I love your point about technology providing "good enough" answers.
I've caught myself doing exactly what you described - scanning headlines and accepting surface-level answers because they satisfy that initial curiosity itch. It's like we've traded depth for convenience, and perhaps we're not even aware of what we're losing in that transaction.
I'm curious about your thoughts on another potential barrier: the fear of being wrong. In my experience, many people shut down their curiosity because they're afraid of asking "silly questions" or revealing what they don't know. In fact, when I speak to newbies on LinkedIn, most are afraid to engage for this very reason.
Thanks Neela for a great question (and for the restack)!
So yeah, fear of being wrong is an interesting one and I didn't end up calling it out specifically because I think it's deserving of its own post (and the article was getting quite long).
I think it's much more tied to the psychological and socio-cultural environmental factors more than anything else, and the reason I say that is because a 5 year old has zero fear of asking the wrong question!
So then, where does that fear come from?
- Some of it will be to do with fitting in (if I ask a silly question, I will not fit in)
- Some of it is to do with social messaging from others (you can't ask that!)
- And socio-culturally, there might be elements of upbringing (kids should be seen and not heard)
But critically, I would argue that all of these fears are related to an external influence of some sort, which then turn into that 'psychological pressure' that people experience. Like... even if they don't ask it, the question's there, in their minds! So it's not that the curiosity doesn't exist, it just doesn't cross the social threshold.
So yeah, that's the outline of my thinking. I'll definitely go deeper on this in an upcoming article!
This article is like the cliff notes for the book "Curious: The Desire to Know and Why Your Future Depends on It" by Ian Leslie, and I'm ok with that because it was one of the best books I've ever read. I was so intrigued and moved by this book that I wrote my English final, an argument piece on why my classmates should read it, last semester. Leslie explained why curiosity was so important, and talked about how to cherish it as a uniquely human quality. He cited many studies from childhood and adulthood. Leslie also spoke of what entertaining lifelong curiosity does to your health (spoiler alert: lifelong learning has many, many benefits) and he mentioned a lot of the same things you did. Thank you for the read and the reminder that we all need to stay curious!
Thank you for bringing that book to my attention Tiffany! I must admit I hadn't come across it yet, but now I'm really keen to check it out, especially around health.
One of the things about curiosity and aging is that having lifelong curiosity decreases your chances of developing Alzheimer’s and dementia. Also mentioned in the book that I found fascinating was how it benefits marriages/long term partnerships! Basically, if you remain curious, you’re more likely to make mundane, every day life more fun and therefore stick around with your partner longer because you’re not expecting the next best thrill.
Oooh, I definitely have to check it out then, as I'm keen to gather more research. For instance, I was speaking with a friend yesterday specifically about the loneliness crisis at the moment and the challenges with forming new connections between people, and why we believe a deeper practice of curiosity could help with that.
Without seeing the research yet on aging, it intuitively feels like it should make sense, that curiosity could be beneficial. To me, I often associate the deeper practice of curiosity to be like a mental workout, to play around with ideas and viewpoints like we would a kaleidoscope.
Thanks for writing so well about such a vitally important topic Scott! 👏 I look forward to reading more of your essays.
Our modern industrial public education paradigm crushes the natural curiosity of (most) children by framing the goal as getting the "right" answer and instilling massive chilling fear of failure. Game over for the languid learning of childhood. In that vein, you might enjoy my essay about how we're not teaching science as the process of being observant and curious (which it is) so most students find it boring:
Thanks Baird! Glad you enjoyed it. I agree with you that the process of learning is often blurred with the line of 'getting things right'. And it's a really interesting paradox because on the one hand, we want students to be curious, to be open-minded, and that it's ok to get things wrong. But... how do we answer the question: "How do we know if these students have learned what we taught? How do we demonstrate that? Well why don't we give them a test? That might give us the data to see if what we've taught has stuck."
In other words, I'm making the argument that assessments could be seen as the application of a scientific method to gauge the impact of education. However from the perspective of the student, it then morphs into rote learning (for the most part).
It's a wicked paradox! And it reminds me of Goodhart's Law: When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.
This is an area I definitely will be writing about further in the future! Thanks so much for your comment! I'll check out your article now.
In the old apprentice/workshop model, the work product WAS the assessment method. If the novice could make good sushi rice or a broom or whatever, they "got it" and advanced to the next thing. It was a demonstration of competence, not a disconnected test.
In that model, 100%. There is a real, tangible product that we can objectively assess. But when it comes to literature, arts, music, and even analysis, there is a layer of subjectivity. For example, can you imagine if an apprentice in the old days creating a chair that defied the classical understanding of what makes a chair? Instead of creating say... a 4-legged chair, they created one of those sleek, modern chairs that's literally just all curves made out of one piece of material. To us, this might be a tremendous demonstration of creativity but in the old world, that might have been seen as sacrilege.
Of course, there are two perspectives to this type of evaluation. 1) I'm not evaluating you on your creativity, I'm measuring you on whether you can demonstrate the fundamentals. 2) I'm evaluating you on your creative interpretation of what is a 'chair'.
Thus it might be a case of what we set out to evaluate.
EDIT: There are some areas (in particular maths, physics, chemistry, etc) where there is such a thing as objective truth, though I guess 'new maths' was an attempt of changing that.
I absolutely love this piece, Scott! You inspired me to write about how our surroundings play a crucial role in shaping our mindset. I've experiecned firsthand how a minor change in environment can inspire a person’s mindset from everyday routine to a quest for wonder and exploration.
You raise a high relevant point about psychological pressure. There's a balance to strike: enough pressure to inspire curiosity without overwhelming it. Historically, explorers faced significant pressure, but it was framed as adventure, not obligation. We should focus on making curiosity feel like a journey instead of a chore.
Thanks for the shoutout! I appreciate you, my friend.
I love your point about technology providing "good enough" answers.
I've caught myself doing exactly what you described - scanning headlines and accepting surface-level answers because they satisfy that initial curiosity itch. It's like we've traded depth for convenience, and perhaps we're not even aware of what we're losing in that transaction.
I'm curious about your thoughts on another potential barrier: the fear of being wrong. In my experience, many people shut down their curiosity because they're afraid of asking "silly questions" or revealing what they don't know. In fact, when I speak to newbies on LinkedIn, most are afraid to engage for this very reason.
It's always a good read, Scott. Thank you!
Thanks Neela for a great question (and for the restack)!
So yeah, fear of being wrong is an interesting one and I didn't end up calling it out specifically because I think it's deserving of its own post (and the article was getting quite long).
I think it's much more tied to the psychological and socio-cultural environmental factors more than anything else, and the reason I say that is because a 5 year old has zero fear of asking the wrong question!
So then, where does that fear come from?
- Some of it will be to do with fitting in (if I ask a silly question, I will not fit in)
- Some of it is to do with social messaging from others (you can't ask that!)
- And socio-culturally, there might be elements of upbringing (kids should be seen and not heard)
But critically, I would argue that all of these fears are related to an external influence of some sort, which then turn into that 'psychological pressure' that people experience. Like... even if they don't ask it, the question's there, in their minds! So it's not that the curiosity doesn't exist, it just doesn't cross the social threshold.
So yeah, that's the outline of my thinking. I'll definitely go deeper on this in an upcoming article!
I love that example about 5-year-olds having zero fear of 'wrong' questions.
You are correct. It makes me wonder how we add to those social pressures over time. I'm looking forward to your deeper dive into this, Scott.
Have a good week ahead.
This article is like the cliff notes for the book "Curious: The Desire to Know and Why Your Future Depends on It" by Ian Leslie, and I'm ok with that because it was one of the best books I've ever read. I was so intrigued and moved by this book that I wrote my English final, an argument piece on why my classmates should read it, last semester. Leslie explained why curiosity was so important, and talked about how to cherish it as a uniquely human quality. He cited many studies from childhood and adulthood. Leslie also spoke of what entertaining lifelong curiosity does to your health (spoiler alert: lifelong learning has many, many benefits) and he mentioned a lot of the same things you did. Thank you for the read and the reminder that we all need to stay curious!
Thank you for bringing that book to my attention Tiffany! I must admit I hadn't come across it yet, but now I'm really keen to check it out, especially around health.
One of the things about curiosity and aging is that having lifelong curiosity decreases your chances of developing Alzheimer’s and dementia. Also mentioned in the book that I found fascinating was how it benefits marriages/long term partnerships! Basically, if you remain curious, you’re more likely to make mundane, every day life more fun and therefore stick around with your partner longer because you’re not expecting the next best thrill.
Oooh, I definitely have to check it out then, as I'm keen to gather more research. For instance, I was speaking with a friend yesterday specifically about the loneliness crisis at the moment and the challenges with forming new connections between people, and why we believe a deeper practice of curiosity could help with that.
Without seeing the research yet on aging, it intuitively feels like it should make sense, that curiosity could be beneficial. To me, I often associate the deeper practice of curiosity to be like a mental workout, to play around with ideas and viewpoints like we would a kaleidoscope.
Thanks for writing so well about such a vitally important topic Scott! 👏 I look forward to reading more of your essays.
Our modern industrial public education paradigm crushes the natural curiosity of (most) children by framing the goal as getting the "right" answer and instilling massive chilling fear of failure. Game over for the languid learning of childhood. In that vein, you might enjoy my essay about how we're not teaching science as the process of being observant and curious (which it is) so most students find it boring:
https://bairdbrightman.substack.com/p/were-not-teaching-our-children-real
Thanks to Neela for restacking your essay so I could find it!
Thanks Baird! Glad you enjoyed it. I agree with you that the process of learning is often blurred with the line of 'getting things right'. And it's a really interesting paradox because on the one hand, we want students to be curious, to be open-minded, and that it's ok to get things wrong. But... how do we answer the question: "How do we know if these students have learned what we taught? How do we demonstrate that? Well why don't we give them a test? That might give us the data to see if what we've taught has stuck."
In other words, I'm making the argument that assessments could be seen as the application of a scientific method to gauge the impact of education. However from the perspective of the student, it then morphs into rote learning (for the most part).
It's a wicked paradox! And it reminds me of Goodhart's Law: When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.
This is an area I definitely will be writing about further in the future! Thanks so much for your comment! I'll check out your article now.
In the old apprentice/workshop model, the work product WAS the assessment method. If the novice could make good sushi rice or a broom or whatever, they "got it" and advanced to the next thing. It was a demonstration of competence, not a disconnected test.
In that model, 100%. There is a real, tangible product that we can objectively assess. But when it comes to literature, arts, music, and even analysis, there is a layer of subjectivity. For example, can you imagine if an apprentice in the old days creating a chair that defied the classical understanding of what makes a chair? Instead of creating say... a 4-legged chair, they created one of those sleek, modern chairs that's literally just all curves made out of one piece of material. To us, this might be a tremendous demonstration of creativity but in the old world, that might have been seen as sacrilege.
Of course, there are two perspectives to this type of evaluation. 1) I'm not evaluating you on your creativity, I'm measuring you on whether you can demonstrate the fundamentals. 2) I'm evaluating you on your creative interpretation of what is a 'chair'.
Thus it might be a case of what we set out to evaluate.
EDIT: There are some areas (in particular maths, physics, chemistry, etc) where there is such a thing as objective truth, though I guess 'new maths' was an attempt of changing that.
Yes, we must be very clear about what we're asking the student for. Grading rubrics can help reduce the subjectivity level of the evaluation.
I love the invitation to slow learning. Allowing time to explore beyond practical value can be life-giving. Thanks, Scott.
I absolutely love this piece, Scott! You inspired me to write about how our surroundings play a crucial role in shaping our mindset. I've experiecned firsthand how a minor change in environment can inspire a person’s mindset from everyday routine to a quest for wonder and exploration.
You raise a high relevant point about psychological pressure. There's a balance to strike: enough pressure to inspire curiosity without overwhelming it. Historically, explorers faced significant pressure, but it was framed as adventure, not obligation. We should focus on making curiosity feel like a journey instead of a chore.
Thanks for the shoutout! I appreciate you, my friend.