
Why Aren’t We Curious About the Things We Want to Be Curious About? - diaphanous
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/18/opinion/sunday/curiosity-brain.html
======
shantly
Worth noting that the ability to indulge practically any idle curiosity ("who
was that guy in that one movie again?") with almost no effort is _very new_.
Unless you happened to have the relevant book of trivia, or maybe a good
encyclopedia for some things, _and_ you were at home or otherwise somewhere
those were physically located, you couldn't find out without quite a bit of
effort. That kind of stuff just dropped out of one's mind almost as quickly as
it came up. You might ask the people around you, and if they couldn't
remember, oh well, off it goes.

If you wanted to know something, you had to _work_ at it or _premeditate and
spend time and /or money_ to be ready to find out information in a certain
category (having the right books, mostly).

Your brain didn't _nag_ and _insist_ that you go find it out _right now_ ,
generally, for every little question of near-zero importance that happened to
cross your mind. That's a curse of the Internet age.

~~~
WhompingWindows
A few people I know immediately go to their phones to check facts during
hangouts and conversations. I find it pretty off-putting, that those close to
me value a trivial fact over staying fully connected with the conversation.
There is some dopaminergic itch that must be scratched here, and I find like
most itching, it doesn't end up paying off for more than a second.

~~~
jasode
_> A few people I know immediately go to their phones to check facts during
hangouts and conversations. I find it pretty off-putting, that those close to
me value a trivial fact over staying fully connected with the conversation._

 _> , can we have screen-free time together?_

 _> , or can we look at each other and shrug and move on with connecting with
other humans and not screens._

I wasn't there at your meetings so if you truly felt ignored, I can't argue
with feelings.

That said, let me offer a different perspective: someone quickly going to a
smartphone screen to look something up that's relevant to our conversation
shows they are _more engaged_ with me and our conversation. It's like being in
a professor's office and we discuss something and it prompts the professor to
get up from his chair and pull a specific book from the shelf and page through
it to clarify a fact. That shows caring. Or when you talk to a friend and you
mention something about a specific place and they say "Oh, I happen to have a
photo of that" so they go get their photo album and show it to me. That's
staying connected with our conversation. I don't say, _" I wish our real-life
interactions were book-free and photo-album-free."_

It really isn't the screen hardware that's the measure of (dis)engagement. _It
depends on what they 're specifically doing on that screen._ If the person is
distracted with typing Facebook replies, then yes, they're totally ignoring
our conversation. On the other hand, if they're visiting wikipedia or doing a
google search to enhance our talk, that's great.

EDIT to add an example weaving in some "screen time" to enhance a
conversation. A priest talking to Google employees on how he uses their search
engine during conversations with friends to clarify facts. Deep link at 2m40s
and watch for about 1 minute:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enDhX49F3XI&t=2m40s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enDhX49F3XI&t=2m40s)

~~~
mistersquid
> It's like being in a professor's office and we discuss something and it
> prompts the professor to get up from his chair and pull a specific book from
> the shelf and page through it to clarify a fact.

As a former professor, visiting a professor during, say, office hours, is not
quite the same as spending time with a loved one (whether that be a parent,
sibling, spouse, friend, what-have-you). The context for such a meeting is to
share knowledge and information, which discursive domain provides the reason
for meeting in the first place.

In many interpersonal meetings between loved ones, knowledge and information
are a secondary or even more remote consideration to the basis of the meeting.
In such cases, looking up trivial information is not necessarily a form of
care but a form of distraction.

It takes judgement to know when looking up a piece of information is germane
to the interpersonal context or whether doing so is incidental.

EDIT: Furnish missing object "care".

~~~
jasode
_> The context for such a meeting is to share knowledge and information, which
discursive domain provides the reason for meeting in the first place._

Yes, that underlying context is true but you're missing the point of my
example. The professor example was not about "information" vs "friendship". It
was meant to illustrate "engaged" vs "disengaged" in the conversation which is
_orthogonal_ to whether the context is teacher/student or friend/friend.

For example, professor X sits there with arms folded across the chest thinking
the student doesn't really care about his class and is only there to lobby for
a good grade. Therefore the professor just answers, _" Uhm, yes, I see. Well,
I don't know what to say other than make sure you get your final paper in by
next week"_.

On the other hand, professor Y was genuinely intrigued by something the
student said and it spurs him to search his bookshelf and clarify something.
_He didn 't have to physically get up to get a book_ but the conversation was
engaging enough to do so. When the professor temporarily turns his back to the
student to fetch a relevant book, that doesn't mean he's less disconnected
from the conversation; he's actually _more connected_.

That's what I'm trying to convey: maybe measuring how much time your friend's
eyes are glued to your face isn't the best way to measure connectedness. E.g.
The professor X with the unbroken stare towards to the student was actually
_less engaged_ than professor Y that paused the conversation to find a
relevant book.

Like I said previously, I can't argue with others' feelings. This thread shows
me that everybody seems to have different thresholds of annoyance for others
using their smartphone to look up something. Personally, I'm never slighted or
offended by it. I actually feel complimented if our conversation prompted
their fingers to type out a search request because of something I said. Just
last week, I was talking with a friend about iron supplements and as we were
talking, she typed in a search query for the most iron-rich foods. It was
great as the conversation then flowed into spinach, tofu, etc.

~~~
mistersquid
Thanks for expanding on your initial thoughts and for relating those
expansions to my response. (First rate engagement. A+++ would read again.)

I agree engagement and relational context are orthogonal, and I think your
elaboration captures very clearly what I mean by using

> _judgement to know when looking up a piece of information is germane to the
> interpersonal context or whether doing so is incidental_

Professor Y clearly cares and that care is expressed by looking up
information. My main point to your first comment was that sometimes the nature
of a relationship and a meeting will make most citations of fact irrelevant.
For sure, sometimes meetings between close relations will benefit from
citations of fact.

Reading above, I don't think we're in disagreement, though we may be focusing
more tightly on different scenarios.

Thanks for engaging!

------
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](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.

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

~~~
mc3
That's the perennial HN question.

------
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.

~~~
iscrewyou
Any way for you to share a few of your YouTube channels? I love watching
channels such as 3blue1brown, numberphile, sixtysymbols, deepskyvideos, etc.
it’s true what you say about sitting down and actually watching more than just
a sound bite. Having context of things helps a lot with learning.

However, I am lacking in some development channels.

~~~
wruza
Hi, of course! 3b1b and numberphile are two of my favorites too. Especially
featuring Neil Sloane and prof. Tadashi Tokieda (no intent to undervalue other
stars and/or Parker squares).

PBS network is also great. I watch PBS Eons and PBS Spacetime the same time I
see a notification dot.

Recently added Astrum because of nice pics. melodysheep caught me with their
timelapse videos. These two are in wait-and-see category atm.

Also Jay Foreman for british humour, London history and mapmen. Primer posts
rarely, but was definitely worth a sub.

That’s all. I visit few more topics/channels by hand, but they are of
entertainment nature (starcraft tournaments, local evening letsplays, etc),
thus no sub as it would create an unwanted distraction. As of games,
MkIceAndFire plays them with decent skill in no commentary, no overlay style.
Btw, when you’re on a channel, you can check “channels” to see if an author
likes or links to something on their own account.

Hope you like some of these!

>development channels

Sadly, it never clicked with me, despite (or because) me being full-time dev
since when youtube still wasn’t a thing. It just feels either too slow or too
shallow/instructional rather than deep and full of decades of wisdom. Idk,
can’t force myself to watch any of these anymore.

------
StreakyCobra
> 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 :)

~~~
WhompingWindows
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.

~~~
dorchadas
I usually get my HackerNews updated through the feed in Telegram, which means
I usually go straight to the comments before even reading the article. Reading
them is really nice, as it lets me gauge if I think the article is worth a
read, then engage in some great conversations about it.

------
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.

------
kstenerud
> 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.

~~~
macromaniac
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.

~~~
Yajirobe
And then when you try to google for information on these things, you end up
reading the very same short articles.

------
theboywho
if you’re not reading about some subject you think you’re curious about, can
we still call it being curious about said subject ?

Maybe you just find the idea of being curious about the subject cool.

Makes me think of this quote ascribed to Picasso:

When art critics get together they talk about Form and Structure and Meaning.
When artists get together they talk about where you can buy cheap turpentine.

So maybe the author is not curious as an artist, but curious as an art
critique.

~~~
jodrellblank
There's a saying that having a typewriter on a desk is not the sign of a
writer, it's a sign of someone who wants to present the image of a writer, to
feel like a writer but without the hard bit of having to labour over writing
something, to be seen as a writer.[1]

LessWrong talks about "Science as attire"[2] thus: " _The X-Men comics use
terms like “evolution,” “mutation,” and “genetic code,” purely to place
themselves in what they conceive to be the literary genre of science._ ", and
TheLastPsychiatrist wrote endlessly about narcissism in modern society -
caring about our image and how others perceive us and how we control how we
seem, over and above taking action and doing things (for others).

When the article said " _I want to be drawn in by the nature of quasars_ ",
these things are what came to mind; maybe the author finds the idea of being
curious about the subject cool; maybe the author wants to feel and appear
smart and Quasars fit that image a lot more than popular macaroon flavours do.
Yet Quasars have the difficult part of needing to read papers about radio
astronomy and study masters degree level math, probably.

This has been a bitter, hard to learn, and not very thoroughly learned lesson
in my life, and I feel a pang of identification with the author on that note.
How much _cooler_ and _cleverer_ does their article look for their claim "I
want to be curious about Quasars" instead of had they written "I want to be
curious about cardboard glue" \- and yet does the substance of the article
change at all for any value of X in "I want to be curious about X"? I think it
doesn't, I think only the image changes. It's name-dropping Quasars.

It's the Richard Feynman vignette[3] about learning the names of a bird in
different languages from his father, and then being shown that afterwards he
knows nothing - but _nothing_ \- about the bird, and that being important in
his focus on detail and how things behave, rather than studying names and
descriptions.

At least the author can dodge to macaroon articles and still feel like they
are learning and feel superior to another version of themselves where they
just stared at the wall - reading is cleverer than doing nothing. Even when
the thing they read is irrelevant, forgettable, flashy but insubstantial,
disconnected from their knowledge. Why can't they simply say "I read about
macaroon flavours because it was there and caught my eye"? Because that sounds
weak and stupid.

> This function of curiosity — to heighten memory — is the key to
> understanding why we’re curious about some things and not others. We feel
> most curious when exploration will yield the most learning. [..] We’re
> maximally curious when we sense that the environment offers new information
> in the right proportion to complement what we already know.

Do we? How did the Alcatraz Menu fit into this claim?

My much less cheerful answer is that the author doesn't want to be curious
about Quasars (radio telescope measurements and calculations made from them
and mathematical models built from those), the author wants to be seen as
someone interested in science (but not the nerdy topics which would bore a
polite dinner party, only something popular and safely irrelevant), and is
feeling shameful and inadequate about clicking on an Alcatraz menu. NB. I say
ashamed at reading trivia because it's not smart enough for the image the
author wants to portray, deliberately not guilty at the waste of time which
could have been spent helping others instead. The Alcatraz menu was
interesting, so the time was 'well spent' by some metric, so the author isn't
unhappy with low productivity or bad use of time, the author is specifically
unhappy at the use of time not being up to the image they want to portray to
the world. "People would think I'm stupid if they knew what I was reading
about, so I'd better dress it up in a NYT opinion piece then I can feel and
look smart again". (I accuse).

[1] The sign of a writer is some writing - output from the act of writing - be
it on typewriter or pen and paper or computer, etc.

[2] [https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/4Bwr6s9dofvqPWakn/science-
as...](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/4Bwr6s9dofvqPWakn/science-as-attire)

[3] Richard Feynman anecdote in an interview
[https://youtu.be/GNhlNSLQAFE?t=240](https://youtu.be/GNhlNSLQAFE?t=240)

[4]

~~~
oldboyFX
I couldn't agree more, and I'm also still learning this lesson. There are so
many subjects for which I love the idea of being interested in, sometimes for
years. The knowledge about these subjects is freely available, often in
abundance, yet I rarely go seek it.

However, I'm still not sure what plays the bigger role in my lack of action:
laziness + the abundance of junk content, or simply the lack of any real
interest. Perhaps a combination of both.

------
neonate
[http://archive.is/aFv56](http://archive.is/aFv56)

~~~
glerk
Thank you!

------
incubus0h
Can someone suggest good career options for person with novelty traits ? (see
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novelty_seeking](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novelty_seeking)).

Once you are settle down in a certain career (for example, IT/software
development), not having to satisfy the itch for novelty seeking can make
things really boring for you. So, my next question - how do satisfy that itch
in a given career, say IT?

~~~
arbitrary_name
So - I am a strong 'novelty person'. Much of my life revolves around change
and newness, and constant, ongoing learning (I've moved from travel
wholesaling to banking to startups to energy to mining to bio-pharma to...who
knows?). At the beginning of my career, I spent about 6 months working in a
bank before I realised that working with the same people, the same task, the
same desk day in and day out was not for me. I was not learning all that much
after the first 2 months. I realised I needed to stay in 'those first two
months' \- where everything is new, where you are constantly learning the
ropes - but before anything gets repetitive.

So I became a management consultant; and it's awesome; my job changes every
10-12 weeks, with a new office, new team, new clients and new challenges. I
can travel for projects if I want a new city, new bed, new bars etc, or I can
stay at home and explore.

I work with a lot of technical folks in the field; devs, architects, project
managers, business analysts, analytics specialists - all with (broadly) the
same passion for learning and change that I have. If you're interested, check
it out - there's lots of benefits, lots of great opportunities and a ton of
learning to be had, as long as you can balance the expectations and demands.

------
mrfusion
It reminds me of that sienfeld episode where George says he always wanted to
be a civil war buff.

------
criddell
This is why I have 20 unread books on my Kindle and at night when I'm looking
for something to read I can't find anything.

~~~
tw1010
That's like saying there doesn't exist riveting brain-changing books out
there, which just isn't true. (Keep searching until you've found your bliss.)

------
Buldak
This is like asking, "Why can't I decide to enjoy broccoli if I believe it's
healthy to eat?" The evolutionary story behind curiosity notwithstanding, it
seems to me that this is just a case of the more general observation you can't
alter your desires simply by reflecting on whether they are good or bad.

~~~
_se
Except that you can, by just doing the things you want to do until they become
habits. It's not really much different than going to the gym or deciding not
to drink too often. Even though you might want/not want to do the thing, you
still do it because you know it's better for you.

The better way to say it is that it's difficult to alter one's desires via
reflection, not that it cannot be done.

------
holografix
That’s an issue I kinda wish I had, I get curious about lots of random non-
practical things. Atlas Obscura is a great source of enjoyment.

~~~
scarejunba
That's exactly the problem that the article is talking about and it's so
commonplace that there are quite a few running jokes about it, TVTropes being
a common one.

------
atemerev
One of the very few (somewhat) positive traits of having adult ADHD: this
particular problem does not exist. If you want to be curious about something —
even if it is a slightest spark of interest — it immediately activates to
full-blown involvement, sometimes bordering on obsession.

I have spent a year studying quantum mechanics full time on my own, reading
textbooks and practicing exercises, because I was mildly curious about quantum
physics at some point. Got me fired from my job back then, as it had nothing
to do with QM.

This is not always a good thing. :)

------
mapcars
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 of the limitation our knowledge has.

~~~
croon
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 profile myself and work as a generalist,
and am good at trivia games, so I've managed to deal with it. But I would like
to get better at specializing in things.

~~~
projektfu
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...](https://courses.edx.org/courses/course-v1:MITx+6.002x_6x+1T2015/course/)

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-...](https://www.edx.org/course/embedded-systems-shape-the-world-
microcontroller-inputoutput-2)

~~~
croon
Thanks for the suggestions!

I need to enroll to see the contents of the first one, but I will look into
it!

------
transitionnel
The article is interesting and raises a good point, but I don't think it
really solves anything.

With the right perspective on (understanding of) your mental processes, deep,
useful, questions like this cease to exist. They are solved. I've had success
recently with subtle self-control over curiosity and motivation, and the way
to do it is just as simple as it intuitively feels.

Reconfiguring your brain to follow through on your stated goals is a simple
process over time that relies on simple goal-setting and reward. You set up a
system of trivial goals, always at whatever pace you enjoy, and expand their
novelty and risk factor. Being very simple and increasingly binary, this
process can easily crystallize in your physical brain. Yet it is ever
expanding in complexity as you become excited at your progress in broadening
intelligence.

This is the kind of thing that some will want evidence for. Those are the ones
that won't be able to make use of it. Follow intuition; only you can convince
your inner self of truth in progress. Science is only a semi-precise tool for
helping this process, as the controls of any experiment are infinite in
reality.

BTW, the comment on Novelty Seeking was great hos234!

------
rdiddly
Is the problem that we're not curious about the right things? Or is it more
that passively wandering through a crap-garden has an astronomically small
chance of offering you anything but crap? (Not to put too fine a point on the
"crap" thing, because that's not really my point.)

The piece talks about those who read, but elides the free agency of those who
offer. Clicking on an article someone offers is not just moving through an
unbiased and natural "world" and interacting with it like picking berries off
a bush. This world was built by other humans, framed by other humans, who
decided what to offer. Behind every article is a human with an agenda and
perhaps traffic & revenue targets. If you let them determine what you read,
yeah there will tend to be a mismatch. This is not an "opportunistic"
approach, it's a "passive" approach.

Let's say we were talking about pizza instead. You want pizza. Do you go
wandering around hoping someone offers you pizza? Pretty sure if you don't
already know where to get pizza, you go look up pizza. But then are you like
"Oh but there are 'thousands of hits' for pizza, boo hoo?!" No, that is what
_success_ at finding pizza looks like. Sorting out which one is your favorite
pizza, the one that's _just right for you_ from all those many options is
like, the least amount of work you can frigging do. It's fortunate-people
problems.

If you're curious about something, this author was right the first time: Just
look it up. First hit is almost always Wikipedia, which is fine. Start
reading, and you're off to the races. They even have hyperlinks to all related
terms/concepts that might need explication or that you might be, ahem, curious
about. Yep it takes some minimal amount of will and discipline to read and
click links and direct your own learning. If you can't muster that, you're
kind of in trouble. But do it anyway; practicing will make you stronger.

------
40acres
I can only speak for America society, but in my experience after a certain age
general novelty seeking is discouraged. We've all experienced the feeling of
being bombarded by questions from a toddler, but after a certain age we
restrict the "universe of relevant questions" to be context specific.

As someone with ADHD, novelty seeking has never been an issue for me.
Generally I think it benefits society as a whole to have a robust number of
novelty seekers in the population -- but in a society where specialization is
rewarded so greatly it can be a frustrating trait.

~~~
randcraw
I think it's the more disruptive forms of curiosity that are actively
discouraged -- where you publicly question whether a fundamental fact is wrong
and suggest that it be corrected before we proceed with sopme standard
operating procedure that others depend on. Pretty much everyone hates that.

But I think when curiosity is kept private, or you state that your
explorations are personal, peripheral, and nowhere near anyone's critical
path, curiosity shouldn't pose a threat.

But it is curious that after you leave school, curiosity is more often
discouraged than encouraged in our society. It seems like 95% of people just
want all their beliefs forever to be correct, certain, unchanging, and
unthreatening.

------
known
May be it's not contributing/promoting our
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ikigai](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ikigai)

------
jileczech
Because your attention is your future self.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16x8vd2L4cw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16x8vd2L4cw)

------
adamnemecek
Yeah that, or school real beats curiosity out of you. By the time you are
done, you are a husk of the once curious human being you used to be?

------
abruzzi
The premise of the article seems odd to me. Am I just unusual in the fact that
my interests and curiosity are very closely aligned?

------
ErikAugust
No paywall:
[https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/18/opinion/sunday/curiosity-...](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/18/opinion/sunday/curiosity-
brain.html)

~~~
loolatrix
Still paywalled for me.

Alternative is

curl
[https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/18/opinion/sunday/curiosity-...](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/18/opinion/sunday/curiosity-
brain.html) > nyt.html

------
jiofih
\- “You’ve been clickbaited by your own brain”

\- full-screen paywall whooshes in

:(

~~~
sheepstrat
Disable Javascript ;)

