What Kind of Curious are You?

Google web search (Photo via Wikimedia Commons)

Writing at the Wall Street Journal today, Philip Delves Broughton reviews (subscribers only) Ian Leslie's Curious: The Desire to Know and Why Your Future Depends On It.

Mr. Leslie writes that there are two major categories of curiosity. Diversive curiosity, the attraction to everything novel, is superficial and easily satisfied--little more than a temporary fix for boredom. Epistemic curiosity, a deeper desire to understand a subject from top to bottom, may lead to a lifetime's study and even profound discovery. . . .
 

Epistemic curiosity depends on friction, on uncertainty, on being aware of our own ignorance--the very opposite of the quick-fix omniscience of a Google search. Those who are epistemically curious see life as a mystery to be patiently explored and dimly understood rather than mastered with a how-to list. They invest in acquiring the mental tools with which to tackle difficult problems. They bother to learn foreign languages and hard sciences and are always asking "why" as well as "what" questions. They use technology as a rapier rather than a crutch.

Advertisement

Modern society, notes Delves Broughton, is badly in need of the right kind of curiosity - the epistemic kind:

The sheer abundance of information at our disposal risks turning us into a society of glib know-it-alls, ignorant of our own ignorance. We may not all need to be like the 3-year-old John Stuart Mill pacing across Hampstead Heath with his father reciting ancient Greek, but we do need to know that being able to look up something on our iPhones doesn't make us smart. Mr. Leslie cites a question recently posted on the social-news and discussion site Reddit: "If someone from the 1950s suddenly appeared today, what would be the most difficult thing to explain to them about today?" The most popular answer was this: "I possess a device in my pocket that is capable of accessing the entirety of information known to man. I use it to look at pictures of cats and get into arguments with strangers."
Comments are automatically closed two weeks after an article's initial publication. See our comments policy for more.
J Cosgrove
4 years 1 month ago
I read this when it first was published and felt Leslie's point of view was supercilious. There are only two forms of curiosity and I guess those that exhibit neither are hoi polloi. I found his position, elitist and counter productive to a meaningful life. I consider myself an information junkie. I have a background in science and have been ABD in a business Ph.D program during my checkered career (left Ph.D program to start a new business) but have always been interested in science of all sorts, economics and in recent years history. But I never learned a foreign language nor spent the time to go to the ultimate of any of these areas, So what does that make someone like me who are many? This distinction that Leslie makes is nonsense.

Advertisement

The latest from america

The tête-à-tête between Paul Krugman and Nancy Pelosi in Manhattan was like a documentary about a once-popular rock band. (Rod Morata/Michael Priest Photography)
Speaking in a deep blue stronghold, the Democratic leader of the House calls for “civility” and cautiously hopes that she will again wield the speaker’s gavel in January.
Brandon SanchezOctober 16, 2018
The lecture provoked no hostile reaction from the students who heard it. But a media firestorm erupted.
John J. ConleyOctober 16, 2018
Though the current synod appears to lack the sort of drama and high-stakes debates of the previous two, the role of conscience appears to be a common thread.
Michael J. O’LoughlinOctober 16, 2018
When Tommie Smith and John Carlos raised their fists on the Olympic podium, their act drew widespread criticism. Now Colin Kaepernick is the face of Nike.
Michael McKinleyOctober 16, 2018