Many people are addicted to stimuli in whatever form because they do not want to be left alone with their thoughts. Some just turn on the TV whenever they are alone, some have to socialize and can't stand being alone, others do drugs. Time alone in the nature or meditation is quite the opposite and something I would wish those stimuli seeker would experience more often.

> Time alone in the nature or meditation is quite the opposite and something I would wish those stimuli seeker would experience more often.

Why? That assumes that being alone with your own thoughts is somehow good for everyone. I've done it--it's not all it's cracked up to be, IMHO. I believe there's enough variation in the way people's brains are wired up that it's not really possible to say "this specific thing that works for me is also good for your own mood/well-being/thoughts".

I don't feel mentally stimulated by sitting around in nature or by meditating. It doesn't "clear my head" or make me look at my life in a new interesting perspective. It doesn't calm me in any meaningful way or anything like that. I mostly just feel annoyed that I'm not getting something accomplished, whether that "something" is actively creative or passively consumptive (as much as something passively consumptive can be "accomplished").

If that kind of thing works for you, that's great! I'm sure I take great mental pleasure from things you consider meaningless :-).

Everyone should find their own way. I agree. But being able to enjoy quiet time is something you can learn.

A common problem for people who can not be without stimuli is that they can not disassociate from their thoughts.

That means just looking at your thoughts or whatever other inner processes are going on and letting them pass by without getting attached to them.

This is what you train when you meditate and it does not come over night, but it gives you the ability to gain more control over yourself and quiet time or time you use to meditate becomes rather entertaining...

There are a lot of scientifically proven benefits for doing meditation as well.

Doing this is a lifestyle choice. There is nothing wrong if you enjoy drinking sugary soda drinks every day if that's you choice that's what it is.

I do meditation since several years and also studied the science related to it. This is meditation in a nutshell for me: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sspY43lxqhE

I do believe that I am on a search for quiet, and I agree that for some people they don't like to be alone with their thoughts.

However, I don't think that's a bad thing. I don't know how their minds work, so I just assume that we think and process the world a little differently. Because of that, I try to be sensitive to their needs/desires, and they do the same for me.

It's not a statement of who's "better," just how each person is a little bit different (for me anyway).

I think people who know the matter would tell you that if you though about what you could get done, then you didn't make it to meditate (the right way). That said, I'm not able to do it properly, too.

> Some just turn on the TV whenever they are alone, some have to socialize and can't stand being alone, others do drugs.

Actually, I've had it pointed out that you'll see people crinkling bags, shuffling feet, coughing and clearing throats, and so on if you're in an otherwise silent room. I know that I'm guilty of it sometimes, and when I stay mindful and clamp down on it, I notice someone else picks up the slack.

Some drug users are meditative and introspective and take drugs specifically for that purpose. Depends on the drug, though.

> I think the fundamental problem with noisy people is (...) that they don't have any train of thought to interrupt

I must say that this choice of words rather took me aback as well. The problem is, it's difficult to call someone breathtakingly arrogant (which was my first reaction) when they have so much to be arrogant about!

I'd love to see some more insight on this from pg.

Edit: It's since occurred to me that pg may have meant at that particular moment rather than lacking a train of thought in a general sense. If that's the case, my comment is unjustified - apologies.

> pg may have meant at that particular moment

That's plausible; however, the conscious brain is constantly thinking / wandering / conjecturing about the past and the future, so it's next to impossible to not have a train of thought while you're awake. (If you have years and years of training as a zen master, maybe; if not, not).

Therefore, saying that people don't have a train of thought at a specific point in time is a little like saying they don't have a brain.

The rest of the post from PG would tend to confirm this: "ordinary people can understand" (...) "what they don't grasp".