Study: People Would Rather Be Shocked Than Be Alone With Their Thoughts 333
sciencehabit writes "How much do we hate being alone with our own thoughts? Enough to give ourselves an electric shock. In a new study, researchers recruited hundreds of people and made them sit in an empty room and just think for about 15 minutes. About half of the volunteers hated the experience. In a separate experiment, 67% of men and 25% of women chose to push a button and shock themselves rather than just sit there quietly and think. One of the study authors suggests that the results may be due to boredom and the trouble that we have controlling our thoughts. "I think [our] mind is built to engage in the world," he says. "So when we don't give it anything to focus on, it's kind of hard to know what to do."
How fitting (Score:5, Insightful)
"The two foes of human happiness are pain and boredom"
Arthur Schopenhauer
Re:How fitting (Score:5, Insightful)
Every time I read these types of studies I am baffled. I could sit in an empty room for days without issue. Just cause you're alone doesn't mean you're without stimuli - I actually enjoy sitting pondering problems and get annoyed when someone comes and distracts me from it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I can pace and think for hours, but I can't do that while sitting down. I think it's because my favorite activity in the world (apart from sex) is to go into the woods for hours on end, alone. Often take a canteen of water and a knife and just wander in the woods off the beaten path and think.
Last time I found a miniature junkyard, can't even see it from satellite pictures thanks to the dense canopy. Rusted cars, construction equipment and debris, random vegetation, complete quiet.
Re:Bears? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:How fitting (Score:5, Insightful)
It is the classic normal/default/otherness problem, in the same basic category as when you draw a simple stick figure people think it is male unless you add something gender marking, male unless otherwise specified. In this case, extrovert unless otherwise specified.
Re:How fitting (Score:4, Insightful)
Either some attribute is the typical state for a person, so our brains will assume it's true unless given sufficient reason to believe otherwise, or there's another likely explanation for the behavior. In the case of the stick figure, assuming that it's drawn as plainly as possible, it better matches the mind's pattern for men due to a lack of hair and a lack of breasts. If we lived in a culture where women had flat chests and shaved their heads and men wore their hair long, most people would probably default to calling the stick figure a woman.
Our brains are fairly good at recognizing patterns and will often try to find them in places where none exist. Even if the number of introverts and extroverts are the same, it could be simple confirmation bias as you're far more likely to engage with extroverts while introverts will keep more to themselves.
Re:How fitting (Score:5, Informative)
If the majority of people are extroverted, how would it not be considered normal or typical behavior?
Per a 1998 study, 50.7% percent of Americans are introverts. http://introvertzone.com/ratio... [introvertzone.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Sounds like they've correctly calibrated the definition of 'introvert'.
Re: (Score:3)
+1
Clearly human behavior lies along a continuum, some people are more extroverted and some are more introverted. So it seems quite expected that if you're drawing a line you should locate it so that half of the people are on each side.
Re:How fitting (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think it's a true statement that introverts recede into the mists unless lasso'd with the titanium chains of social discourse. We are human beings and are motivated by the usual impulses, just not the desire to necessarily be engaged with other people all the time or to do our critical thinking as part of a hive mind. Introverts do a) need money to finance our seclusion (in my personal experience, a proper hermitage in the modern world costs an incredible amount of money, I am still saving up), b) the desire to find a mate and c) the need to acquire goods to live and be happy.
In the quest for these it is frequently put upon the innocent introvert to venture forth into the unholy wilderness of academia, shopping malls or simply city streets. Presented with the option to get a quick $50 for a survey or perhaps simply being intrigued by scientific inquiry, an introvert may willingly participate. Introversion is not the same as social anxiety, we are often known to voluntarily be in the presence of other human beings. It's simply that we prefer not to be, and perform best when left to ourselves.
Re:How fitting (Score:4, Interesting)
It's okay to be an extrovert, but if you can't think alone for 15 minutes, that makes you ADHD (Or ADD)-prone.
My take: the inability to just sit tight and think for 15 minutes is a result of how society and way of living are shaped nowadays. Instant gratification, stimuli overload, everything is faster than the speed of thought (literally).
People get used to that way of doing things and that way of living, and when you get them out of their perceived "natural" environment, they freak out. Quite normal, all things considering, might I say.
Re:How fitting (Score:5, Funny)
tl;dr
Re:How fitting (Score:5, Informative)
I'm Romanian, you inconsiderate clod.
How well do you speak (or write, for that matter) my language?
Anyway, thanks for correcting me, I appreciate it. What I don't appreciate is the unnecessary smug coating you simply HAD to pour in.
Re:How fitting (Score:5, Insightful)
Before MTV, cellphones and in general the sensory overload of contemporary urban life, extroverts could stay with themselves for 15 minutes too.
Introverts are to be considered uncool, not because they are more or less abnormal (the media hype, and therefore sanction, people with degenerate, inane, self-harming behavior: get a teenager's top 20 chart and listen to the lyrics).
They are uncool because they think too much for themselves. The system improperly known as society want people who respond to emotions, not thinkers.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:How fitting (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly. It's not about 'not wanting to be alone with your thoughts', but about curiosity and obedience.
I thoroughly enjoy my thinking sessions, but:
1. I do so when I feel like it, instead of when being told to.
2. If there's a button in the room, I'm damn well going to press it. There's an obligatory xkcd somewhere below this comment that says it all.
Re:How fitting (Score:5, Insightful)
Oblig. http://xkcd.com/242/ [xkcd.com] :)
Re:How fitting (Score:5, Interesting)
Every time I read these types of studies I am baffled. I could sit in an empty room for days without issue. Just cause you're alone doesn't mean you're without stimuli - I actually enjoy sitting pondering problems and get annoyed when someone comes and distracts me from it.
A million times THIS!
One of the things I ponder is that these people who cannot be alone with themselves place that need to never be alone as some sort of proper and good state, and that anyone who can function by themselves is the outlier, the weirdo, the one "you have to look out for." How many times to we see the story about some crackpot that shoots up a school or McDonalds, and the writer feels compelled to mention that they were a "loner". Validation for people who think that their inability to be alone protects them from that fate. Sorry, but the crackpot was mentally ill, that's why they shot the place up, not because they enjoyed solitude.
When in fact, if a person cannot be alone with their thoughts, perhaps they have the mental issue. I rather enjoy my own company,
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
One of the things I ponder is that these people who cannot be alone with themselves place that need to never be alone as some sort of proper and good state, and that anyone who can function by themselves is the outlier, the weirdo, the one "you have to look out for." How many times to we see the story about some crackpot that shoots up a school or McDonalds, and the writer feels compelled to mention that they were a "loner".
The reason is that the media (especially TV) relies on people who can't think for themselves. They need people to be "social" in order to have the most impact.
Re:How fitting (Score:5, Interesting)
I believe that a lot of people need external stimuli to avoid boredom.
In fact, my wife is like this and doesn't know how to busy herself.
Meanwhile, I can sit down and be busy for hours without any support.
It's probably related to the fact that I had to play alone when I was baby.
Nowadays, I see parents always trying to stimulate their babies, who then become attention whores.
They are building future extroverts.
Re: (Score:3)
some crackpot that shoots up a school or McDonalds, and the writer feels compelled to mention that they were a "loner".
These people are pretty bad at being loners. Many of them are seeking attention. The thought that, 'Now the world will notice me!'. True loners can occupy themselves with something not dependant on societies feedback.
Re:How fitting (Score:5, Insightful)
So could I. But if I was sat in an empty room with a button that gave me a shock, I'd definitely press it - not because I couldn't handle the boredom, but just to see what it's like. I'm not sure this study really measures what it intends to.
Re:How fitting (Score:4, Funny)
So we need to install this in prisons' solitary confinement. Then, after the novelty wears off, we'll finally know.
Re:How fitting (Score:5, Informative)
The study said that the subjects had previous experience with the button, and had said that they'd pay to avoid getting shocked again. It's not like the researchers were too stupid to account for the novelty factor (in this case).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:How fitting (Score:4, Interesting)
The curious press a button that shocks them at least once; The masochistic press the button many more times, over and over, with rising passion and obsession until with a wild cry of raw lust their body shudders with intense release and they hear the soft singing of angels.
Al Schopenhauer
Sad, sad times... (Score:5, Interesting)
At first I assumed that the people were stuck n a room for hours upon hours with nothing to do. Then I read...
"The period of time that Wilson and his colleagues asked participants to be alone with their thoughts ranged from six to 15 minutes. Many of the first studies involved college student participants, most of whom reported that this "thinking period" wasn't very enjoyable and that it was hard to concentrate. So Wilson conducted another study with participants from a broad selection of backgrounds, ranging in age from 18 to 77, and found essentially the same results.
Is it just me or is it a very poor reflection on today's society if people can not just sit and think for 15 minutes?
For the record I would have ZERO problem doing this at all... in fact I could think for hours... although having a pencil and paper to keep track of ideas and plans would be helpful.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Sad, sad times... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Here's what I think is the confounding factor (there always is one): I'd be wondering, "Does that button REALLY deliver a shock, or is it some kind of sham social psychology experiment prop? I bet it's a prop. If it isn't, it won't deliver THAT bad a shock. If it is, I wonder what the researchers will do when I push it?"
The confounding factor is curiosity. They'd have to do *two* sessions with the overly curious.
Re: (Score:2)
Many of the first studies involved college student participants, most of whom reported that this "thinking period" wasn't very enjoyable and that it was hard to concentrate.
Don't forget that the young'uns have been indoctrinated at an early age that being by yourself is wrong. Given that the school system is a lot of people around other people, it's no surprise that people who badly need interaction with as many others as possible would be in charge.
So here you have a lot of young people sitting in a room, alone, and with - gasp - no smartphone. This goes against everything they have been taught is right and good. I have two thoughts on the matter
1. I'm surprised they got
Re: (Score:2)
For the record I would have ZERO problem doing this at all... in fact I could think for hours...
I bet you cannot do this on a deadline set by others in an environment you're not familiar with. You're just going to sit and wait for the researchers to come back in and announce that your "thinking" period is over. This experiment obviously fails to create the conditions that are needed to be properly alone with your thoughts.
I would absolutely not be able to concentrate in this setting even though I have no trouble at all to be alone with my thoughts for extended periods.
Re: (Score:2)
I like to sit down with a cup of coffee for about 15 minutes in the morning and kind of mentally prepare and plan my day. It's been really nice outside {65-70F} each morning this week so I have been taking my coffee time on the patio. I've also been fishing a couple times this week, you can sit 30 minutes uninterrupted doing that also.
I've been taking my son fishing trying to spend some father son time he's 14 and he either wants to be on the move, jigging up and down the bank, or he plays on his cellphone.
Mindless? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps just Americans? I can't find it at the moment, but there was an old study that showed a certain result. It was assumed the whole world was like this result. But, as it turns out, it was just the US, and most of the rest of the world reacted quite differently. The point is, we don't always make good test subjects, 'cause we are actually abnormal compared to the rest of the world.
I would like to see this test done in a society with a history of Buddhism in their culture and see how the test goes.
We Aren't the World: Why Americans Make Bad Study (Score:4, Interesting)
"This is just fascinating: Joe Henrich and his colleagues are shaking the foundations of psychology and economics, and explain why social science studies of Westerners — and Americans in particular — don't really tell us about the human condition [psmag.com]: 'Given the data, they concluded that social scientists could not possibly have picked a worse population from which to draw broad generalizations. Researchers had been doing the equivalent of studying penguins while believing that they were learning insights applicable to all birds.'"
The Power of Now (Score:4, Interesting)
Carl Jung tells in one of his books of a conversation he had with a Native American chief who pointed out to him that in his perception most white people have tense faces, staring eyes, and a cruel demeanor. He said: "They are always seeking something. What are they seeking? The whites always want something. They are always uneasy and restless. We don't know what they want. We think they are mad." ...
The Buddha taught that the root of suffering is to be found in our constant wanting and craving.
The Power of Now, p. 62 - 63.
How is this different from sensory deprivation? (Score:3, Interesting)
Sensory deprivation experiments, partial or full, have been going on for decades. How is this 'news' to the scientific community?
Re:How is this different from sensory deprivation? (Score:4, Interesting)
Sensory deprivation experiments, partial or full, have been going on for decades. How is this 'news' to the scientific community?
Maybe because this isn't really about classic "sensory deprivation." In one phase of the experiment, they even let people sit in their own homes and just asked them to just think quietly for 6 to 15 minutes. I'd hardly call that "sensory deprivation." Most people apparently HATED the experience (even more than they hated sitting quietly in a lab setting).
I'm familiar with sensory deprivation studies, but personally I find it shocking (pardon the pun) that people are willing to self-administer painful shocks just to avoid being alone with their thoughts for 15 minutes. Don't you? Clearly the researchers did, given what they said in TFA. They even questioned why they should bother with the shock test, because they thought NO ONE would shock themselves. And yet nearly half did.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe people are just overworked and don't want to waste time sitting around doing nothing.
Perhaps you aren't getting it? Perhaps that sentence holds the very key to your problem? My days are very full, and even if I appear to be sitting around doing nothing, I am doing something.
Thinking. Planning. Calculating. All of which are performed much better when I am alone.
Anyhow, if you are overworked, a little time to yourself might help a bit. Give you time to think about why you are overworked.
Re: (Score:2)
your language is revealing.
"sit and do nothing"
Re: (Score:3)
I'm familiar with sensory deprivation studies, but personally I find it shocking (pardon the pun) that people are willing to self-administer painful shocks just to avoid being alone with their thoughts for 15 minutes. Don't you?
I've not read the article, but the thought that immediately occurred to me was whether there was a curiosity element involved. i.e. did people really shock themselves because they were bored, or did they shock themselves out of curiosity to see if it really did hurt as much as they were told it would?
Electric shocks aren't something that most people have experienced - if you were asked to cut yourself then you'd probably guess how much it'd hurt since most people have had cuts before, but if you're told "t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Reduced stimulus is EXACTLY classic sensory deprivation.
Maybe you're confusing it with total sensory deprivation.
Remove external stimuli with a static environment, and leave a single available stimulus, guess what's going to happen...
Re: (Score:2)
It might be interesting, not to mention somewhat obvious, to quantify how much things have changed in the last decade or two given the trend towards never being more than an arms length away from entertainment.
Buddhist meditation... (Score:5, Interesting)
I just read this study as an example of how people are completely disconnected from their own inner life and addicted to constant stimulation. Seriously, an electric shock instead of enjoying a little bit of peace and quiet and a chance to gather yourself? What kind of total lack of self-control is that?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Buddhist meditation... (Score:5, Informative)
The concept of the "mind monkey" has been around for centuries in Buddhism. i.e. the mind sort of naturally jumps around like a monkey. When I took a yoga class that included meditation, the instructor said that you need to give your mind something to do. That's why you focus on your breathing. He said to let your thoughts come and go but treat them as if you were an outside observer and return your focus to your breath.
The constant flow of information we have today absolutely must affect out psychology. Maybe our minds jump around even more? I think the goal of meditation remains the same.
Re: (Score:2)
Today, I personally am so addicted to the constant stimulation of high-speed internet or television, the ability to constantly jump from one thing to another, that just sitting through a long film or reading dense modernist literature requires the same amount of self-control.
And how! On more than a few occasions, I've found myself with my amateur radio on, doing digital modes, while watching TV, reading a book, listening to music on youtube, and digging up some technical info on the other screen.
That's when I know I need to get out and de-stimulate.
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly, the first thing I thought of was people who cut themselves.
One assumes that the inner dialog/feelings are strong enough (and negative enough) that this is seen as an "anything but that".
The few peo
I like thinking (Score:3)
and I like my thoughts. I just feel that I should point that out, to stop the tide of generalization.
Intro/extrovert (Score:2)
I wonder how closely these numbers corresponded to people being introvert / extroverts, I'd expect a big correlation.
Re: (Score:2)
Introverts are usually people who take their "energy/entertainment/etc" from within themselves (thinkers, inventors, creative types, etc) while extroverts are usually people who take their "energy/entertainment/etc" from the outside world (festivals, concerts, parties, being in a group doing something, etc).
I think the correlation between "sit there quietly" (with their own thoughts) and "shock themselves out of boredom" (needs external stimuli) fits the whole introvert/extrovert concept.
Two words (Score:2)
Facebook generation.
I LOVE begin alone with my thoughts (Score:2)
Patience (Score:2)
It would be interesting to see results of this over generations. My suspicion is that we're much more impatient now than we used to be say 30-50 years ago. I think there's a big difference between people who grew up w/o 24/7 entertainment (I call them the "I'm bored" generation), and someone who grew up like me...only child, spent summers at a cottage w/o access to TV, radio, etc, swam competitively several years...six days a week with my head in the water for several hrs. a day. There's certainly downsi
Long history of this. (Score:2)
"What's the reason for closing down my place?"
"I'm shocked, shocked to find there's gambling going on here."
"Your winnings, sir."
Wow... Definitely not hunters (Score:4, Interesting)
I know this rather well due to hunting deer in Wisconsin. Yes, you sit there for a little over a week with very limited interaction. You can't make noise, you can't move too much. It's you and nature. Yes it is a type of meditation when you are not seeing any deer. For me this is what happens:
First half a day: I have tons of things to think about. Little niggling problems that I haven't had the time to sit and think about. Typically things like how can I best fix this at the house, what would the optimal method of doing this in this program be.
Second half of the day: Things quiet down a bit start thinking about the Wife, kids, finances... Figuring out what to do when this one or that one does something, how to best react...etc.
Day 2 first half: Hey look... nature... that tree is kinda neat... I wonder why it grew that way...
Day2 second half: Ok, ummmm what now.... kinda bored... what time is it... oh, two minutes since I last checked.
Day 3+: Find things to be interested in... a single squirrel or bird can be hours of entertainment and the highlight of your day.
6-15 minutes!?!? Man, I haven't even finished thinking about that hot girl I saw on the way in! lol
Generalising from a culturally skewed sample (Score:2)
I wonder, was that sample of people take from a single city/state/country whatever?
Generalising this to a study of, "People" might be more than a little misleading...
! news for nerds (Score:2, Insightful)
Hahaha! Funny article is funny. A large percentage of the readership of this site have no problem just sitting still and thinking. For quite a few of them, it's their job. Norms, or people not in STEM, think differently and choose not to actively use their brains.
Who woulda thunk? The few non-STEM people that read the article will think it's sort of weird. The majority of people that it's about won't even see it. Nerds innately know this crap anyway, but are too busy going about their business to car
Re: (Score:2)
Norms and nerds? Normal people often like to think about things and can spend a lot of time doing that.
sample size too smal. (Score:2)
also, what is a "mild" shock? given the option of a small shock to leave, it's no big deal, just a momentary tingle. crank it up to 240V and see how many people press the button for a full two seconds to leave early.
This study may not apply for burocrats.. (Score:2)
Sensory deprevation tanks (Score:2)
On the other hand, there are people happily paying to go into a sensory deprevation tank.
It's all about context. If you choose the sensory deprevation, it's relaxation, if you're put into the same situation, it's boredom.
Yes, but only two words are needed ... (Score:2)
I can be alone (Score:3)
AND be shocked by my own thoughts. /trick
Curiosity shocked the cat (Score:2, Interesting)
FAILED experiment. Use of "rather" inapplicable. (Score:3)
*IF AND ONLY IF* they had agreed to sit for 15 minutes but were permitted to leave right away after shocking themselves -- and some did so, could the researchers claim that some people would rather endure a shock than be alone with their thoughts.
As the experiment was conducted (correct me if I'm wrong!) they agreed to sit out the period alone and all of them did so. They were not asked to refrain from pressing the button..
So the only difference from the basic experiment was the presence of the button which offered entertainment and also enlightenment -- in the form of providing the subject an opportunity to test and prove they could endure the shock, a new and unfamiliar experience.
In this version the experimenters FAILED to provide an environment with NO stimulation. They merely reduced available entertainment options to one, the button.
What the experiment did prove is that given time alone to think and reflect -- people will reevaluate their own aversion to an "unpleasant" sensation and decide to take advantage of an opportunity to better themselves by proving (to themselves) they can endure it.
This is SO DIFFERENT from the conclusion that people are little scardie-rabbits who cannot endure being alone with themselves, these researchers should be ashamed of themselves for irresponsibly portraying this, or permitting this to be portrayed in the news without rebuttal. They should apologize and re-do the experiment.
Hrrrmph. These subjects were cheated. These times are full of shoddy research and tabloid sound-bite conclusions like this.
Re: (Score:3)
Whoa, I am not saying you are right or wrong, but why are you so angry about this?
Thanks kindly for asking.
Because some one needs to stand up for the whole damned human race. I'm no stellar specimen -- but someone needs to do it. Misanthropy is becoming "cool", in the guise of clumsily vague self-effacing applied psychoanalysis, in environmental activism, in trendy herd angst. Now that we have developed this comfortable security blanket of modern technology, some of us feel no need to show respect for our own kind on any scale whatsoever.
In the case of the study, this simple 'respect'
Prison (Score:3)
When I read this study, I had considered posting something about how this relates to prison, eg "it would be more humane to occasionally shock prisoners than just keep them in a cage". I've long thought that prison was cruel and unusual punishment, albeit not because of how they were treated but because of how it removes them from society, ironically* replacing their social support network of family and friends with a society composed of criminals and being the single biggest predictor that they will go to jail in the future. Yet I get the feeling that occasionally giving prisoners a mild electric shock would be considered cruel and unusual punishment, even if it were in lieu of some jailtime, yet hardly anyone considers that jail itself is cruel and unusual (and mostly good for turning its victims into career criminals).
*ironically for the taxpayers and victims, good business sense for the for-profit jail managers. Gotta increase shareholder value!
Re: (Score:3)
What kind of idiots did they pick for their study?
Sadomasochists?
Re: (Score:2)
probably... you'd be shocked if you know what my thoughts were when I was alone.
Or maybe not, yours probably revolve around dodgy sex too :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Or maybe not, yours probably revolve around dodgy sex too :-)
That depends - are you talking style or species?
Re:Just 15 minutes? (Score:4, Funny)
Erotic is using a feather. Perverted is using the whole chicken.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd be interested to know the correlation between each candidate experience and whether they are introvert or extrovert on the Myers-Briggs scale.
Re: Just 15 minutes? (Score:5, Interesting)
In related news,scientists have discovered a correlation between "thinks that signing up for experiments is fun" and "extrovert".
Re:Just 15 minutes? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
A university press release, so my money is on the participants being any student wandering round campus who saw the sign offering $5 for doing experiments in the Psychology Dept. Not biased at all.
Press release says the research is coming out in Science today so can check later.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually the PR does say they started with college students and then found some older people to play with, so ignore me.
Re:Just 15 minutes? (Score:4, Insightful)
I was told once by someone doing their Masters in Psychology that the vast majority of research starts on university students, exactly as you initially described, and then moves onto a broader pool of people to eliminate that as a variable.
But undergraduate university students are probably the most studied group on the planet from a psychology perspective, precisely because for a little extra credit, or a small amount of cash, they're a readily available pool of subjects.
Which is odd, because you'd think by now someone would understand them. ;-)
Re: (Score:3)
What kind of idiots did they pick for their study?
Most people don't get shocked very often. Sit in a room, think to yourself, "I wonder what that's like". Try it once, realize it sucks, and leave it alone would be the behavior I'd expect from most people.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
One participant administered 190 shocks to himself.
Hahaha holy hell, imagine how batshit-crazy that guy is! If that was in a 15-minute period, those shocks were less than 5 seconds apart on average!
"GAHH, THE WAITING! *ZAP* MAKE IT STOP! *ZAP* I CAN'T TAKE IT! *ZAP*"
I probably hate waiting more than anyone else alive today, and I figure I would press that button somewhere between zero and 2 times, depending on how curious I feel about the operation of the button and how much being zapped hurts.
Re: (Score:2)
I think that's precisely what I'd be do as well. I wouldn't be able to resist experimenting with the only electrical device in the room. At least once anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
the subtext is you are bored by your own thoughts