[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)