Scott, this is one of the most grounded maps of curiosity I’ve ever seen.
What struck me most wasn’t the loop itself—but the permission to return to Autopilot when it serves us. We glorify endless exploration, but sometimes the most radical move is to trust what you’ve learned and move forward.
Stage 4 reminded me how rarely we allow ourselves to evolve without demanding certainty. Sometimes the real skill is moving between stages without shame—trusting that not every cycle needs to end in mastery.
You didn’t just map curiosity—you gave it grace. That stayed with me.
Thanks Alexandra! You've hit the nail on the head it's a 'both, and' dynamic. In fact, there's an alternate version of this model in which I place a yin yang in the middle of the 2x2, to also represent this cyclical, breathing in, breathing out nature of learning.
When we're in Autopilot, it's important to nurture that flame of curiosity. But equally, when we're in endless exploration, we also need some form of anchor to bring us back to reality.
And I wonder if true 'mastery' is not in a specific domain, but simply just the ability to move through the cycle.
Scott: A beautifully articulated and simple model! By simple I do not mean simplistic, but rather something that goes to the core of the complexity and gives us a means of navigation and understanding. Thank you for this.🙏🏼
This is super helpful. And thinking about cognitive efficiency I'm lead to reflect of the concept of cognitive bandwidth. A much spurned taboo in our society is the notion of stupidity. Having worked in a public ER; I can confirm it is a thing. Much more so now that we've significantly reduced natural selection. So, I ask—what does the association between intelligence and curiosity look like? Equally, do all people move through this curiosity life cycle or only those with the cognitive capacity to spare?
Love your reflection Mei, and I really like both of your questions. Let me answer the second question first about whether all people move through the curiosity lifecycle; my answer is YES. When I developed this, I started by thinking about a child going to school for the first time. At first, they are introduced to the notion of really basic ideas about maths. The teachers made these exercises relevant by asking the kids to think about apples (or chocolate). Done well, this should have piqued the kids' curiosity to 'deep dive' into basic arithmetic, after which they learn that basic maths can be applied to other areas of their lives, such as trading marbles in the playground during recess.
As they work through primary and second education, they continue to cycle through the quadrants, levelling up their knowledge each time.
In adulthood, I argue that the same process applies. Before we can become curious about something, we need to be exposed to new ideas (novel stimuli) first. If the idea's relevant to us, it piques our curiosity, we learn it, then we figure out how to apply it elsewhere.
So how does it link to intelligence? Well one way of looking at intelligence and cognitive capability might be the ability to FORM connections between seemingly disparate data points. People with greater intelligence might be more adept at forming connections between more disparate data points. But that doesn't mean people with less intelligence can't form new links either; the data points might just need to be more closely grouped together for the connections to be made.
The 'muscle' here is learning how to connect two items together. But I think there are two big challenges to cognitive capacity / capability:
1) Our education system is based on testing 'what you know', rather than testing the ability for students to form the connections. This rewards rote learning, rather than cognitive capacity.
2) Furthermore, I argue that advanced technology and AI is casting an even larger shadow because now we can OUTSOURCE reasoning to a machine. We don't even need to think for ourselves anymore; we can let AI do that work. Untested, our muscle for cognitive capacity might start to atrophy. This is perhaps a far greater threat to 'intelligence', because people might parrot what sounds smart... but they don't understand why.
Honestly, I’ve found myself in all of these quadrants: the deep diver, the curious navigator, the autopilot, the impressionable passenger. It really depends on the topic.
I think part of the reason so many people feel dissatisfied at work is because they’re stuck in Autopilot. Even in jobs that are supposed to engage higher-level thinking, a lot of workplaces just want you to show up, do the work, don’t question anything, and keep the status quo. They don’t actually want deep divers or curious navigators. And if someone starts out as one, asks questions, digs deeper, they often get pushed back into autopilot just to survive.
I’ve seen the same thing in schools too. The way a lot of education is structured can drive the curiosity right out of people.
Being stuck in Autopilot is for sure the default mode for most people and organisations, however I want to flag that I think this is a two-way dynamic.
Humans are geared towards efficiency and order, so of course we build greater systems that encourage efficiency and order (think Dave Snowden's Cynefin Framework). We don't need to practice inventing new things all the time, because it's quite inefficient. And given we build organisations in our image, that same driver for efficiency and order carries through. So when a new person joins, they get inserted into a system that essentially railroads them into being on Autopilot. So we shape the systems, which in turn shapes us.
Consider this: We're confronted with two doors. The door on the left opens to reveal a world of simplicity and order. The door on the right however represents endless streams of noise, disruptions, memes, uncertainty, and yelling at clouds.
My argument here isn't about presenting a binary choice, but just to demonstrate why people might have a natural preference for being on Autopilot. But perhaps by working through each quadrant in turn, we just might be able restart the engine of curiosity. 🤞
I also think motivations play into this. There are just some people more intrinsically motivated to learn and walk through different doors. Where others are more than happy sailing on autopilot in certain areas of their lives.
Yeah I agree that there would be an innate propensity for exploring new ideas.
Ok, would love to get your thoughts on this. So one big conundrum that I've been presented is when faced with people who are steadfast in not wanting to try new things. The simplest example is a friend of mine, whose British parents came to visit Australia (first time). They don't travel much, and they were so... closed off to trying new foods that they would rather go hungry than eat something they're not familiar with. And not even something wildly differently either. For example, one of the parents LOVES the classic British scampi. Here, they were presented with regular prawns and veges but in a soft taco wrapping. Nope. Too different.
So the question is: How do you spark any form of curiosity in people like this?
My hypothesis based on this model is that to spark curiosity for people in autopilot, the 'new thing' has to be significantly more relevant to their comfort zone, for them to be willing to try something different.
To try and bring some arbitrary maths to it, say the new idea is 10 degrees different to what autopilots are used to, then we might need to start by introducing to new ideas that are a mere 1 degree different. Then, by their 10th cycle through the model, they'll be at a stage where they can accept something that's 10 degrees different.
Thanks for sharing your refined mode. The cyclical nature of curiosity and learning feels familiar, especially the idea that we ‘level up’ each time we revisit the stage.
RE: Stage 2’s Social Algorithms – The idea that trusted peers (+ not just social media) reinforce echo chambers is underdiscussed. It’s uncomfortable to admit how often I’ve adopted opinions because of who shared them, not their merit. Thank you for breaking this down. The diagrams were so helpful. Have a good week ahead Scott.
This is really helpful to me. I'm going to need to read it and digest a few more times to see how I can better practice these movements. I wonder how this works in conjunction with your earlier piece about telescope, microscope and kaleidoscope. Thanks for expanding my vision.
Thanks Hans! I appreciate you reading and reflecting on it. In fact, I'd love to know if there are any aspects you get stuck on or that doesn't make sense as you reflect on it. I was mindful of word count as I wrote this, and there are quite a few more nuances that I'll return to in future articles, so would love to hear any questions you might have.
To answer your question about how this works in conjunction with the 3x scopes, I see those as different modes of thinking as we traverse through this lifecycle. In other words, as we move up the Y-axis from unquestioning to questioning, we can deploy the 3x scopes to help us better understand and reflect on the things we come across.
However, I think that the microscope best lends itself to the Deep Diver quadrant, whereas the telescope and kaleidoscope might be more utilised in the Conscious Navigator quadrant. I hope that helps!
I love this model, Scott. I'm now curious about how the conscious/unconscious (in)competence model might overlay on it. I agree that this can be a model for life-long learning, but wonder how many of us go through the entire cycle how often. Thinking about another model, Maslow's triangle, perhaps we need to be at a stage where we can afford the luxury of questioning. Now I'm thinking about how to draw all of this! Brilliant - you've inspired me to learn more!
To your musing about the competence model, I think there are synergies for sure, as that model also demonstrates an elevation of skills and proficiency that looks a bit like going around one circuit of the lifecycle I've presented. I would argue the key difference is that once you've achieved a level of 'unconcious competence', there is room to go further.
The 'risk' of being at the peak of the competence model is whether that really is the peak (hence the points I've been making about expertise being a potential trap). And to make one further argument, I think there's something to be said about being 'Unconscious Competence' for a given range of maturity and experience.
For example, a maths student might be 'unconscious competence' during high school, but when they get to university, they may actually be in a stage of 'unconscious INcompetence' because they thought they knew it all.
I love that you also brought in Maslow's hierarchy, which is definitely an influence as stability and security is a pretty fundamental need for many folks. But I don't know if 'questioning' is a matter of luxury. I would agree that it might inhibit a more leisurely, philosophical type of questioning but on the other hand, constraint can also breed creativity. For example, the highest concentrations of female entrepreneurs in the world are in Botswana, Uganda, and Ghana; places we wouldn't necessarily consider to be particularly stable and prosperous.
Scott, this is one of the most grounded maps of curiosity I’ve ever seen.
What struck me most wasn’t the loop itself—but the permission to return to Autopilot when it serves us. We glorify endless exploration, but sometimes the most radical move is to trust what you’ve learned and move forward.
Stage 4 reminded me how rarely we allow ourselves to evolve without demanding certainty. Sometimes the real skill is moving between stages without shame—trusting that not every cycle needs to end in mastery.
You didn’t just map curiosity—you gave it grace. That stayed with me.
I was going to comment on this post but Alexandra said it best. Permission, grace, trust. Excellent summary of impact.
Thanks Alexandra! You've hit the nail on the head it's a 'both, and' dynamic. In fact, there's an alternate version of this model in which I place a yin yang in the middle of the 2x2, to also represent this cyclical, breathing in, breathing out nature of learning.
When we're in Autopilot, it's important to nurture that flame of curiosity. But equally, when we're in endless exploration, we also need some form of anchor to bring us back to reality.
And I wonder if true 'mastery' is not in a specific domain, but simply just the ability to move through the cycle.
Thanks for stopping by!
Scott: A beautifully articulated and simple model! By simple I do not mean simplistic, but rather something that goes to the core of the complexity and gives us a means of navigation and understanding. Thank you for this.🙏🏼
Thank you Ian! 🙏
This is super helpful. And thinking about cognitive efficiency I'm lead to reflect of the concept of cognitive bandwidth. A much spurned taboo in our society is the notion of stupidity. Having worked in a public ER; I can confirm it is a thing. Much more so now that we've significantly reduced natural selection. So, I ask—what does the association between intelligence and curiosity look like? Equally, do all people move through this curiosity life cycle or only those with the cognitive capacity to spare?
Love your reflection Mei, and I really like both of your questions. Let me answer the second question first about whether all people move through the curiosity lifecycle; my answer is YES. When I developed this, I started by thinking about a child going to school for the first time. At first, they are introduced to the notion of really basic ideas about maths. The teachers made these exercises relevant by asking the kids to think about apples (or chocolate). Done well, this should have piqued the kids' curiosity to 'deep dive' into basic arithmetic, after which they learn that basic maths can be applied to other areas of their lives, such as trading marbles in the playground during recess.
As they work through primary and second education, they continue to cycle through the quadrants, levelling up their knowledge each time.
In adulthood, I argue that the same process applies. Before we can become curious about something, we need to be exposed to new ideas (novel stimuli) first. If the idea's relevant to us, it piques our curiosity, we learn it, then we figure out how to apply it elsewhere.
So how does it link to intelligence? Well one way of looking at intelligence and cognitive capability might be the ability to FORM connections between seemingly disparate data points. People with greater intelligence might be more adept at forming connections between more disparate data points. But that doesn't mean people with less intelligence can't form new links either; the data points might just need to be more closely grouped together for the connections to be made.
The 'muscle' here is learning how to connect two items together. But I think there are two big challenges to cognitive capacity / capability:
1) Our education system is based on testing 'what you know', rather than testing the ability for students to form the connections. This rewards rote learning, rather than cognitive capacity.
2) Furthermore, I argue that advanced technology and AI is casting an even larger shadow because now we can OUTSOURCE reasoning to a machine. We don't even need to think for ourselves anymore; we can let AI do that work. Untested, our muscle for cognitive capacity might start to atrophy. This is perhaps a far greater threat to 'intelligence', because people might parrot what sounds smart... but they don't understand why.
Thanks for your questions!
Honestly, I’ve found myself in all of these quadrants: the deep diver, the curious navigator, the autopilot, the impressionable passenger. It really depends on the topic.
I think part of the reason so many people feel dissatisfied at work is because they’re stuck in Autopilot. Even in jobs that are supposed to engage higher-level thinking, a lot of workplaces just want you to show up, do the work, don’t question anything, and keep the status quo. They don’t actually want deep divers or curious navigators. And if someone starts out as one, asks questions, digs deeper, they often get pushed back into autopilot just to survive.
I’ve seen the same thing in schools too. The way a lot of education is structured can drive the curiosity right out of people.
Being stuck in Autopilot is for sure the default mode for most people and organisations, however I want to flag that I think this is a two-way dynamic.
Humans are geared towards efficiency and order, so of course we build greater systems that encourage efficiency and order (think Dave Snowden's Cynefin Framework). We don't need to practice inventing new things all the time, because it's quite inefficient. And given we build organisations in our image, that same driver for efficiency and order carries through. So when a new person joins, they get inserted into a system that essentially railroads them into being on Autopilot. So we shape the systems, which in turn shapes us.
Consider this: We're confronted with two doors. The door on the left opens to reveal a world of simplicity and order. The door on the right however represents endless streams of noise, disruptions, memes, uncertainty, and yelling at clouds.
My argument here isn't about presenting a binary choice, but just to demonstrate why people might have a natural preference for being on Autopilot. But perhaps by working through each quadrant in turn, we just might be able restart the engine of curiosity. 🤞
I also think motivations play into this. There are just some people more intrinsically motivated to learn and walk through different doors. Where others are more than happy sailing on autopilot in certain areas of their lives.
Yeah I agree that there would be an innate propensity for exploring new ideas.
Ok, would love to get your thoughts on this. So one big conundrum that I've been presented is when faced with people who are steadfast in not wanting to try new things. The simplest example is a friend of mine, whose British parents came to visit Australia (first time). They don't travel much, and they were so... closed off to trying new foods that they would rather go hungry than eat something they're not familiar with. And not even something wildly differently either. For example, one of the parents LOVES the classic British scampi. Here, they were presented with regular prawns and veges but in a soft taco wrapping. Nope. Too different.
So the question is: How do you spark any form of curiosity in people like this?
My hypothesis based on this model is that to spark curiosity for people in autopilot, the 'new thing' has to be significantly more relevant to their comfort zone, for them to be willing to try something different.
To try and bring some arbitrary maths to it, say the new idea is 10 degrees different to what autopilots are used to, then we might need to start by introducing to new ideas that are a mere 1 degree different. Then, by their 10th cycle through the model, they'll be at a stage where they can accept something that's 10 degrees different.
Thoughts?
Thanks for sharing your refined mode. The cyclical nature of curiosity and learning feels familiar, especially the idea that we ‘level up’ each time we revisit the stage.
RE: Stage 2’s Social Algorithms – The idea that trusted peers (+ not just social media) reinforce echo chambers is underdiscussed. It’s uncomfortable to admit how often I’ve adopted opinions because of who shared them, not their merit. Thank you for breaking this down. The diagrams were so helpful. Have a good week ahead Scott.
Thank you Neela! Glad to hear that you found these diagrams helpful, and appreciate your reflections (and the restack!) as always! Have a great week.
thank you Scott.
This is really helpful to me. I'm going to need to read it and digest a few more times to see how I can better practice these movements. I wonder how this works in conjunction with your earlier piece about telescope, microscope and kaleidoscope. Thanks for expanding my vision.
Thanks Hans! I appreciate you reading and reflecting on it. In fact, I'd love to know if there are any aspects you get stuck on or that doesn't make sense as you reflect on it. I was mindful of word count as I wrote this, and there are quite a few more nuances that I'll return to in future articles, so would love to hear any questions you might have.
To answer your question about how this works in conjunction with the 3x scopes, I see those as different modes of thinking as we traverse through this lifecycle. In other words, as we move up the Y-axis from unquestioning to questioning, we can deploy the 3x scopes to help us better understand and reflect on the things we come across.
However, I think that the microscope best lends itself to the Deep Diver quadrant, whereas the telescope and kaleidoscope might be more utilised in the Conscious Navigator quadrant. I hope that helps!
I love this model, Scott. I'm now curious about how the conscious/unconscious (in)competence model might overlay on it. I agree that this can be a model for life-long learning, but wonder how many of us go through the entire cycle how often. Thinking about another model, Maslow's triangle, perhaps we need to be at a stage where we can afford the luxury of questioning. Now I'm thinking about how to draw all of this! Brilliant - you've inspired me to learn more!
Thank you Lisa! Glad it inspires!
To your musing about the competence model, I think there are synergies for sure, as that model also demonstrates an elevation of skills and proficiency that looks a bit like going around one circuit of the lifecycle I've presented. I would argue the key difference is that once you've achieved a level of 'unconcious competence', there is room to go further.
The 'risk' of being at the peak of the competence model is whether that really is the peak (hence the points I've been making about expertise being a potential trap). And to make one further argument, I think there's something to be said about being 'Unconscious Competence' for a given range of maturity and experience.
For example, a maths student might be 'unconscious competence' during high school, but when they get to university, they may actually be in a stage of 'unconscious INcompetence' because they thought they knew it all.
I love that you also brought in Maslow's hierarchy, which is definitely an influence as stability and security is a pretty fundamental need for many folks. But I don't know if 'questioning' is a matter of luxury. I would agree that it might inhibit a more leisurely, philosophical type of questioning but on the other hand, constraint can also breed creativity. For example, the highest concentrations of female entrepreneurs in the world are in Botswana, Uganda, and Ghana; places we wouldn't necessarily consider to be particularly stable and prosperous.
Your article has taken curiosity on a whole new level! Appreciate the depth on the topic!