ourselves, like programming, are flow experiences.
A few relevant quotes from the book:
"So loss of self-consciousness does not involve a loss of self, and certainly not a loss of consciousness, but rather, only a loss of consciousness of the self. What slips below the threshold of awareness is the concept of self, the information we use to represent to ourselves who we are. And being able to forget temporarily who we are seems to be very enjoyable. When not preoccupied with our selves, we actually have a chance to expand the concept of who we are. Loss of self-consciousness can lead to self-transcendence, to a feeling that the boundaries of our being have been pushed forward."
"The similarities between Yoga and flow are extremely strong; in fact it makes sense to think of Yoga as a very thoroughly planned flow activity. Both try to achieve a joyous, self-forgetful involvement through concentration, which in turn is made possible by a discipline of the body."
"When a family has a common purpose and open channels of communication, when it provides gradually expanding opportunities for action in a setting of trust, then life in it becomes an enjoyable flow activity. Its members will spontaneously focus their attention on the group relationship, and to a certain extent forget their individual selves, their divergent goals, for the sake of experiencing the joy of belonging to a more complex system that joins separate consciousnesses in a unified goal."
Terrifyingly accurate.
"... people basically found being alone with themselves not very fun and kind of boring."
"It seems that the average person doesn’t seem to be capable of generating a sufficiently interesting train of thought to prevent them from being miserable with themselves."
And personally I think meditating is doing something.