Archimedes knew the golden power of boredom – so why can't we stop bringing our phones into the bathroom?
Then, one day, while sinking into a public bath, he noticed something: the water level rose as he slid in. The volume of water displaced was equal to the volume of his body. That was it! The key. He could weigh the crown and measure its volume by how much water it displaced.
Archimedes was so thrilled he reportedly leapt out of the bath and ran naked through the streets screaming, 'Eureka!' – the sudden flash when your brain wanders off and comes back holding the answer like a prize.
These moments don't usually happen when you're trying: they happen when you're not. When your brain is doing nothing, or at least pretending to. Walking. Driving. Showering. Zoning out in a university lecture. Or, say, a wife on the brink of divorce, nodding along while her husband's mouth foams at the sides as he monologues about cryptocurrency.
'I'm done,' she whispers. Eureka.
There's a scientific name for this wandering mind magic: the Default Mode Network (DMN). It's your brain's background mode, active when you're not. It switches on when you're daydreaming, reminiscing or imagining fake conversations you'll never have. When you're 'doing nothing,' the DMN is doing everything. It's where creativity, reflection, and unexpected insight come from.
And one of its greatest allies? Boredom.
Boredom is not the enemy. It's the invitation. A quiet stage your brain builds to see what might show up. But these days, we don't let it. Boredom tries to knock, and we shove a screen in its face. The moment a little stillness arrives, in line, on the train, on the toilet, we reach for stimulation. Our brains never get to drop into the DMN. No daydreams. No deep thought. Just dopamine on loop.
Even Reddit noticed the death of the idle mind.
r/Showerthoughts, the subreddit born in 2013, was a shrine to those aimless, brilliant, dumb observations that bubble up when you're bored and wet. At its peak, it was full of lines like:
'Your stomach thinks all potatoes are mashed.'
'Clapping is just hitting yourself because you like something.'
'Is Sand called Sand because it's in between the sea and land?'
It was silly, accidental genius. The internet's record of DMN activity.
But over time, it changed. The posts got shinier. Less 'I just thought of this while shampooing' and more 'I've been drafting this for three days in photoshop.' People in the comments began calling it out: these weren't shower thoughts anymore. They were scheduled thoughts. Viral bait. Branded content in bullet point form.
The shower thought had been domesticated. Trademarked. Monetised.
But maybe it's simpler than that. Maybe it's not that the thoughts changed, maybe it's us. The shower and the toilet used to be our last bastions of solitude. Now we bring our phones. People listen to full albums while exfoliating their scalp. Take business calls while walking the dog. Check emails mid-poo. There's no more empty space for thought to wander through. We've filled every corner.
And when there's no space, there's no spark.
No boredom, no Eureka. No quiet, no insight. Just us, endlessly occupied. Expecting our next big idea to load, buffering behind five open tabs.
So stop taking your phone to the toilet! Allow yourself that loo-time clarity!
Miski Omar is a speech pathologist, writer and director from Sydney
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
10 hours ago
- Telegraph
Whatever happened to the Hippocratic Oath?
As a young artist, my grandfather took the long journey by ship to Japan in 1908. The trip was his prize for winning a competition. While in Japan, he took up jiu-jitsu, the martial art. It was a condition of his training that he should sign an oath, in his own blood, that he would use the skills he learned for good and not for ill. He was gaining, after all, skills that would enable him to wound or kill. It was required that he would promise to deploy them virtuously and responsibly. It is a similar story with medical ethics. In ancient Greece, as doctors first began to learn methods that could mean the difference between life and death, a code of ethics was developed, known as the Hippocratic Oath. One part of it reads: 'I will use those dietary regimens which will benefit my patients according to my greatest ability and judgment, and I will do no harm or injustice to them'. It also includes a promise to maintain patient confidentiality and not to poison anybody, even when asked to. Many people assume that trainee doctors still swear the Hippocratic Oath but they don't. Medical schools have their own oaths or declarations. Bristol University, for example, asks its medical students to make a 'promise', the final part of which is: 'I will work for the good of all persons whose health may be placed in my care and for the public wellbeing'. The medical profession is, or at least used to be, a vocation. It was driven in large measure by a desire to do good in the world rather than for the pursuit of financial gain. In the early 20th century, before the creation of the NHS, general practitioners varied their fees according to the means of their patients. It is estimated that one fifth of the population was given treatment for free. Surely today, too, most young people who go into medicine also have at least some sense of vocation and a feeling that their training and skills give them a responsibility to others. But how do they now square these ideas with withdrawing their labour – as they have voted to do – between the 25th and 30th of July? This is not equivalent in any way to industrial action undertaken to delay the collection of bins, or force commuters into the inconvenience of riding a slow rail-replacement bus. Doctors know, better than anyone else, that vast numbers of people are waiting for operations. They know that the delay of an operation or therapy for, say, cancer, means that it is more likely that the patient will die. Cancer, by its nature, grows. If it spreads too far, it becomes impossible to save the patient. By withdrawing their services, doctors know that more patients will have more delays in the treatment of cancer, heart disease and other potentially deadly diseases. Is this what they went into medicine for? To threaten fatal consequences for patients for the sake of a better pay deal? If so, it is a sad transformation of the ideals that doctors once represented. On another issue, the attitude of the British Medical Association to puberty blockers suggests a big change in ideology. The very thorough Cass Review asserted that the evidence base and rationale for early puberty suppression was unclear, and that masculinising/feminising hormone therapy should not be provided for people below the age of 16. The leadership of the BMA is clearly capable of working when it comes to 'critiquing' the Cass Review. It appears to be ideologically opposed to its findings. The Hippocratic priority of doing 'no harm or injustice' appears to have been pushed aside yet again in the service of political expediency. As for assisted dying (in other words, helping to end someone's life) this is, on the face of it, directly contrary to the Hippocratic Oath. If this becomes law, doctors will – or at least one hopes they will – wrestle with their consciences to be as confident as possible that they are 'working for the good of all persons'. But the sad truth is, as a young doctor said to me yesterday, that the philanthropic ideal of medicine is not as strong as it once used to be. Those now entering the field of medicine should not be surprised to see their status in the public eye suitably diminished.
BBC News
14 hours ago
- BBC News
Halifax dad Ben Moorhouse completes Rhodes mountain climb
A Halifax man has completed two extraordinary physical challenges, amounting to 170 miles (274km), in memory of his baby Moorhouse walked non-stop from the Angel of the North in Gateshead to Manchester on 12 July, before boarding a plane a week later to the Greek island of Rhodes, where he climbed a mountain 50 times over the course of 13 42-year-old's daughter, Kallipateira, was stillborn at 37 weeks in Moorhouse, who has raised more than £13,000 from the challenge, said he wanted to open up conversations around baby loss to help other grieving parents. The money raised will go to Tommy's Rainbow Clinic in Manchester to fund research into preventing Moorhouse's partner Gaynor Thomson gave birth to their son Apollon there in Moorhouse said he managed to complete both challenges with the help of some "Yorkshire grit and determination". He said: "It was a massive mental test, but we managed to get through both."At the moment there's a Greek heatwave so temperatures were 40C and above."There was no shade whatsoever."It was absolutely brutal."My feet were aching quite a bit last night and my knee was swollen."But compared to what some people in the world are dealing with, it's trivial."The power of love for my daughter kept me going when the going got tough."I just reminded myself why I was doing it."Mr Moorhouse is no stranger to extreme physical challenges, having completed several over the last decade. But his preparation for this task was complicated by injury, as he damaged cruciate ligaments in his right knee just nine weeks beforehand, hampering his training could not even walk in a straight line until four weeks despite suffering "severe cramps" in his calf on Prophet Elias Monastery Mountain, he managed to complete his 50th and final ascent just after 19:00 local time (17:00 BST) on Moorhouse, who works for a housing association, said: "I don't very often say I'm proud of myself because I'm quite humble about what I do, but I gave myself a pat on the back when I finished, because it's been a tough year with injury." He and Miss Thomson set up the Kallipateira Moorhouse Foundation to fund the research at Tommy's Rainbow Clinic, which they said would benefit parents across the UK. The clinic offers specialist care for women who have suffered a previous stillbirth or neonatal Moorhouse said the subject of stillbirths was often "brushed under the carpet" and that friends and neighbours of grieving parents often struggled to know how to help. "To put yourself in that person's shoes, I understand, is such a difficult thing to do," he said."But this happens every single day to parents all around the UK."You don't have to have a big conversation about what's happened, just a simple acknowledgement to say, 'I'm thinking of you, I'm here if you need anything'."Not saying something is far worse than saying something you think is wrong." Listen to highlights from West Yorkshire on BBC Sounds, catch up with the latest episode of Look North.
BBC News
a day ago
- BBC News
Mineral v chemical sunscreen: Which one should you be using?
Some people are trading chemical sunscreens in favour of mineral versions because of fears over toxicity, pollution and effectiveness. Is there actually any difference? Mineral sunscreen is having a moment. Amid concerns that so-called "chemical" sunscreens may be bad for our bodies, brains, and even coral reefs, mineral-based formulations have become the fastest-growing share of the global sunscreen market. But debates over "chemical" versus "mineral" sunscreens are riddled with misconceptions. Many commonly repeated claims – such as mineral sunscreens not containing chemicals; that chemical sunscreens have been proven harmful; or that chemical sunscreens absorb UV, while mineral ones only reflect it – are misleading, even false. The confusion begins with terminology. "Everything is a chemical," points out Brian Diffey, emeritus professor of photobiology in dermatological sciences at the UK's University of Newcastle and inventor of sunscreen's UVA star rating. What people call "chemical" filters are more accurately termed organic, since they contain carbon-hydrogen bonds, says Diffey. Inorganic filters (often called mineral), primarily titanium dioxide and zinc oxide, lack those bonds. All are chemicals. Seeking to protect our skin and bodies from the Sun is not a new trend – nor are sunscreens, organic or inorganic. Ancient Mesopotamians used umbrellas; ancient Greeks, wide-brimmed hats. Along with various coverings, people applied concoctions to the body. In Africa, the use of ochre-based pastes, still used as sunscreen by people such as the Himba in Namibia, dates back at least 285,000 years, while the Roman writer Cornelius Celsus advised slathering the skin with olive oil. It wasn't until the 19th Century, however, that scientists discovered ultra-violet radiation (UVR) – and realised that some ingredients, like quinine sulphate (derived from a tree bark), could absorb it. Scientists duly recommended it as a sunscreen. By 1930, researchers had found a number of other ingredients that absorbed UVR, including aesculin (from trees such as horse chestnut) and larch bark tannin. Though they wouldn't meet today's SPF standards, in terms of how they protected the skin, they all were organic ("chemical") sunscreens. Later, dozens of other ingredients were added to this list – including those produced by mixing together different substances in a laboratory to induce a chemical reaction. Often referred to as "synthetic chemicals", these types of ingredients – including avobenzone, oxybenzone, octisalate and octinoxate – have been found to absorb UV rays far more effectively than their predecessors. Another type of sunscreen came to market, too: "mineral" sunscreens. While they might seem more "natural", the titanium dioxide and zinc oxide in today's sunscreens are usually lab-produced. The great deflection debate At first, it was thought that organic sunscreens absorbed UVR, while inorganic sunscreens physically reflected and scattered UVR away from the skin – a belief that was perpetuated further in a 1970s United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) monograph. This idea is still commonly heard today, including from seemingly authoritative sources. It also is partly why inorganic sunscreens sometimes are also called "physical sunscreens", implying that they block out UV rays like an umbrella deflects raindrops. "People say that mineral or inorganic sunscreens reflect ultraviolet radiation," says Antony Young, professor emeritus of experimental photobiology at King's College London and a lifelong researcher of sunscreen efficacy. "And that's not true." In fact, modern titanium dioxide and zinc oxide only reflect or scatter 4-5% of the UV range, an authoritative, peer-reviewed 2015 study found. They absorb the other 95%. Indeed, scientists have been aware that inorganic sunscreens absorb UV since the 1980s – so much so that the authors of the 2015 study already seemed exasperated with having to provide even further proof. Their study emphasised "yet again", they wrote, "that the true function of these insoluble 'physical' or 'mineral' UV filters is in fact identical to that of the soluble 'chemical' UV filters. "These data indicate clearly that these filters act primarily as UV-absorbing materials, and not as UV-scattering or UV-reflecting materials." They're not even actually "reflecting" that 5%, adds Diffey: "They scatter it." UV rays aren't bounced off the surface of the inorganic particles. Instead, he says, "the light rays go into the medium. They bounce around from the atoms or molecules. Some of them then will come back out again. And that's called scattering." Meanwhile, many sunscreens, even some marketed as "mineral", use both organic and inorganic UV filters. But in general, experts say, whether a UV filter works by absorbing, reflecting or scattering UVR doesn't really matter. The amount of heat generated in the skin by absorption is negligible – and a tiny fraction of the heat generated from the Sun's exposure itself. Ultimately, says Mary Sommerlad, a consultant dermatologist based in London and British Skin Foundation spokesperson: "You don't need to decide whether you want your UV energy to be absorbed or reflected, because they're working in pretty much the same way." That is, by reducing how much UVR your skin absorbs to protect it from damage and risk of developing cancer. Particles and solutions If organic and inorganic sunscreens work so similarly, why do they feel different? It comes down to solubility. Most organic filters are soluble, meaning their active ingredients can be dissolved in a medium like water or oil. Inorganic sunscreens are not: their particles remain intact. As a result, inorganic sunscreens can feel thicker and give a white cast, while organic filters can provide smoother, clearer formulations. As chemistry advances have shrunk inorganic particle sizes down, the white-cast effect has decreased. These "nanoparticles" (less than 100nm in size) of titanium dioxide and zinc oxide have led to their own set of concerns around skin penetration. But even this minuscule particle size doesn't penetrate more than the stratum corneum – the outermost skin layer – thus preventing systemic absorption. Most organic UV filters operate at the surface of the skin, too. Because sunburns develop at the upper layers of the skin, a UV filter must bind to the stratum corneum in order to work, say experts. Like inorganic sunscreens, therefore, organic sunscreens absorb the vast majority of UV at the skin's surface. But it is true that some organic filters are systemically absorbed. "Some active ingredients will find their way through to the bloodstream," says Diffey. "Whether or not that's doing us any harm or not remains to be seen." So far, there isn't good evidence that it is. The vast majority of research finding risks of chemicals like oxybenzone has been performed on animals, using massive amounts. In one 2001 study that sparked concern about endocrine disruption, for example, baby rats were fed extremely large quantities of UV filters like oxybenzone for four days. Those that consumed oxybenzone had uteruses that were 23% larger than rats that didn't. But when later researchers put these numbers into perspective, they found that – to reach the same systemic concentration of oxybenzone the rats had – a human would need to apply a 6% oxybenzone sunscreen every day… for 277 years. Why are animals exposed to so much of a particular ingredient? Because it helps scientists determine the potential safety limit. "The reason for these studies is to determine how much is safe," says Michelle Wong, chemist and author of the book The Science of Beauty who frequently tackles sunscreen myths online. As a result, "they are always looking for an effect. They will generally use a large enough amount of the ingredient… to elicit some sort of effect. "If they don't, then they don't know where the line is." So far, the threshold at which the ingredients pose a risk seems to be many times higher than the quantity in which people are using them. One scientific review published earlier this year found no evidence that UV filters like avobenzone and homosalate can damage DNA or cause cancer in humans – and that blood levels of these chemicals from topical sunscreen are far below the amount at which they might have an effect. In one 2004 study, for example, 32 people applied creams made up of 10% oxybenzone. Four hours after application, both men and women had slightly lower levels of testosterone. But after just four days of application, the differences between the appliers and the control group disappeared – leading the researchers to conclude that differences in the hormones weren't actually from the sunscreen itself. Even so, because ingredients like avobenzone are absorbed into the bloodstream, out of caution regulators like the FDA have requested more safety data from manufacturers. More like this:• Sunscreen: Are you using it correctly?• Sunscreens: Safe or toxic?• Why sunscreen is not enough to prevent sunburn The effects of organic filters on the environment – particularly coral reefs – are a little more unclear. Studies that have raised concerns have mostly been lab-based experiments; real-world impacts may be different. One study, for example, found that while UV filters were detected in the seawater across 19 tourist hotspots in Hawaii, 12 locations showed less than 10 parts per trillion of oxybenzone – the equivalent of 10 drops in a water-filled football stadium. The area with the highest concentration, Waikiki Beach, had 136 parts per trillion. All were at levels far below the concentration at which the lab-based studies found damage to coral reefs. However, in 2018 Hawaii made the move to ban the sale of sunscreens containing chemicals oxybenzone and octinoxate. "If you have places with a high load of tourists going in, it is not unreasonable to stay cautious and say, 'Yes, there may be additive effects'," marine scientist Jorg Wiedenmann said at the time. Still, while much of the focus regarding coral toxicity has been on organic UV filters, inorganic UV filters may have an effect too. Meanwhile, some marine biologists point out that the far larger (and better-proven) threat to corals is climate change – and that the biggest bleaching events have been in places without tourists. While scientists haven't yet proven any concrete, adverse effects to humans of using organic (or inorganic) sunscreens, aside from occasional side effects like allergic reactions, we can't say the same of excessive UV exposure. At worst, it can lead to skin cancer, the most common type of cancer in countries including the US and the UK. If it spreads, the deadliest type, melanoma, has only a 35% five-year survival rate. This is why the best sunscreen, experts say, is one you are happy to use. For some people, that is a sunscreen that is smoother, clearer and absorbs more quickly. For others, that might be a sunscreen that has fewer toxicology concerns, no matter how theoretical. "SPF is SPF," says Young. "It doesn't really matter what the ingredients are." -- For trusted insights into better health and wellbeing rooted in science, sign up to the Health Fix newsletter, while The Essential List delivers a handpicked selection of features and insights. For more science, technology, environment and health stories from the BBC, follow us on Facebook, X and Instagram.
