A television show said that zookeepers have to worry about providing some interesting experiences for their animals. I imagine it is another balance: some familiarity, some novelty. Some variety mixed with some repetition. It is that way for humans, too, I think. I searched Google with the question "How much excitement do people need?"
The first result was "Excitement: a Disease of Society" in the Scientific American - from 1869! From the tone of the article, I suspected it was a bit old. I realize that 1869 was fairly recent in geological time but scientifically, socially, definitely not recent.
There is a well-known saying by Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) that "all of man's troubles come from an inability to sit alone in a room." Of course, he didn't mean alone in a room with good wi-fi and a smartphone. Quakers and meditators know that many people are unused to just sitting still, without distraction, games, or conversation. Without training or experience, an hour of sitting still and being quiet can be very uncomfortable.
In connection with engagement and activity, the large number of video games matters.
There may be a difference between men and women in the way they can deal with very routine and ordinary experience. There does seem to be a difference by age: many older people prefer to sit quietly without external entertainment.
It seems to me that some variety, some excitement is helpful and healthy. However, like anything else, if we get addicted to shoot'em-up movies, heart-twanging romances or crossword puzzles, we may find some improvement by omitting them from our day once in a while. I am pretty sure that we have benefitted from some who wanted a thrill, who wanted to meet a genuine challenge, sought such and succeeded. How much we have been damaged by similar drives, I am not sure. The drive toward some excitement definitely seems part of the human package.
