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

61–70 of 125 posts

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

#61

Post by afpx »

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…

Is anything that you’re saying based in a published theory that I can read about? Or, are you just making this up?

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

#62

Post by greggman2 »

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'm not sure I fully agree. Someone who really knows their topic well and is skilled at explaining it can often explain in simple terms with relatively few words. Many papers on the other hand seem be written with filler either to put on airs or to make the paper appear to have more info than is actually there.

I know this is not true for all papers or topics but it does seem common enough that I run into it frequently.

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

#63

Post by projektfu »

croon wrote: post #5
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…

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…

If this doesn't whet your appetite and make you feel like you've learned something, I don't know what will. But it's a hard course.

https://courses.edx.org/courses/course-v1:MITx+6.002x_6x+1T2...

This was another good one, more practically applicable to a programmer but less low-level:

https://www.edx.org/course/embedded-systems-shape-the-world-...

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

#64

Post by celticmusic »

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…

interesting, I've never heard of novelty seeking, but both your description and wikipedia's describes me very well.

What I've found from a lifetime of experience is that I absolutely need to be able to scratch that itch, and I need to be given the autonomy to do it or I quickly learn to hate life until I move on.

Wikipedia states that it's highly heritable, and I remember my mother telling me the reason she would go through and completely rearrange rooms in the house is because it gave her the feeling of having moved to a new place. I'm wondering if that's the result of her having that temperament as well.

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

#65

Post by pwenzel »

macromaniac wrote: post #54
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 think better than a book is just being curious about the world around you. Why does only my front car window have frost on it? Why does my granola bar wrapper emit light when I open it under my covers? You are guarenteed to learn relevant things that change your worldview instead of relying on whatever you are told to be curious about. Think for yourself, but you should also be curious for yourself.

This morning my neighbor's car had frost on it, but my car didn't. I thought about it for a good chunk of my commute!

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

#66

Post by WhompingWindows »

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.

You mean journalistic articles, not scientific/published "articles". Also, to paint all journalistic articles as white sugar is simply flat-out wrong. There are numerous fantastically written journalistic articles written by fantastic book writers. These can be jumping-off points to then purchase a book or find that scientific publication.

I think it's better just to call them layman's writing instead of white sugar, as processed sugar is basically a toxin. Understanding layman's writing will get you nowhere in the real world, except as a stepping-stone to further knowledge. Sugar, on the other hand, is actively harming people and is not a stepping-stone to healthy living.

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

#67

Post by WhompingWindows »

StreakyCobra wrote: post #10

> Many websites that snare your time feature scores of stories on the front page, banking that one will strike each reader’s sweet spot of knowledge. So visit websites that use the same strategy but offer richer content, for example, JSTOR Daily, Arts & Letters Daily or ScienceDaily. or HackerNews :)

The articles linked to in HN aren't always the most fruitful, whereas the comments are a universe of wonderful discussion. I've learned dozens of things from browsing the comments here, which makes sense as we have world experts in dozens of fields who are regular commenters.

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

#69

Post by WhompingWindows »

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'd contend you only know something if it's contained within a very rigid and small box that you can easily hold within your mind. Like, I can learn all about a sample dataset, but my real-world SQL data sources are vastly dirty and have tons of edge-cases I learn about from week to week.

For 99.9999% of things, there is simply too much depth and breadth to ever hold that information-box in your mind.

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

#70

Post by netcan »

paulsutter wrote: post #47
jasode wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 men…

How worthy is it /really/ for a psychologist to read up on quasars?

Worthiness is a sort of fundamental. It's hard to argue for or against before getting to a subjective value judgment.

For the purpose of this discussion, I think it's enough to just leave it at "because the psychologist in question thinks it's worthy."

Post reply on HN