
Get Curious - mbrubeck
http://lesswrong.com/lw/aa7/get_curious/
======
gbog
Some good suggestions here, but I have the feeling that the author did not get
to the deepest consequences of this "curiosity". For example, let's take
Fengshui (a Chinese geomantic practice). A superficial knowledge will tell you
it tries to avoid straight lines for your alleys in your garden, because
ghosts like straight lines. And if you can't avoid a straight line, you may
add a mirror or other reflecting plane at one end of the line, because ghost,
who are obviously ugly, don't like to see their face.

All this is not very likely to be the cup of tea of a well-bred rationalist.
But if you are curious enough and keep your mind open, you might discover that
Fengshui is, for some part, a string of ancient wisdom pearls disguised behind
mnemotechnic tips. Maybe the real original reason was that the most fearful
warriors were the archers at that time, and the ghost explanation stayed
because it was easier to remember.

And digging in this direction you might find teaching that are still very
useful today. An example could be acupuncture and Chinese medicine: the fact
that it seems to be in continuous use since so long time and still used by
very informed people in some of the most developed East-Asian countries might
be a sign that this practice is useful, sometime, even if no proof pro or
contra has been brought to the debate (to my knowledge).

So with a bit of real curiosity, not only the one that feeds you with
suspicions whenever you read an articles with figures in it, but with the kind
of curiosity that is a real openness to the "strange" and the "strangers", you
might find out that pure cold rationalism is not a silver bullet, and that in
fact curiosity is a value to be placed above.

After all, rationalism is not able to tell us why one should not pee every
evening on one's neighbors fence, right?

~~~
jamesrcole
_you might find out that pure cold rationalism is not a silver bullet, and
that in fact curiosity is a value to be placed above._

you're presenting a rational argument for your point, which implies you think
it's rational to place curiosity higher. That implies "pure cold rationalism"
is a kind of strawman.

 _After all, rationalism is not able to tell us why one should not pee every
evening on one's neighbors fence, right?_

you sound serious, so: because they might not like the smell, because they
might able to see it, and not like the sight...

------
msg
Did this come off as pseudoscientific to anyone else? It seems to be inviting
me to see that the procedure works by personal experience, not to question
whether or not it works.

If it doesn't seem to work for me, I haven't practiced it enough. How long
should I try? 10000 trials. Of course the game is already up before I begin.

Kind of ironic considering the subject matter.

~~~
TeMPOraL
Why?

To quote from the article,

> Below, I propose a process for how to "get curious." I think we are only
> just beginning to learn how to create curious people, so please don't take
> this method as Science or Gospel but instead as an attempt to Just Try It.

Nowhere is the author suggestng that this procedure has been scientificaly
tested.

Also, the author raises two very important points that can be applied to other
things in life:

1) to train a skill _before_ it is needed, so that it's available when the
time comes.

2) to train it enough many times for it to become a habit.

