Close
today i learned (til)

The Art of Boredom

December 5, 2025

Introduction

Recently, I found myself unable to do nothing, even for a few minutes. It’s like my body itches to be occupied. I think it feels uncomfortable to do nothing, which feels weird to admit. We live in a digital age where we have access to all kinds of information at our fingertips in a matter of seconds, probably more now than ever before. Things feel fast-paced, and we’re already moving on to the next big thing. After some introspection, I thought that it’s been a while since I’ve intentionally felt bored—whenever I’m bored, it’s so easy to find something for me to do. I ran into this video on YouTube, and it got me thinking, “Maybe I really should be bored sometimes!” I ended up doing my Final Speech for my public-speaking class on boredom. It’s time to be bored!

Benefits of Boredom

Boredom comes with several benefits! Here, I’ll discuss some of my favorite reasons to be bored.

Boredom often signals when a situation isn’t working for us. Think of it like a redirection. Our urge to fight boredom can lead to positive change (An et al., 2023b). An example is when we’re doing something boring to us, say, sitting in a meeting that we don’t want to be in. As our mind wanders, we start thinking of better things we could be doing instead, or how we could better manage our time. As a result, another benefit of boredom is increased creativity (Mann & Cadman, 2014). This increase in creativity is often linked to daydreaming, which occurs when bored individuals cannot physically escape their situation, and their attention shifts from external to internal focus on their inner thoughts and feelings (Mann & Cadman, 2014). In Mann and Cadmen’s study, participants who completed a boring, mundane activity performed better on creative challenges than those who didn’t. Boredom facilitates exploration and opportunity because, using our desire for change, we explore alternate goals or information in our environment that we may have missed otherwise (Bench and Lench, 2013). 

Boredom also serves as an opportunity for our minds to rest and reset. When we’re not actively doing anything, our brains can disengage. This causes the default mode network in our brain to kick in, prompting reflection and introspection, which helps us understand ourselves and the world around us (UniSC Youth Mental Health Researcher,  M. K. and P. of Y. M. H. & N. 2025). Boredom also “rebalances the nervous system and reduces sensory input to help calm anxiety” (UniSC Youth Mental Health Researcher,  M. K. and P. of Y. M. H. & N. 2025). You might feel anxious or restless from boredom, so we reach for something for the quick dopamine hit, but it has been found that constant stimulation, especially for our nervous system, can result in increased anxiety; this is because, our sympathetic nervous system regulates our fight-or-flight response, so keeping it on overdrive results in more anxiety (UniSC Youth Mental Health Researcher,  M. K. and P. of Y. M. H. & N. 2025). Simply, we’re better off embracing the boredom from time to time to allow our sympathetic nervous system to reset and recuperate.  

Ways You Can Be Bored

Say on your next walk to somewhere, e.g., class, put your phone away and take in your surroundings. Try doing this without any music, too! After completing a task, take 30 seconds to a minute to do absolutely nothing. Seriously! Turn your brain off just for a minute (or however long you like). It might feel weird in the moment, but I promise, it will be so refreshing and worth it! Try doing everyday tasks without external stimuli, such as no music in the shower or screens when eating. Or, take the mindfulness route by taking a few minutes at the end of each day to think of three things you’re grateful for. These are my recommendations, so I strongly encourage you to find practices that work best for you. The point is to remove external stimulus and to be present in the moment.

Conclusion

Now that you’ve read about the benefits and the ways to be bored, I must clarify that it’s not bad to alleviate your boredom. It’s not bad to want to be productive or reach for something when you feel bored. Know that choosing to be bored sometimes is part of intentional, healthy living. You are worthy of a break. Choosing boredom is choosing you!

Check out Robert Greene’s and Veritasium’s video on boredom, too!

Sources

An, J., Payne, L. L., Lee, M., & Janke, M. C. (2023b). Understanding boredom and leisure in later life: A systematic review. Innovation in Aging, 7(8). https://doi.org/10.1093/geroni/igad109 

Bench, S., & Lench, H. (2013). On the function of boredom. Behavioral Sciences, 3(3), 459–472. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs3030459 

Mann, S., & Cadman, R. (2014). Does being bored make us more creative? Creativity Research Journal, 26(2), 165–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2014.901073 .

UniSC Youth Mental Health Researcher, M. K. and P. of Y. M. H. & N. (2025). Boredom gets a bad rap. But science says it can actually be good for us. UniSC. https://www.usc.edu.au/about/unisc-news/news-archive/2025/may/boredom-gets-a-bad-rap-but-science-says-it-can-actually-be-good-for-us

0Likes
About Author

You May Also Like

today i learned (til)
How Pymol Lets You Visualize DNA in 3D
today i learned (til)
The Microscope that can Think by Itself
Articles, Story Time, today i learned (til), vintage science
Don’t Fall for the Galileo Gambit
today i learned (til)
Mayday, Mayday, Are We Syncing?

Your journey starts here! Let’s talk!

ThemeRex © 2026. All rights reserved.
  Timothy Durham was convicted of rape when a test showed his DNA genotype matched the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Eye witnesses testified that Durham was in a different state at the time of the incident, but he wasn’t exonerated from his 3000 year sentence until follow up DNA analysis showed that the preliminary forensic analysis used in the trial was misinterpreted (Thomas et al.). DNA testing serves an invaluable part in our criminal justice system, but it comes with complications and bias that can lead to wrongful convictions and misinformed juries.  

Background:

Forensic genetics aims to identify the origin of a biological sample. It can be traced back to Karl Landsteiner who discovered human ABO blood groups. With blood groups, suspects could be eliminated based on their blood type. For example, if a suspect had type A blood and there was type B blood left at the scene by the perpetrator, the investigators could rule out the suspect. Unfortunately, the reverse didn’t work. If the suspect and perpetrator both had the same blood type, it can’t be concluded that the suspect was guilty. Blood identifiers evolved into 8 distinct categories which improved the ability to eliminate suspects, but could only conclude that (if the system matched) it might be the perpetrator or this person might be related to the perpetrator (Jobling and Gill). The field evolved in the 1980s with the discovery of Minisatellites, lines of repetitive DNA that don’t encode proteins. Minisatellite patterns in DNA create what we know today as the DNA fingerprint, and it has a much higher accuracy rate than previous methods (Augustyn et al.). Around the same time, a breakthrough for victims of sexual assault was discovered. In the case of assault, bodily fluids of both the victim and the assaulter can get mixed. A process called differential lysis was created which could selectively increase the concentration of sperm in a fluid sample thereby allowing for accurate DNA testing (Jobling and Gill). Forensics evolved to use single-locus probe testing after several years because of its ease of interpretation. It looked at specific minisatellites that had high variability between subjects. This was the first DNA-based method to be used in a criminal investigation. Two murder homicides from several years apart were connected using DNA evidence. The evidence was then used to exonerate an innocent man, and the guilty party was found when he tried to evade mandatory DNA testing for all men in the small town. His guilt was then reinforced when the DNA profiles matched, and he gave a confession (Jobling and Gill). Finding DNA at a crime scene doesn’t guarantee that you’ll find a murderer. There are issues with non-pure samples and limited samples that make DNA work difficult, and accreditation of facilities and new techniques and take time (Jobling and Gill).  

Subjectivity of DNA Interpretation:

In a 2009 publication, the National Academy of Science discusses the possibility for subjective influence in lab based forensics. The interpretation bias happens in complex cases where, for example, there could be a mixture of DNA. A study published in 2011 looked specifically at this issue. A gang rape happened in Georgia, and the mixture in DNA from the case was used to prosecute one suspect after another suspect took a plea bargain to testify against him. With DNA mixtures, there are three possible conclusions: suspect excluded, suspect cannot be excluded, and inconclusive. If the suspect is excluded, it means that there’s little to no possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. If the suspect cannot be excluded, it means that there’s a possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. In the trial, the DNA examiners who knew the context of the case concluded that the suspect being prosecuted could not be excluded. The 2011 study gave the DNA evidence from this case and the DNA profiles of the suspects to 17 forensic examiners. These examiners had no context of the case, and they all worked independently. Of the 17, only 1 came to the same conclusion (suspect cannot be excluded) as the examiners who knew the context of the case. Twelve of the 17 concluded that the suspect who was prosecuted and convicted had no relation to the DNA found in the sample. Not only does this show that subjectivity occurs due to the context of the case, but the 17 examiners came up with different findings based on their past experiences meaning that not all DNA analysis is objective. Some organizations like the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods say that quantitative statistical evidence should be presented with every categorical conclusion, but the US doesn’t require this (Dror and Hampikian).

False Positives:

There are two categories that cause wrongful identification in a DNA report: coincidental matches and false positives. Coincidental matches are DNA matches between two unrelated people. The probability of these matches is about 1 to 500,000 for white individuals and about 1 to 350,000 for black individuals. This small probability of coincidental matches makes people feel confident in DNA evidence. False positives, on the other hand, are matches between DNA and test DNA that result from issues in the forensics lab. There have been multiple cases of forensics labs accidentally switching victim and suspected rapist DNA which lead to convictions that were later overturned when the lab realized the error. There are also cases of misreading or misunderstanding a sample. In a case from 1993, a man was convicted of rape because someone interpreted a mixed sample of victim and perpetrator DNA as an individual sample. The conviction was again overturned. To prevent false convictions, retesting DNA is allowed, but it’s not an efficient solution. Many people are pushing for statistical information on the probability of false positives, so that the jurors can make accurate judgements based on DNA evidence (Thomas et al.).  

Conclusion:

DNA analysis is a useful tool for the criminal justice system, but subjectivity can be an issue in forensic testing. To combat wrongful convictions, there are organizations like The Innocence Project who use DNA testing to free the innocent, but reformed forensic testing standards should be put in place to prevent subjectivity and to ensure juries are correctly informed during trials. https://www.innocenceproject.org/    

Citation:

Augustyn , Adam, et al. “DNA Finerprinting.” Encyclopedia Britannica , 26 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/science/DNA-fingerprinting#ref153186. Dror, Itiel E., and Greg Hampikian. “Subjectivity and Bias in Forensic DNA Mixture Interpretation.” Science & Justice, vol. 51, no. 4, 2011, pp. 204–208., doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004. Jobling, Mark A., and Peter Gill. “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis.” Nature Reviews: Genetics, vol. 5, no. 10, Oct. 2004, pp. 739–751., doi:10.1038/nrg1455. Thompson, William C, et al. “How the Probability of a False Positive Affects the Value of DNA Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 1–8., doi:10.1520/jfs2001171.