
What we think we know, but might not, pushes us to learn more - conse_lad
https://news.berkeley.edu/2019/05/23/curiositystudy/
======
nairboon
From the abstract:
[https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13423-019-01598-6](https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13423-019-01598-6)

>Recent work has argued that curiosity can improve learning. However, these
studies also leave open the possibility that being on the verge of knowing can
itself induce curiosity. We investigate how prior knowledge relates to
curiosity and subsequent learning using a trivia question task. Curiosity in
our task is best predicted by a learner’s estimate of their current knowledge,
more so than an objective measure of what they actually know. Learning is best
predicted by both curiosity and an objective measure of knowledge. These
results suggest that while curiosity is correlated with knowledge, there is
only a small boost in learning from being curious. The implication is that the
mechanisms that drive curiosity are not identical to those that drive learning
outcomes.

------
dahart
> Our findings expand on the idea of readiness by showing that what children
> think they know, but don’t know, can boost their curiosity and motivate
> learning.

For adults, I expect this still requires a neutral ground context before it
can work. It’s easy to find arguments where people fiercely believe untrue
things because the conversation starts in a judgemental and hostile place.

Personally, I love reflecting on the fact that there are _very_ few things I
can actually say I “know” for absolutely certain, in the sense that I have
verified it myself, not in the sense that I learned it or read it or have a
strong belief. The number of things I’m quite certain about vastly vastly
outnumber the things I can say I know for sure. I think it does help me stay
curious, but mostly when I’m free to ponder and explore, not when I’m in the
middle of a heated debate.

------
mykowebhn
I might be the extreme sort of skeptic, but I can't help but roll my eyes
whenever I see the published results for any experiment conducted in the
social sciences. What worries me even more is that when published the public
can take the results and treat them as fact.

So let's take a look at what we can about this experiment:

1) A sample size of 87: Okay, better than many studies, but I still have my
doubts about the statistical power for this study.

2) The adults used for this study were recruited from Amazon's Mechanical
Turk: Okay, already we have a selection bias. At this pointed I'm strongly
tempted to read no further.

3) I can't get any more details about the experiment itself since I don't want
to pay $US40 to access the PDF.

~~~
trevyn
[http://sci-hub.tw/downloads/2019-05-14/30/10.3758@s13423-019...](http://sci-
hub.tw/downloads/2019-05-14/30/10.3758@s13423-019-01598-6.pdf)

~~~
mykowebhn
Thanks! Here's the relevant part:

> We recruited 114 participants on Amazon Mechanical Turk based on the
> expected effect size for curiosity on trivia questions (as estimated via
> Kang et al., 2009 and Gruber et al., 2014) and how many participants we
> estimated we would need to exclude (e.g., due to inattention) based on
> previous laboratory experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk. From this sample,
> we excluded 16 participants for providing the same curiosity rating on at
> least 90% of trials in the learning phase, and 11 for skipping 20% or more
> of trials.1 We included the resulting 87 participants in the analyses
> reported below. Participants received a monetary payment at a rate of
> US$10.00 hourly in exchange for their participation, and the task lasted
> approximately 50 min.

Take from it what you will, but I feel the title should be changed to "What
curious attentive Amazon Mechanical Turk users whose curiosity rating tends to
increase, who don't skip tasks, who need to earn some money, and who have 50
minutes to spare think they know--but might not--pushes them to learn more..."
But I jest...

~~~
dt5702
We need more abstracts like this in the social sciences.

~~~
HeWhoLurksLate
Titles can be as long as you want. We need more _titles_ like this in all of
science.

