Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Aren’t We Curious About the Things We Want to Be Curious About?

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 125 posts

Re: Why Aren’t We Curious About the Things We Want to Be Curious About?

#21

Post by hos234 »

The answer lies in understanding the Utility of the Novelty Seeker to a Group.

If groups don't need it, expect novelty seeking to be snuffed out and fast. Don't complain about it just go look for a group that needs you.

Not everyone is a novelty seeker - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novelty_seeking

Small populations don't need too many novelty seekers. If everyone in a village is curious about Tigers, sooner or later everyone in the village would be dead. As populations grow the number of Novelty seekers increase and sooner or later the village has knowledge of how to tame the Tiger.

In terms of groups or teams that work on problems that have known solutions, having Novelty seekers around can be a big distraction/waste of time and energy as they goof off and wander.

But for teams working on problems unknown, Novelty seekers are a must have. Nothing is guaranteed when working on unknowns, but the team will learn more/make progress with a Novelty Seeker around than without.

While sites like HN attract Novelty Seekers from all over and there is some spillover into startups (many working on problems with unknowns) this process of matching Novelty seekers to groups that need them has WAYS to go.

We do it in very inefficient ways and lacking awareness. Sometimes we misidentify them (lot of people pretend to be novelty seekers cause it gets them on teams) OR Novelty seekers are put in charge OR they want to be in charge Or we think we need a Novelty seeker on staff 24x7 when actually we just need them to come in and take a look at a specific problem once a week or once a month. These mistakes can be avoided if you know the role the Novelty Seeker plays in society and what problems they are needed for.

Re: Why Aren’t We Curious About the Things We Want to Be Curious About?

#22

Post by wruza »

IME, reading quick articles or googling for a word doesn’t work too. But there is a way to get an interesting information. I built my curiosity stream by checking channels on youtube (it has non-crap channels, despite my beliefs). It wasn’t a quick process. One video by another I filtered content and made a subscription set which feeds me a couple or more videos per week that are good content and build my curiosity, as tfa explained. When there is more free time, I just check archives and find even more. Now I have a non-distracting queue of knowledge that requires nothing to sustain.

Funnily, before that I never hit “subscribe”, because it was perceived as a time-spending pit. And it is, for many “funny cats” or “fail compilation” channels which produce videos twice daily.

All this works because every piece there has easy connections. Articles do not connect – I have to lookup the author, register to subscribe, then manage updates from many sites, etc. Streams from mass-media like yt are more comfortable to follow and there are many suggestions from other channels on the topic.

Re: Why Aren’t We Curious About the Things We Want to Be Curious About?

#23

Post by coldtea »

hos234 wrote: post #21

The answer lies in understanding the Utility of the Novelty Seeker to a Group. If groups don't need it, expect novelty seeking to be snuffed out and fast. Don't complain about it just go look for a group that needs you. Not everyone is a novelty seeker - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novelty_seeking Small populations don't need too many novelty seekers. If everyone in a village is curious about Tigers, sooner or late…

>Small populations don't need too many novelty seekers. If everyone in a village is curious about Tigers, sooner or later everyone in the village would be dead. As populations grow the number of Novelty seekers increase and sooner or later the village has knowledge of how to tame the Tiger.

That's an anthropology way to looking at it -- which could be OK if one is speaking for some remote villages or tribes.

The modern world though is so complex and cross-cutting that I don't think this applies, at least not in the same way.

For one, novelty seeking is hardly associated with survival for most people and groups (like in the village/tiger example).

Second, each of us has tons of different outlets for that novelty seeking, not just a single group.

Re: Why Aren’t We Curious About the Things We Want to Be Curious About?

#24

Post by coldtea »

minikites wrote: post #16
kstenerud wrote: post #12

> When I’m surfing the web I want to be drawn in by articles on Europe’s political history or the nature of quasars That's the problem right there. Articles are the white sugar of information. They contain a tiny amount of actual info, but not enough to be useful in any meaningful way. If you truly want to learn about something, read a book or a paper. Articles will get you nowhere.

I disagree, an article from a good subject/specialized encyclopedia (as opposed to a general encyclopedia) is an excellent introduction to a topic and will be written by scholars in that field.

Did the parent gave the impression that he meant encyclopaedia articles?

Re: Why Aren’t We Curious About the Things We Want to Be Curious About?

#25

Post by hos234 »

coldtea wrote: post #23
hos234 wrote: post #21

The answer lies in understanding the Utility of the Novelty Seeker to a Group. If groups don't need it, expect novelty seeking to be snuffed out and fast. Don't complain about it just go look for a group that needs you. Not everyone is a novelty seeker - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novelty_seeking Small populations don't need too many novelty seekers. If everyone in a village is curious about Tigers, sooner or late…

> Small populations don't need too many novelty seekers. If everyone in a village is curious about Tigers, sooner or later everyone in the village would be dead. As populations grow the number of Novelty seekers increase and sooner or later the village has knowledge of how to tame the Tiger. That's an anthropology way to looking at it -- which could be OK if one is speaking for some remote villages or tribes. The mod…

My point is, its because it isn't associated (in the minds of most) with survival/success/growth of the novelty seeker or a group requiring a novelty seeker, do we end up with the question - Why aren't we curious about we want to be?

Lots of "villages"/groups/teams/orgs have misunderstandings of the role of the novelty seeker. And lots of novelty seekers have misunderstandings of how they can fit in.

Re: Why Aren’t We Curious About the Things We Want to Be Curious About?

#26

Post by vfinn »

One idea is that population competes for positions, and that restricts your choices early on. You could imagine that you're either pushed away or drawn into some position. Another point of view is to see your actions through constraints, which is an inter-related point of view to competition. You're bound by money, time, energy (you can do just so much), and other resources. You can see your situation also trough psychology. You have fears, traumas, addictions, etc. Then there's intelligence that translates into how good you're at creating goals, how good you're at seeing yourself, how good you're at listening yourself, how good you're at solving problems, and how aware you're of your current condition, etc. in addition to having the ability to become better at such matters.

It's clear that all these things define how well you're in control what you're doing. There are a lot of outside sources of influences that you need to be aware of. All kind of distractions, commercials, games, noise, propaganda (manufacturing consent?). Your society wants you to do this, your employer wants you to do that, and often times you feel you have to give in, which means that you're fighting for control on a psychological level.

Creating your life so that you're 100% in control all time is very difficult, if not possible, but you can become aware of what's happening in yourself as you click mindlessly trough the internet, or when you do things/tasks you don't really want to do. You can change yourself to overcome procrastination in order to become a person that knows what he's doing, not just because you have to, but because you want to. You want to take part in society, you want to work for good causes, etc. You want to study in university to get into a certain position. And all this will that you're aware of diminishes the amount of random choices you make, I claim.

Re: Why Aren’t We Curious About the Things We Want to Be Curious About?

#27

Post by watwut »

kstenerud wrote: post #12

> When I’m surfing the web I want to be drawn in by articles on Europe’s political history or the nature of quasars That's the problem right there. Articles are the white sugar of information. They contain a tiny amount of actual info, but not enough to be useful in any meaningful way. If you truly want to learn about something, read a book or a paper. Articles will get you nowhere.

Real reason is that actual function of that browsing is relax, not bothering with difficult parts, getting thrill or other emotional reaction and forgetting next day. Following impulses and reading something easy to read. Meanwhile articles on Europe’s political history or the nature of quasars are education - fundamentally different mental task.

Re: Why Aren’t We Curious About the Things We Want to Be Curious About?

#28

Post by croon »

mapcars wrote: post #13
croon wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not true for me, I know very little electrical engineering/low level programming/embedded devices etc and wish I knew more, and yet I can't muster enough inherent interest to learn more. But I'm generally very curious about stuff and regularly read news/studies/documentation and get lost in wiki holes, but for a lot of useless stuff I don't really have a use for. So this is definitely an issue for me. I do pro…

>But I'm generally very curious about stuff and regularly read news/studies/documentation and get lost in wiki holes Well this is it, the curiosity comes when you know there is something you don't know. >but for a lot of useless stuff I don't really have a use for That's a different matter, usefulness depends on billion factors around us and things which you consider useless might very well one day define your life.

> Well this is it, the curiosity comes when you know there is something you don't know.

But your original post stated the opposite:

> Answer is simple - we think we know it. Once you think you know something it immediately all excitement and interest disappears.

Which is what I responded to. Did you leave out a negative?

And to your second point: Yes, it's not too unusual that I've gotten use out of previously pointless information.

Re: Why Aren’t We Curious About the Things We Want to Be Curious About?

#29

Post by taneq »

mapcars wrote: post #3

Answer is simple - we think we know it. Once you think you know something it immediately all excitement and interest disappears. But can you really know anything absolutely, fully in this Universe? Someone involved into science should answer what grows more with study - knowledge or realization of one's own ignorance? Someone said "I know only one thing - I know nothing", to me this is the most profound understanding…

I don't think that it's "we think we know it". I'm absolutely sure I don't know as much as I need to about, say, SOAP (not my usual wheelhouse but current project requires it) and I'm equally sure I am really not curious about it.

I'm super curious, though, about a whole bunch of things that I really don't need to know anything about with any urgency. New SpaceX launches, how to build CNC milling machines, ultralight aircraft... I know plenty about these and it's never enough.

Re: Why Aren’t We Curious About the Things We Want to Be Curious About?

#30

Post by jasode »

hos234 wrote: post #21

The answer lies in understanding the Utility of the Novelty Seeker to a Group. If groups don't need it, expect novelty seeking to be snuffed out and fast. Don't complain about it just go look for a group that needs you. Not everyone is a novelty seeker - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novelty_seeking Small populations don't need too many novelty seekers. If everyone in a village is curious about Tigers, sooner or late…

>The answer lies in understanding the Utility of the Novelty Seeker to a Group.

You've made an interesting comment about "novelty seeking" but I just want to try and clarify what the author's article is talking about. Some representative sentences from the article:

>When I’m surfing the web I want to be drawn in by articles on Europe’s political history or the nature of quasars, but I end up reading trivia like a menu from Alcatraz prison. Why am I not curious about the things I want to be curious about? [...] You just need to frequent better foraging grounds. [...] The challenge is changing its focus from the momentary to something more enduring.

As a meta comment about Daniel T. Willingham's categories of curiosity which he really isn't making explicit... to him, there's "worthy" curiosity and "worthless" curiosity.

To be inclusive and charitable about humanity, we can acknowledge that just about everyone is curious about something. However, if a person is mainly curious about Jennifer Aniston's new boyfriend or other celebrity gossip (low brow non-academic) instead of being curious about quasars or capital-forming effects of military mobilization (high brow academic), that person is labeled "not curious". (I.e. We think of the prototypical scientist/mathematician as "curious" but the teen who reads People Magazine or Vogue to see the latest fashions as "not curious".)

The author is writing specifically for the audience who's already in his mental category of "worthy curiosity". However, that person who's actually interested in quasars is currently surfing CNN website reading click-bait stories and Mr. Willingham is offering his ideas why they were led astray.

He's targeting people already like him who are predisposed to seeking new information on worthy academic subjects but got temporarily sidetracked with news trivia (e.g. the Alcatraz menu).

For the others that get their dopamine fix of celebrity gossip to satisfy their particular form of curiosity seeking, Mr. Willingham isn't talking to them or even trying to explain them to the high-brow curiosity seekers.

Post reply on HN