I find the differentiation to be rather circular in its logic. The authors chose to call it "profound boredom", grouped it with "normal boredom" (which is, in f

I find the differentiation to be rather circular in its logic. The authors chose to call it "profound boredom", grouped it with "normal boredom" (which is, in fact, just "boredom"), called the union of them "boredom", and thus boredom can be great for your creativity. All this mental gymnastic to produce the attention grabbing headline that something bad can be good for you, when that something bad is actually something good, but rehashed into the category of something bad. Of course, that thing which is good for you has not changed; we always knew that if you spend time thinking deeply, you might gain some insights or ideas. It's just a shuffling of terminologies, which conveniently helps market their findings. By the same thought process, a human being can have 8 limbs, because here are the "normal humans", and there we have Billy the Octopus, who we re-categorize as a "Octopusian human". So, it's safe to say that some human can have 8 limbs. It's like the gerrymandering of definitions.