Boredom has a bad reputation, treated as a problem to be solved with a screen. Yet psychologists who study it argue that boredom is a signal, much like hunger, that tells us our current activity no longer holds our interest and that we should look for something that does. Seen this way, the discomfort is useful, because it pushes us to seek challenges and to change course when we are stuck.
The trouble begins when the signal is silenced as soon as it appears. A person who reaches for a phone at the first flicker of boredom never learns what it feels like to stay with a dull moment, and never gets the chance to find out what the mind does when left alone. Several studies suggest that people who are given quiet intervals produce more original ideas afterwards than those who are constantly occupied, though the effect is modest and not found in every experiment.
None of this is an argument for pointless tedium. A boring job that offers no prospect of change is a source of stress, not creativity. The claim is narrower: that a certain amount of unstructured time, taken voluntarily, is a condition for some kinds of thinking, and that a culture which fills every gap with stimulation may be quietly removing it.