World Cup 2018: First Round Statto

Now that the first round is done and dusted, and we're through 75% of the tournament (sob), we know who's going to face off in the knockout rounds. The big story is how none of the five African teams managed to get through the group, making this the first time since 1982 that no African team has entered the knockout stage.

I want to make some joke about having a lot of time on my hands these days, but the sad fact is that even if I were still working a 40-hour week I'd have put together these stats, because I'm curious about how deserving each confederation is of its respective places. So, without further ado:

Confederation	Played	Points per game
UEFA	42	1.7
CONMEBOL	15	1.9
CONCACAF	9	0.8
CAF (Africa)	15	0.7
AFC (Asia)	15	1.0

I calculated each confederation's games, wins, draws and losses, and used those to determine how many points each confederation got per game. Some of this is a bit muddied by the fact that European teams faced each other, meaning that draws got counted twice (because each draw generated two points overall, one for each participant). What you see is that the South American teams were the most successful, followed by Europe, and the remaining three confederations quite a bit farther back.

There are some factors at play here, in that Panama and Costa Rica both fielded older teams, and Panama's has no experience of the World Cup, while Egypt (for example) is perhaps overly reliant on Mohamed Salah. And in the case of Senegal, while the team was undoubtedly screwed by the fair play rule, falling behind Japan on the number of yellow cards it got during the previous games, it's also undeniable that it failed to kill off the second game against Japan, when it blew leads twice.

The Asian teams helped themselves by pulling out wins at complete random, including when they were already eliminated. Saudi Arabia, so abject in its first game against Russia, found it in themselves to beat Egypt in their final, meaningless game, while South Korea dragged Germany out with them. 

What's really interesting is how well the South American teams did. Only Peru has crashed out so far, and it still managed to win its final game, although it's also true that Uruguay is the only team from the region to have taken maximum points. But even with the slightly disappointing showings from Colombia, Brazil and (especially) Argentina, South American teams have been more successful than European teams. In fact, between the middle of Matchday 3, when I started this calculation, and the end, UEFA teams dropped from 1.8 points per game to 1.7, owing to the losses by Iceland, Serbia, Germany and England, as well as France and Denmark's draw and Switzerland drawing with Costa Rica.

All these calculations are in service of determining whether the allocations for each confederation are fair or not, but it's hard to tell on the results of a single World Cup group stage. But at this point, I'm finding it hard to argue after all that the European teams are making up the numbers more than the African or Asia or Central/North American teams. 

Still don't think expanding to 48 teams in 2026 is going to be a good idea, though.

World Cup 2018: Not Tired Yet

We're coming toward the business end of the tournament, and I can say that it's been a fun one, what with all the dramatic late goals and all the scoring from set-pieces. Today Saudi Arabia took flight and beat the heavily fancied Egypt and their talisman, Mohamed Salah, which would have been impressive if the game had meant anything. And then both Spain and Portugal were held to draws by Morocco and Iran, respectively, paradoxically ensuring that the two European teams went through.

Tomorrow's games are a little more finely poised, with only one of the eight teams, Peru, already eliminated. The big surprise of the tournament could come if Argentina manages to lose against Nigeria, which would ensure its elimination.

It's fair to say that the big teams didn't really get into gear for the first round of games in this stage, with the big teams drawing (as Brazil, Portugal and Spain did), losing (as Germany did) or laboring for an unconvincing win (as in the case of France and England). Normal service was resumed, to an extent, in the second set of games, but the main favorites from before the tournament haven't looked like world beaters so far.

What I found notable was the immediate exit of a bunch of teams from the smaller confederations. As of yesterday, the following teams had already lost two games and been eliminated:

UEFA: Poland
CONMEBOL: Peru
CONCACAF: Costa Rica, Panama
CAF: Egypt, Morocco, Tunisia
AFC: Saudi Arabia

(South Korea isn't on that list because, despite losing its first two games, it still has a hope of qualifying for the next round through an arcane set of tie-breakers)

Looking at that list, with or without South Korea, it's hard not to come back to the discussions in my previous blog about the wisdom of expanding the tournament to 48 teams in 2026. My concern initially was that it seemed pointless to add even more European teams, when they already account for 14 of the 32 teams participating this year. With 55 members, it's the second-largest confederation (after Africa's CAF, which has 56), and it has not only the largest pool of former champions but also the three most recent champions (Italy in 2006, Spain in 2010, Germany in 2014).

It stands to reason that if you add 16 teams to the World Cup, the bulk of those is going to come from Europe, because those teams are more likely to have the stars that global audiences want to see. It's hard to imagine the European confederation, UEFA, allowing for more representation from Oceania, Africa and Asia, when it could get its own marginal teams in, and avoid big names like Italy and the Netherlands crashing out (again).

However, it's also hard to argue that Asia or Africa, or indeed North/Central America, deserve the bulk of the expanded places either, with the performances listed above. Much was made of Morocco's strength before the tournament, in addition to Egypt being highly fancied, but in the end both made barely a ripple and scored two goals each. While I would like to see teams from outside the two main regions (Europe and South America) win the World Cup someday, it's clear that the gulf is as wide as it's ever been, particularly since all the good players throughout the world get snapped up by European teams quicker than ever.

Expanding the tournament also risks devaluing the places, as South America (CONMEBOL) already consists of just ten teams, of which five made it to Russia, with fifth-placed Peru winning its playoff against New Zealand to book its spot. Given that Peru is one of the already-eliminated teams, it's hard to argue that New Zealand would have added much more excitement (though in their defense, when they qualified eight years ago they left after the first round as the only unbeaten team in the tournament).

I suppose that when the World Cup goes to 48 teams, they'll be able to abandon the playoff system, but again, should CONMEBOL get more places? Fifty percent of the confederation qualified this year, so should we just let all ten of them in for 2026 and save them the trouble of qualifying?

These are little more than thought experiments, in the end, and presumably when the World Cup expanded to 32 teams, there were naysayers who thought the quality wouldn't improve. Though it's worth saying that the expanded format hasn't actually led to more competition from the other confederations - so they may have been right...?

PREDICTION CORNER

All of the above may look short-sighted if Mexico goes ahead and wins the tournament. It may be football-induced euphoria, but given their win against Germany, their current pole position in the group, and the fact that they need to win or draw to ensure they progress, they look like going all the way, with a bit of luck from other groups. Specifically, they have to hope that Brazil wins its group, meaning Mexico would face Switzerland next. I can see them beating the Swiss, and then facing either Uruguay or Portugal, and in case Portugal pulls out a Ronaldazo for the ages, I can see Mexico beating them as well, and from there, who knows?

In this scenario, Germany would likely face Brazil in the next round, and probably go out, but beyond that it's hard to guess who else will make it past the round of sixteen. Though I do suspect that Argentina can make it, given they're Nigeria's bogey team. And while I'm hoping that both Japan and Senegal can make it to the knockout stage, I expect Colombia to be too strong for Senegal.

I'm also hoping we continue this run without 0-0 draws! Apparently this is the longest the World Cup has ever gone without one, so it'll be interesting to examine why - whether it's because the defending is so poor or the physical demands are too much.

World Cup 2018: Merry Football Xmas

I wanted to open my inaugural blog of this World Cup with some pithy comment about this being a once-in-four years event that doesn't turn awful, but the initial images of Vladimir Putin watching the game in the VVIP box with FIFA president Gianni Infantino and (I guess) the Saudi king maybe doesn't support that. But it does make me think that it's kind of a shame the US didn't qualify, allowing the current US president an excuse to meet with his paymaster and benefactor in person (again).

But maybe it's a bit early in the tournament for so much politics. Instead it's fun to note, as others have done already, that these were the two lowest-ranked teams in the tournament, with Saudi Arabia at #67 and Russia at a lowly #70. Which wouldn't bode well for 2022, when the World Cup will take place in Qatar (#98, behind such luminaries as India and Uzbekistan). Though as it turns out, Russia thrashed Saudi Arabia 5-0, so these rankings can perhaps be considered a moving target.

Not that I'm expecting Qatar to do a job on whoever they face in their opener, unless someone even worse, like North Korea or Thailand, contrives to qualify. Though North Korea does have a long and storied history of qualifying for tournaments and beating stronger opponents, so Qatar should hope for a team from Oceania to be able to pick up any points four years from now.

None of this bodes well for 2026 either, by the way. That tournament, shared between the US (#25), Mexico (#15) and Canada (#79), is set to expand to 48 teams. On the face of it, more teams = more football, which should = more fun, but in practice just means more terrible, terrible teams to waste everyone's time. The one positive is that it supposedly means powerhouses like Italy or the Netherlands will have a harder time failing to qualify, but given how my beloved Azzurri have stunk up the tournament since winning in 2006, not making it in this time should be a blessing in disguise, as it forces the Italian FA to figure out how to improve, rather than just papering over the cracks.

The other point about expanding the World Cup by 16 teams is that it doesn't exactly promise a more open tournament. UEFA will likely insist on getting the bulk of the new spots, even though it currently accounts for 14 of the 32 places. You can argue that the level of football is higher in Europe than any other confederation except for South America, but it's hard to argue that any of the teams that failed to get through the playoffs would properly be challenging for the trophy this year.

Coming back to Russia for a moment, I was hearing a lot of chatter about how this was a pretty bad national team. They apparently managed to lose seven matches in a row at one point, coming within an ace of sacking their current coach, and having to recall a 38-year-old Sergei Ignashevich to fill in for a bunch of injured defenders. This is also their first World Cup win since 2002, after having failed to qualify for 2006 and 2010 and posting two draws and a loss in 2014. The last time they made it to the second round was in 1986, when they played as the Soviet Union.

And yet that 5-0 scoreline indicates something. It could be that Russia's better than we've thought, or it could be that Saudi Arabia is worse than we thought. Whichever the case may be, Saudi Arabia, on this evidence, is surely out, though I wouldn't be surprised if they scrape a draw against Egypt, particularly if Mohamed Salah is still far from match fit. Russia, on the other hand, has managed to pick up those important three points, which means earning a draw against Egypt and/or Uruguay will be enough to progress.

However, like the French Revolution, all will become clear in time. I was planning at first to go full-on crazy, and make sure I'm up at 5am for all the relevant games, but today's 8am kick-off has convinced me that I should probably chill out and just catch what I can. After all, I'm now effectively self-employed, so the more I goof around the less time I have to, y'know, earn money. But rest assured I'll still be here with ill-informed opinions, and thoughts stolen from the multitude of football podcasts going on during the tournament.

Truly, this is the most wonderful time of the year.

Some Thoughts on Welfare and Criminal Justice

Among the fun stuff I've had to do since losing my job and all that jazz is the admin-stuff related to getting access to healthcare and unemployment benefits.

I finally had my interview today with the County of Santa Clara social services office, who thought I was still gainfully employed, in part, I guess, because I hadn't yet applied for unemployment. The healthcare part itself wasn't so bad, because the lady on the phone with me seemed considerate and knowledgeable. But the signing up for unemployment stuff was a little weird.

Let me clarify. It's not weird that it asks if you're looking for work, or if you're willing to give up your  private contracting work if offered a job. And it's not weird for them to ask questions to ensure that you actually need the money, and aren't planning on swindling the state.

What I find interesting is the undertone of some of the questions around whether you deserve to receive benefits. The word "deserve" doesn't appear in any of the web pages I had to fill out, but it was implicit in the whole process, somehow. Just desserts, for lack of a better term, are at the heart of how the country looks at benefits and poor people, so I wanted to talk a little about that today.

"Just desserts", incidentally, is what Republicans seem to think people on food stamps buy when they go to the store. Desserts, steak, all the expensive stuff - I've seen someone complain about this on Facebook, and I've been in a car with someone complaining about this IRL. It's probably the heart of my argument here, much more so than the questionnaires and interviews I went through today.

The argument from these two people (and I have no reason to think they're alone in saying this stuff) implies that the people on food stamps shouldn't be buying expensive stuff. I'm the first to admit I don't know how food stamps work - but it stands to reason that if you're buying grass-fed filet mignons every night, your food stamps won't last very long. It also stands to reason that if you're a generally smart person, then you probably know that stretching your food stamps by buying only Cheetohs and ramen is a ticket to obesity and bad health.

As I say, I don't know how the SNAP benefit (to give it its proper name) works, and I assume that someone has figured out a way to cheat. But I get the sense that Republicans, and right-wing people in other countries, would rather see a thousand people starve or suffer malnutrition than have a single family game the system. Which is allied to that Protestant, or more precisely Calvinist, work ethic, where if you're poor it's a sign of God's displeasure and you're going to Hell. So when they go to the store and see someone buying "all the expensive food", as my two interlocutors so vaguely put it, they're filled with this righteous rage that someone's eating well while they themselves have to scrimp and save and go to Ranch 99 or something.

This idea of deserving what you get is also at the heart of our judicial/penal system. Australians, in my experience, seem to really love implying that if you go to prison you get whatever you deserve when you're in there. Murderers, rapists, kiddie-fiddlers - all deserve no consideration of their human rights or anything like that. But that viewpoint ignores people who commit less serious crimes, and who aren't hardened, serial offenders. After all, in this country at least, you can still go to jail for relatively minor crimes like narcotics possession, and some places strip you of the right to vote forever. Other places still actively use convicts as unpaid servants and laborers, in an interesting reading of the Thirteenth Amendment banning slavery.

Maybe it's a bit provocative to equate convicts with people on benefits, but it's not hard to see the same attitudes at work against both groups. The idea seems to be that if you've slipped up once, you are a failed person and can't ever rejoin proper society again. And I agree that for some crimes this is true - which is why we have things like life imprisonment.

But for convicts, we have to think seriously about whether punishments fit crimes, and whether we're interested in rehabilitating convicts at all. If we aren't, how can we honestly call ourselves a just society, when a violent (but not necessarily deadly) crime strips you of the right to vote forever?

And for people on benefits, we need to find a better way to get them off benefits than taking their benefits away. It's like unemployment figures: the official rate ignores those who are under-employed and those who have completely given up on ever finding a job again. You can slice those numbers to tell whatever story you want, but if your welfare rolls go down because you've booted a bunch of people off unemployment and food stamps, then you haven't actually solved the problem.

How Long Can Real Madrid Keep Winning?

I was thinking of calling this one "Cruel Old Game Part 3" or something like that, because the sense from reading the coverage of yesterday's Champions League final is of a great injustice perpetrated on Liverpool by Real Madrid. And you could say that Ramos's foul on Mohamed Salah, which took Liverpool's leading scorer off the pitch just half an hour in, is most assuredly not in keeping with the spirit of the game.

But that reading, and the focus on Liverpool keeper Loris Karius's mistakes, and the general attitude at the Guardian of how Liverpool could and should have won, distracts from the fact that Real Madrid are simply the better team.

I'm not pretending that it's a difficult thing to type, because as I pointed out to my friends watching with me yesterday, in theory I hate Real with the white-hot intensity of a thousand suns, but in practice I couldn't find it in my heart to get too excited for Liverpool either. My first experience with Real may be of them beating my beloved Juventus in the first Champions League final I ever watched, and then of luring away Zinedine Zidane, but in the years since I have come to appreciate Real more as this ruthlessly efficient unit that doesn't seem to win a load of leagues but dominates in Europe.

It's all Sid Lowe's fault, of course, for writing such a good book about the rivalry between Real and Barcelona.

Coming back to yesterday's match, what struck me in the run-up to the game was the attitude among British football journalists that because there was a chance for Liverpool to win, that it (seemingly) meant they definitely would. They pointed to Mo Salah's scoring record, both at home and in Europe, and made fanciful claims such as (I'm not kidding here) the four teams top of the English Premier League were the best in all of Europe.

Someone else suggested that Real would win because of their "street smarts", which he questioned on the face of it, but also implied that they were a limited team who would rely on trickery and fouling (which I guess is borne out by that Ramos foul, but whatever).

These statements miss a couple of points. Real may rely on buying galacticos rather than building a machine with interchangeable parts (like Barça does), but that doesn't mean it doesn't have any cohesion. And it also doesn't mean that Cristiano Ronaldo carries the team the way he does Portugal.

What we saw yesterday was Gareth Bale come off the bench and score two wonder-goals, whereas Salah came off to be replaced by Adam Lallana, who's struggled for fitness and barely featured this season. The other option for them would have been Dominic Solanke, who has apparently scored just one professional goal in his life. Money doesn't guarantee you winning, but it does mean you have a deeper bench - and apparently Liverpool's transfer balance this year is slightly in the black.

That's not a bad thing in itself, because profligacy isn't a great long-term strategy for a football club. But it shows the level the two clubs are competing on, and comes back to the point I made a long time ago about how illusory English clubs' dominance in the league was between 2005 (the last time Liverpool won it) and 2012. Remember that despite reaching the final every year in that run except for 2010, the English team won just three times.

On the claim that the top four teams in England are the best in Europe, I have even less to say. It reminds me of something a friend said while I was in London this winter, that the bottom teams in the Premier League were better than any of the teams in any of the other leagues, which is equally fanciful and hard to prove. It's possible that, it being a World Cup year, English folks are getting a bit caught up in the excitement of having a decent team, but still.

Sure, Liverpool may have gotten to the final, and beaten EPL champs Manchester City to do it. And sure, England may have had five teams in the Champions League this year, of whom four got to the knockout rounds. But it's been a deeply weird season, with neither Manchester United or Spurs, who finished above Liverpool, not having great domestic runs.

Jose Mourinho's stewardship of United is marked by his usual negativity, which brought the team a distant second place 19 points behind the champions, and losses against all of the promoted teams. Meanwhile, Tottenham seemed to regress a bit compared to the last couple of seasons, with the adjective "Spursy" being thrown around again for the first time in a while as they didn't quite make the grade in Europe or the FA Cup.

And suggesting that the entire league is better than the best in Europe is strange, when you consider how Burnley lost about a million times and still managed not to budge from seventh place, either up or down. The race to win was settled quite early, but the race to avoid relegation went on pretty much until the final day of the season.

So I'm looking forward to hearing the Guardian and Totally Football podcasts' thoughts on the final, because I think they've missed a few points about Real in the run up to this game.

As for Liverpool, it'd be exciting to see them get back to this point next year, but to compete they'll have to strengthen considerably. And to be honest, that challenging in Europe will have to be accompanied by better performances at home, because it's not right to score the second-highest number of goals all season and still not be able to challenge for the title. Real may have had a bad (ish) season, coming in third, but they weren't as far off the pace as Liverpool were.

Rule of Law and Spinelessness in Politics

Kind of a quick one today because I don't love talking politics these days, but I wanted to muse a little on the concept that the Democratic Party is particularly spineless compared to the Republicans. I won't say the reputation is entirely undeserved, but it feels at times like kind of a double standard.

The one example that really comes to mind is the 2000 election, which was the first instance in decades of the electoral college result canceling out the result of the popular vote. Notwithstanding the recounts and all that back-and-forth in Florida, Michael Moore also criticized the party in general (and Al Gore in particular) for not pursuing an enquiry into the voter suppression that took place in Florida in that election.

I still remember the scene in Fahrenheit 9/11 where he showed various Democratic lawmakers bringing some motion relating to that on the floor of the Senate, but Al Gore not admitting any of them. It's designed to piss you off, and in my case at least, it worked.

What changed my mind is the latest election cycle, where the current incumbent threatened to call into question the result if he didn't win (something that he did actually do with regard to the discrepancy between electoral college and popular votes). On my side of the aisle there was the usual appalled protest at how he could subvert the democratic process, but it also made me think of Gore's actions/inactions back in 2000.

The other thing that put this thought into my head was a blog post by Mark Manson where he tried to lay down some truth about a variety of things, including noting that Trump is not actually the devil incarnate, just a shockingly corrupt and incompetent person. What he said was that the climate was at least forcing the Democrats to show some spine, which is always welcome.

It got me thinking about 2000, and it occurred to me that not pursuing the question back then may have been Gore's attempt to stop a worrying precedent, namely that of questioning every election result that doesn't go your way. If all you care about is power or winning, then you might want to fight everything in the courts as long as possible, but it's not a good way to run a republic, and I expect that it wouldn't be long before partisans on one side or another start to take up arms in favor of their candidate.

Perhaps it's reductive to focus on this one aspect of the Democrats' spinelessness, but it's the most obvious example that comes to my mind. The fact is that in a functioning democracy, eventually the loser concedes, with the knowledge that he or she won't be thrown into jail for daring to run against the person who won.

Where the double standard comes in is in the Republicans' insistence on winning at all costs. Of course neither John McCain in 2008, nor Mitt Romney in 2012, contested the elections, in part because they lost by much clearer margins than in 2000. But if you look at the GOP's behavior in blocking Barack Obama from filling Scalia's seat on the Supreme Court, as well as bringing in or blocking incoming senators for votes depending on what they were trying to pass.

What I'm getting at is that the narrative appears to be criticizing the Democrats for not doing things to weaken democracy and rule of law, while we criticize the Republicans for doing those things. I don't know that we can have it both ways. Which is why I'd love for someone to come and give me some further examples of Democratic spinelessness.

Now, just to be clear, I do have some problems with the Democratic Party at the moment. Let's start by dismissing the preposterous claim that they're veering to the extreme left. The most unpresentably left-wing Democratic lawmaker I can think of from the past few years is Dennis Kucinich, who was only a little bit weird but not agitating for class war or the dictatorship of the proletariat. Jill Stein has some definite problems, but I'm talking about the Democratic Party, and even if she were a Democrat, she'd still be an outlier. No, the Republicans are getting away with fielding a lot more far-right and unpresentable candidates than the Dems, hands down.

The big complaint I have about the Democrats is the smugness and clear cozying-up to big business. I'm sure I've said before that Hillary Clinton dismissing Bernie Sanders as a "one-issue candidate" was the low point for me, because she was dismissing the issue that everyone cares about. Even Obama evinces that, in part by today's news that he's signed a content deal with Netflix. I mean, that's great for him and his family, but it's a long way from the candidate who talked in 2008 about how he'd only just finished paying off his student loans.

So those are my thoughts on the "spineless Democrats" narrative. They may not have the iron discipline and will to win that the Republicans do, but given how that's leading to a perversion of democratic process and rule of law, I don't think the country would be well-served by having two parties trying to win at all costs.

The right number is zero - anything more leads to nationalism, populism and lost generations like what Argentina had. We can't afford to be distracted like that.

Some Thoughts on Headphones; or, In Praise of Boredom

For all that I talk about all the podcasts I listen to, it may interest you to learn that there are certain settings where I don't listen to them, or to music, at all. The main ones are when I'm walking or when I'm exercising - whether that's running on the treadmill at the gym or out for one of my usual walks around the block.

In fact, I tried listening to a podcast on a walk recently. Mainly because Tim Ferriss's ads for Audible audiobooks suggested that he likes to listen to books on otherwise "wasted" time, i.e. when he's taking his dog for a walk or something. So I gave it a try, putting on one of his own podcasts while I did a circuit around the block.

And I hated it.

Part of it is that I'm not used to it. I don't like having to deal with the cable or the volume, and the damn earbuds keep falling out of my ears. But the other thing I didn't like about it was that instead of my usual deep thoughts (mainly replaying old conversations as I'd have liked them to go, or trying to figure out what I should be doing with my life), I was listening to Tim Ferriss and his guest.

That's why I listen to these podcasts, so it's not such a bad thing, but I do really appreciate my walks precisely because I'm not listening to anything else and I'm allowing my brain to spit ideas or whatever at me. I'm not getting any external stimulus, so I remember things I need to do, or make connections, or just practice whatever language I'm studying at the moment.

It's a similar thing when I'm running. If I'm on the treadmill, then it'll be a pain keeping the earbuds in, and ensuring that I don't drop my phone, that the volume isn't too loud because I'm trying to drown out the music at the gym, and so on. If I'm running outside, then I've got the additional worry of keeping the volume at a level where I can hear bikes or cars, or any other vehicles that can cut my run short.

But a lot of people I know insist on having music or podcasts when they work out. And a lot of people walking around, or on public transportation, are using it precisely to drown out the outside world. And here's where I think it gets unhealthy.

I understand that for women the headphones can be a way of signaling that they don't want to be bothered, and I respect that. But in general I think it's worrisome that we're so desperate to not engage with our surroundings, in situations where we're not necessarily expecting to be hit on or harassed.

In a way, I see it in a similar light to drug use, which is after all just a way to get out of our heads and get away from whatever problems we're experiencing. I already mentioned in a previous post how the messaging around alcohol and soft drugs, both in advertising and how we interact socially, emphasizes that you're supposed to use this stuff to disengage from your problems. But I think our minds need to be engaged from time to time, allowed to run free and turn up odd associations or ideas.

I suppose what I'm arguing for is boredom. When I was in London a friend made an interesting point about smartphones, which is that we're never bored anymore, because a smartphone provides instant gratification whenever you want it. You can dick around on the web, or on social media, or put on music or videos, or look for a sex partner, or play games, among a million different uses. You can even use your smartphone to increase mindfulness or meditate, which is just another way of quieting the mind, but it's a little ironic when you think about it.

My friend mentioned how when we were teenagers, there were just times when we were bored, and there was nothing to do about it. There were distractions, like TV or music, but if there wasn't anything to watch, or you were bored with your music collection, then you ended up spending a certain amount of time (especially on weekends, in my experience) lying around moaning about how bored you were.

Like everything, it's not such a bad thing, in moderation. And it's a good skill to be able to amuse yourself without a phone: I used to spend long training runs doing simple math in my head, just as a way to keep focused. I suppose that's a little weird, but why does it have to be? I wasn't doing differential equations, just figuring out how much of my run I was done with.

My impression is that people turn to drugs and smartphones because they're conditioned to be afraid of being alone with their thoughts. A different friend insists that she can't run on a treadmill because it'd be too boring. While not everybody responds to exercise the same way, it seems a lame excuse not to use a pretty handy piece of gym equipment.

I think it would be good if people embraced a little bit of boredom and spent a little time alone with their thoughts, whether while out walking or while exercising or something. I expect that the feeling of being rushed and overwhelmed comes from being constantly "on", constantly chasing self-improvement and using every waking moment "wisely".

Other people talk about screen less Saturdays or unplugging or something like that, but I find that for myself it's enough to have some parts of the day where I'm listening to my brain. Because if I only take in outside stimuli, then I don't get the chance to take stock of what I need to do, and then I really do feel overwhelmed.