[HN Gopher] The Death of Intellectual Curiosity ___________________________________________________________________ The Death of Intellectual Curiosity Author : behnamoh Score : 44 points Date : 2022-10-13 18:52 UTC (4 hours ago) (HTM) web link (unfashionable.substack.com) (TXT) w3m dump (unfashionable.substack.com) | yesbut wrote: | The pragmatism of coping with poverty probably plays a big role | in losing ones motivation for curiosity. It is hard to let | yourself waste time traveling down rabbit holes when you are | worried about paying your bills. | sacrosancty wrote: | fleddr wrote: | The article is a mess. | | It suggest that all people are intellectually curious as | children, after which this curiosity is destroyed in the | education system. | | It provides zero evidence for this sweeping conclusion. Education | not being very fun and not very personalized does not prove that | intellectual curiosity is wiped out. | | Anybody whom has spent any time with children or are old enough | to see a child develop into a full grown adult would have noticed | the dramatic individual differences in their behavior and | abilities, many likely to be genetic. All children are curious to | a degree, which quite simply is a biological necessity to | understand how this world works. But deep curiosity for | curiosity's sake, for no immediate purpose: only found in | specific individuals. They just seem to be born with it. | | To illustrate how large individual differences can be, meet my | family. | | Father. Poor upbringing. Life long blue collar worker. Near-zero | education. Has read about 50% of all the books in the town's | library. Born intellectually curious and remains so against all | odds. | | Mother. Housewife with some past side jobs. Lowly educated. Zero | intellectual curiosity. Watches a soap opera and reads a gossipy | mag, and you can't get her interested in anything else. She has | low capacity to do so, furthermore is anxious and scared of | anything new. She's always been this way. | | Brother. Grunt worker like my father but with the intellectual | limitations of my mother. A mix of the two. Again, has always | been this way. | | Me. Intellectually curious like my father, with some soft sides | from my mother. Tinkerer from the very start. | | Girlfriend. Perhaps most painful. Intelligent and educated. But | not intellectually curious. The education system didn't | discourage it, she simply never was intellectually curious. | | Where a small sample size is usually a shortcoming in providing | any evidence, here I'd make the point that the incredible | diversity in outcomes of such a small sample size illustrates my | point: you're intellectually curious or you're not. | | Some simply lack the capacity to be that curious. Some do have | the capacity but still don't use it. Some can be convinced to use | it, by force or incentive. And for some it's completely | effortless and just whom you are. | | The idea that we all are (as children) is nonsense. The idea that | the education system wipes this out, is nonsense. | | But if I were to give the author the benefit of the doubt on this | part, it is absolutely destroyed in the libertarian take on free | market education. So the idea here is that universities should go | bankrupt if they fail to deliver the student a high paying job. | | So you put businesses in the driving seat of "intellectual | curiosity" and life long learning. Businesses. You can't be | serious. There can't be any entity that cares less. | | The connections between concepts seem completely random and made- | up. | JackFr wrote: | What an insipid, jejune bad take. Not sure which I hate more -- | the author's smugness or the tired tropes supported by cringe- | worthy assaults on straw-men. | techno_tsar wrote: | Author is projecting. | | Dismissing social science as a hindrance to intellectual | curiosity while stating that Karl Poppper's falsificationism is | the foundation of modern science is extremely ironic. Being | intellectually curious means charitably reading topics one | disdains, and a consequence of that is knowing that Popper's | views on science is simply one perspective of many. | nine_k wrote: | Studying views you disagree with goes past intellectual | curiosity; it's serious intellectual honesty (which is | inseparable from certain humility). | f0e4c2f7 wrote: | What are the bastions of curiosity today? I'm always on the | lookout for these. I would say HN is on net. I've heard Cambridge | tends to be that way. Working at Ycombinator seems like it would | be that way. I've heard Google used to be that way (maybe still | is?) | AussieWog93 wrote: | In all seriousness, old guys. Join a local club or SIG. The | retired guys you'll meet there have endless curiosity. | wepple wrote: | Counter-point: Ham radio | threatofrain wrote: | People often complain that the JS world moves too fast and has | too many frameworks. To me, bountiful boundary-pushing | creations is the very smell of a creative community. | Jensson wrote: | Creative developers makes their own frameworks for their | apps, Javascript is different with how much people choose to | depend upon new libraries all the time instead of solving | simple problems themselves. | the_third_wave wrote: | The problem with the ever-shifting tools in the JS world is | that it more resembles a bad case of obsessive compulsive | home remodelling disorder than a quest for a better tech | infrastructure. There just is not that much to be curious | about when the outcome is already known up-front: wherever | this new framework decides to place the sofa and whatever | trendy posters it places on the walls they're sure to come | down and be moved during the next remodelling. | [deleted] | rizzom5000 wrote: | Eh, I agree with your overall sentiment; but I cannot think | of a worse example than the Javascript community. While there | are genuine innovations being made, they aren't common and | they rarely require the introduction of a new framework or | library. When I think 'JS world' I immediately think of | Sturgeon's Law | (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_law) | thatoneguy wrote: | Making and having lots of friends and being willing to listen | has always worked for me. | shocks wrote: | 3D printing and retro emulation communities? | rufus_foreman wrote: | >> What are the bastions of curiosity today? | | Advertisers. They are intensely curious about how the human | brain _really_ works. | omosubi wrote: | The rationality community I'd say is very curious, on the whole | - see astral codex ten, marginal revolution, lesswrong, etc | Regardless of what you think of them it's hard to argue they | aren't curious | m0llusk wrote: | Amusing that this starts with a dismissal of the utility of | fiction. Stories can be a powerful way of communicating subtle | cultural artifacts and historical distinctions. Death of | intellectual curiosity, indeed. | nfw2 wrote: | This is a bit of straw man because the author is specifically | dismissing certain genres of fiction like romance and | thrillers, rather than fiction as a whole. | | It's hard to argue that books like The Da Vinci Code, as much I | enjoy them, deliver the same sort of commentary on the human | condition as something like 1984. | lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: | I think it's also worth mentioning that the author is | specifically criticizing the motivation of it being #1 on | NYT's best seller list (or a similarly vapid thing). | | I guess there is this line (emphasis mine), which is | suggestive of all fiction but, to use your examples, I'm not | convinced the author would attribute it to _1984_ the same | they would to _The Da Vinci Code_. | | > There is nothing wrong with reading these kinds of books, | _but you do not learn anything new_ (besides who committed | the murder). | elliekelly wrote: | What about fiction like _American Psycho_ , _We Have Always | Lived in the Castle_ , _Pride and Prejudice_ , or _The | Tempest_? Do they not deliver social commentary on the human | condition that equals (or maybe even surpasses) 1984? Are you | equally dismissive of thrillers and romantic films? Is Tinker | Tailor Soldier Spy vapid? Was Titanic a froofy waste of film? | wincy wrote: | I mean we have a word for those books. Books of literary | fiction are worth reading. | | Which is a tautological statement since literary fiction is | just a term snobs who don't read fiction invented for | "books that have special artistic merit so I'll read them | even if they're fiction". | Aunche wrote: | I think it's less about _what_ you read, but rather how you | read it. If you aren 't actively trying to challenge yourself | with your reading, you're probably not going to learn much | from it. You can read easily read 1984 as a thriller, which I | suspect is why you get all these bad takes about how | "something I dislike anyways" is like 1984. | mjfl wrote: | fiction carries lots of falsehoods tho. If you actually 'learn' | from fiction and try to apply it to real life, that's usually a | bad thing. A silly example is Naruto running - it doesn't make | you faster, or cooler, yet a few humans sincerely Naruto run in | public. And if you can't learn from fiction, and it's possible | to learn BAD things from it - what's it for? Fiction is guilty | until proven innocent for me. | Swizec wrote: | Something doesn't have to be factual to be true. And not all | factual things are true either. Lying with facts is very easy | - texas sharpshooter fallacy for example. And telling deep | truths is easier with non-factual stories - 1984 for example. | | As for Naruto running: let people have fun. | elliekelly wrote: | I don't understand why this myth persists? Why do so many | people view reading fiction as an unworthy waste of time? | Jensson wrote: | Fiction isn't a waste of time, but you can't say it is | intellectually interesting compared to science. | | You can read about magical physics in science fiction books | or you can read about real physics in science books. The | later is much more interesting than the former, there is no | comparison. There is a middle ground in PopSci, still not as | interesting as real physics but better than science fiction | books. | Enginerrrd wrote: | >Fiction isn't a waste of time, but you can't say it is | intellectually interesting compared to science. | | I am of the camp that real physics is far more interesting | than fiction to me personally, and I crack open textbooks | far more often than works of fiction. | | However, I must opine that to say that fiction isn't as | intellectually interesting compared to science speaks more | to your own lack of understanding of the subject than to | the subject itself. | | Fiction is far from a settled science! There is tremendous | room for creativity. Many competing mental models for how | to compose a story or a character, how literary themes | should interact, etc. etc. What makes a best-seller | different from a mediocre book? An endless number of things | that can be dissected, experimented with and evolved. | TheOtherHobbes wrote: | "It is now easier to understand all major theories than it was in | ancient times." | | I loled and stopped at this point. | | Perhaps the author really does understand GR and the Standard | Model to a deep professional level. Or even "simple" domains like | machine learning, music theory, political science, biochemistry, | or visual aesthetics. | | Somehow I doubt it. | andrewclunn wrote: | I learned WAY more after school (but a lot of this could be tied | to my graduating in the early 2000s, when the internet was | exploding with new forms of self expression and had not yet | become completely dominated by algorithms and corporate capture). | The problem with learning broadly is that eventually all the easy | to grasp and explain, but stimulating and powerful ideas | eventually become known. Then you either become interested in | learning more obscure trivia, delving deep into a particular | field (which is fine, but you've got to pick where to specialize) | or instead prioritize other things. | | Many people who spent a lot of time focused on learning decide | that spending a bit more time on physical health is more | important. Many have far less time as they raise families. Others | determine that putting forth effort to more clearly express the | ideas and knowledge they value (whether through discussion or | art) is their duty, to make it easier for others to follow, and | then perhaps take the baton further. | | I spent a lot of time changing my mind about things because I | listened and learned so much. I'm still open to doing so, but | sadly, after a point you are so much more informed than "the | average person" that there's diminishing returns to seeking out | alternative views and opinions. And don't even get me started on | the "Just read this four thousand page book" recommendation that | some people make. | Jensson wrote: | School and college creates a platform that you can put other | knowledge on. The stuff you put on that platform afterwards | might look like a mountain, but your platform wouldn't support | a large mountain if you didn't make it wide and stable to begin | with. | | Intellectual curiosity could be said to want to expand that | platform instead of just putting more things on top of it, | putting things on top is the default, expanding the platform is | done by very few which is why forcing them to spend years in | education is so important. | zentr1c wrote: | i feel you bro. its easy to understand other peoples point of | view and at the same time seeing what their viewpoint misses. | again beeing aware that myself is limited too. it thought me | beeing empathic with everybody but beeing able to say not my | point of view. i guess its called becoming wise. since its a | pattern of aging which you can do ofcause with different style, | i recommend reading into anthroposophical-biography-work to | understand the patterns of human morphing thru life. I am happy | that I was blessed to learn about it. Now over 50 I still can | recommend digging into it. Best age is around mid 30 to grasp | what's ahead. E.g. | | https://www.amazon.com/Human-Life-George-ONeil/dp/092997901X | | https://en.giorgiotarditispagnoli.com/post/anthroposophical-... | shahbaby wrote: | Education and learning opportunities being more ubiquitous does | not make them more valuable. | | Our society is hellbent on automating and commoditizing | everything. | m463 wrote: | I wonder if pursuits like this go along with boredom. | | I think boredom has been a catalyst for exploration and curiosity | in my life. | | And during my lifetime the world had gotten better and better at | eliminating every pocket of boredom I've encountered (even | sitting on the toilet). | notacoward wrote: | There was a time when making people more connected was seen as an | unqualified good thing. No, really. And it does still have some | upsides, such as connecting people with rare interests or | conditions, or enabling members of marginalized groups to support | each other. But we're also hyper-aware nowadays of its downside - | conspiracy theories, actual conspiracies, stalking and invasion | of privacy. Maybe on balance it's still good, but it does plenty | of harm as well. | | Same thing with information. We've turned a problem of access | into one of curation. Disinformation is a serious problem, no | matter which side of any particular issue you think represents | truth. Along with real information we get flooded with clickbait, | manufactured outrage, influencer nonsense. Some of these cause | far more psychological damage than their minimal information | content could justify. Again, the good is there but there's also | plenty of harm. | | The solution most emphatically is not the kind of intellectual | nihilism (misrepresented as curiosity) of the OP. That's just | "believe whatever you want" nonsense wrapped in pretension. | What's needed is better education about how to separate the wheat | from the chaff - a skill most people quite demonstrably do not | learn for themselves. It's like putting a first-time driver who | can barely see over the wheel right onto the trickiest freeway | interchange you can think of. By denying the value of education - | by which I mean education _guided_ by someone who understands the | scientific principles of pedagogy - we 're also denying people | the very tools they need to survive. Once they can do that, | _then_ we can set them loose with some confidence that they will | fill their heads with signal instead of noise. | zozbot234 wrote: | > a skill most people quite demonstrably do not learn for | themselves. | | Citation needed. I'm pretty sure that the people who take | conspiracy theories and urban legends seriously are a tiny | minority, same as they always were. The Internet has just made | this stuff more _visible_ , not more common. | rektide wrote: | Reality itself has become deeply concealed. Most of our products | come from overseas, so we dont see how stuff is made or who makes | it; where do we get the experience of being curious from in high | consumerism? Electronics fill a vast amount of the things in the | world, are a primary meams of reaction g activatiom, and yet | their functioning is concealled behind software protection & IP, | with few development tools available. | | The modern world refuses the idea of the microscope, rejects the | core truth that underlied the Enlightenment values: there's no | point to enlightenment in a universe which is unobservable, where | we dont have a way to investigate. The modern world too strongly | represents that infernal anti-Human hellscape. And alas, it is | only ourselves who are resppnsible for this fall. | passion__desire wrote: | Internet has changed that. We may not see them practically but | we do see them on videos, tiktoks and so on. Just search for | life in village videos related to specific country. That | content is there. It depends if youtube algo prioritizes those | for others. | _gabe_ wrote: | > they rarely read books. Even if they do, they read the thriller | or romance novel which is currently number one on the NYT | bestseller list. | | And...? | | > There is nothing wrong with reading these kinds of books, but | you do not learn anything new (besides who committed the murder). | | Once again, and...? | | Why does everyone seem to have this continuous growth mindset, | where, if you're not growing in some capacity you're failing at | life? I love reading fiction, and I love reading non fiction. I | don't particularly enjoy reading textbooks every waking moment, | and that's fine. | initramfs wrote: | Professor do not only "talk," as the article states. He might be | confusing them with instructors. Professors with research | responsibilities, often 1/3rd to >50% of their duties, are | "publish or perish". My professor was still publishing at age 78, | and a European colleague of his moved to the U.S. because his | country mandates retirement. | https://iotmote.substack.com/p/a-tribute-to-carl-woese | Bubble_Pop_22 wrote: | intellectual curiosity doesnt keep you up with the Joneses, at | least not immediately or maybe ever because the payoff is perhaps | not there at all. | | There are very few people who do stuff for the sake of doing | stuff. If you are a volunteer you'd know because basically there | is always a shortage of them, never once a volunteer has been | turned down at least I never saw it ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-10-13 23:00 UTC)