What is Curiosity?

Related image
Here's a curious situation: scientists are debating. . . well, arguing. . . about the definition of curiosity.  This may seem a bit silly, but it's not.  Unless there is a standard, broadly accepted definition of a phenomena such as "what is an atom?", it becomes very difficult to conduct research that can be replicated by other researchers.  And replication of an experiment achieving the same results is critical to verifying the research as accurate.

 As writers, we all depend on standard definitions of words, relying heavily on both a precise definition and the implied definition.  What is curiosity?  It's a word I've used for years assuming that my readers understand what I mean.  But do we?  

 These sorts of arguments are common in science.  It is entertaining to read about the twenty some years of debates between Niels Bohr and Albert Einstein about quantum mechanics. Einstein was awarded his one Nobel Prize for identifying light as discreet packets of energy, i.e. quanta, and not as a wave as was thought prior to his 1905 paper.  Einstein created the study of quantum mechanics, yet spent the greater part of his professional life arguing against his own achievement.  In short, it made him uncomfortable that there is little cause and effect in Quantum Mechanics, only odds and probabilities.  This debate gave us his famous quote, "God does not play dice with the universe."

 These debates are healthy and advance science.

 In this case, what is curiosity?  Until this little but very important debate is settled, it's more than difficult for research into this phenomena of the mind to go forward.  In the report below, researchers from the University of Rochester reviewed the current research on the topic in an attempt to come up with a definition that might be universally accepted.

 Here's the report with a link to the full study in the attribution.  I'm curious about what you think of the debate.
*  *  *  *  *


Can scientists agree on a definition of curiosity?

Philosopher Thomas Hobbes called it "the lust of the mind."

Former first lady Eleanor Roosevelt said it was "the most useful gift." And, yes, we all know what killed the cat.

But ask a group of scientists to define curiosity and you'll get a rousing debate, and a lot of unanswered questions about its biology. No more, argue two University of Rochester researchers in a review of curiosity science published November 4 in Neuron. They propose that it's time for researchers to organize and focus on curiosity's function, evolution, mechanism, and development.

"Curiosity is a long-standing problem that is fascinating but has been difficult to approach scientifically," says co-author Benjamin Hayden, an assistant professor of brain and cognitive sciences. "But we felt that the field has recently managed to develop new formal and quantifiable techniques for studying curiosity and that it's worth getting the word out. There are several people, working in several different disciplines, who may not be aware of each other's work, but who should be."

It's not uncommon for neuroscientists to study something (e.g., attention, reward, self-control, etc.) for which there is no agreed upon definition. "Fighting over the proper definition is a big part of figuring out how they work," says co-author Celeste Kidd of the Rochester Baby Lab and Rochester Kid Lab. "We have to be comfortable with that kind of basic uncertainty."

Scientists have been taking notes about curiosity since the 19th century. In humans, psychologists used biographies from mothers to study how children were drawn toward new objects or experiences. Animal curiosity also became a fascination for well-known researchers like Ivan Pavlov and Harry Harlow, who saw this "What-is-it?" reflex as a basic drive.

Curiosity is a drive state for information.
Over time, studies have tried to differentiate curiosity by saying it is entirely intrinsically motivated (compared to information-seeking and risk-seeking), but this type of definition runs into problems when determining the intrinsic motivation of babies, primates, and other organisms that cannot communicate their inner world. For their Review, the authors used a working definition of curiosity "as a drive state for information," which can be observed in organisms as simple as nematode worms.

"When the information-seeking becomes active, it's reasonable to start talking about it as a minimal form of curiosity," Hayden says. "This definition, and the idea that roundworms may be curious, will be hard for some people to swallow. But by looking at it from an evolutionary perspective--the benefits of information-seeking in general--scientists can make rapid progress; but by sitting around and arguing about what is and is not curiosity, progress will be much slower."

One question still up for debate is whether curiosity always carries benefits--whether immediately or in the future. A popular notion in education literature is that the function of curiosity is to facilitate learning and thus success increases with the degree of one's curiosity. It's agreed that information allows for better choices, but curiosity can lead animals to pursue stimuli that aren't necessarily useful. While increasing curiosity reduces uncertainty and makes for better choices on what to explore, the animals' brains are also wired to reward us for learning new information, which can put us at different risks.

"Everything in life involves trade-offs," Kidd says. "If we spend time watching a TV show because we are curious about what happened, then we spend less time working on our jobs. So there is definitely a balance, and too much curiosity can be harmful."

While not covered in-depth in their Review, the authors also note that the study of curiosity overlaps with ADHD and other attentional disorders. Most of us devote our attention or curiosity to learning things with personal relevance (e.g., Why is traffic slowing down? Who are my ancestors? What's my beau's favorite color?), but these disorders could impair attention in a way that prompts interest in non-ideal information.

Hayden and Kidd hope that in addition to the understanding how curiosity is affected by disease, the future will bring new information about how curiosity is controlled, how it differs between childhood and adulthood, and the link between curiosity and learning. Finally, the authors are also optimistic that scientists will eventually agree on a way to classify curiosity.

Related stories:
The Brain - Is it Nurture? Or Nature?
Story Source: Materials provided by Cell Press. Celeste Kidd, Benjamin Y. Hayden. The Psychology and Neuroscience of Curiosity. Neuron, 2015

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Workout supplements: An emerging eating disorder in men?

Image
therewontbeanydoves.wordpress.com When developing a fictional character, you may not think about the character using large amounts of over-the-counter dietary supplements.  Especially a man who uses large amounts of workout supplements. While there has been widespread publicity on the dangers of the non-prescribed use of anabolic steroids, not much is said about legal, over-the-counter supplements.  Are there risks?  And if so, what are they?  There are several things the writer should consider. Supplement use is becoming an eating disorder with many men who use them to prepare for and recover from a workout. There is growing evidence of a link between muscle-building supplements and testicular cancer. There is evidence that over-the counter medications and supplements are the most common causes of drug-induced liver failure (a rare event, but still a risk.)  There is even evidence that, “certain popular herbal and dietary supplements can also ...
Read more

Remember faces but not names? You got it wrong.

Image
Source:   Daily Excelsior So, you think you're good at remembering faces, but terrible with names? New research has revealed we are actually better at remembering names than faces The cringe-worthy experience of not being able to remember an acquaintance's name leads many of us to believe we are terrible with names. However, new research has revealed this intuition is misleading; we are actually better at remembering names than faces. With the Christmas party season fast approaching, there will be plenty of opportunity to re-live the familiar, and excruciatingly-awkward, social situation of not being able to remember an acquaintance's name. This cringe-worthy experience leads many of us to believe we are terrible at remembering names. However, new research has revealed this intuition is misleading; we are actually better at remembering names than faces. The authors of the study, from the University of York, suggest that when we castigate ourselves f...
Read more

Children's drawings during abuse investigations

Image
Source:  rutherfordcountytn.gov I llustrations by children can be a critical tool in forensic investigations of child abuse. A recent study compared the results when child abuse victims were offered the opportunity to draw during questioning with results when victims were not offered this opportunity. "The act of drawing was not only an empowering experience for these children," said Dr. Katz. "We also found it to be forensically more effective in eliciting richer testimonies in child abuse cases. We had no idea the gap would be so great between those who drew and those who weren't given this option." A chance to express themselves Some 125 alleged child victims of sexual abuse were randomly selected for the field study. The children, aged 5-14, were questioned by nine well-trained forensic interviewers about a single occurrence of alleged sexual abuse. The children were divided into two sets -- a control group, questioned and allowed to rest during t...
Read more

Unhappy in a relationship? Why do you stay?

Image
Source:   Power of Positivity A story that may effect the development of your romantic comedies.  Why do people stay in unhappy relationships?  Simply put, it's concern for the partner of the unhappy person. This research doesn't offer solutions to this situation, but does help our understanding of why people behave the way they do. NOTE:  Within five minutes this post had 16 hits, the fastest hit rate of any story I've posted.  Might say something of how people feel. Here's the story: *  *  *  *  * When you are unhappy in a relationship, why do you stay?  The answer may surprise you. Study that finds it's not just the investment of time, resources and emotion Why do people stay in unsatisfying romantic relationships? A new study suggests it may be because they view leaving as bad for their partner. The study, being published in the November 2018 issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, e...
Read more

M.I.T. Research Explains How Will Rogers Observation Works

Image
Finally it appears that MIT has gotten involved in proving Will's syllogism, "There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves." Read his statement carefully.   ONE learns by reading.   A FEW who learn by observation. Then there's the rest of us. The reason for this, it turns out, is a special circuit in the brain that you or I need to have a functioning version of to actually learn by observing others.  Based on how we all behave, it is a circuit most of us must be missing.   Or perhaps it shorted out the first time we peed on an electric fence and it has yet to grow back.   *  *  *  *  * Brain circuit helps us learn by watching others Scientists pinpoint neural interactions that are necessary for observational learning Researchers have identified a brain circuit requir...
Read more