Reply #1:Well, I have gotten myself into something "deep" this time. As in deep "s(tuff/**t)".![[ Curiosity pic ]](../filters/images/Curiosity_360_240.jpg)
Curious about what that is? Well that's just it. Thanks for the recommendation for the next chapter.
Curiosity.
The thing about "Curiosity" is that it is evoked when novelty is encountered. And I am going to get into that as the chapter unfolds, in the typically novel way that ConserveLiberty approaches topics that most consider (initially) to be commonly understood.
(Not sure if that is a paradox, an irony, or just "amusing.")
However, it turns out that "Curiosity" has been something that the psych, neuropsych, and biology/biochem folks have been turned on to for some time. (As well as folks outside the "hard" and "soft" sciences such as art, drama, literature in general, even humor and news!). Which in and of itself is an important "tell." The "tell?" That means that Curiosity is such an integral component to human behavior that everyone has it at one level or another.
Some may have a lot of it, some little. But it is so common that it is considered a common descriptor in the multi-dimensional ways that we describe someone. Asked to describe anyone at all that you have ever met ... as you consider that person you will also have a "feeling" for how "curious of a person" that person seemed to be. Even if you don't get around to actually describing them using that term. Only if someone was full-off 0% curious would that show up as "clinically significant." And, if someone was full-on 100% curious, that would also seem clinically significant (unless they were a very young child.) Anything in between ... seems like all those are considered within "the Bell Curve."
And yet, I can't really find any publically available molecular biology data on it like I could with some of the affective disorders (bi-polar), reality disorders (schizophrenia), or habituation issues (addiction, etc.).
Like, damn!
I guess the problem is is that to understand any cognitive function, you have to have a large number of research groups into it. For them to be into it, they need to be funded (either publically or privately.) For that to happen, there needs to be some important clinical or social significance. Who wants to understand something that is considered normal if most folks are normal and so you aren't going to want to do anything about it?
Anyway, I guess there aren't any examples of curiosity deficits that have significant negative clinical or social impacts. Of course, brain injuries (for example) might impact curiosity, but if they do it is also likely the case that a bunch of other stuff is also impacted, and so the curiosity issue is the least of the problems to worry about.
So, damn!
I'm gonna write this chapter. But I was hoping I could fold in some science that might be starting to scratch the surface of how curiosity actually becomes manifested as a behavior from a genetic / physiological / evolutionary / structural perspective. After all, it is wired into us structurally, thus genetically (I say, hypothetically, of course.) But I have found no publically available data (yet) to lend validating credibility to that hypothesis.
Any insights? Reactions? Bull?
David
P.S. What do you think about using something like this as an external essay for the ConserveLiberty chapter on curiosity?
→ Note #1 to Stella Maronne was last updated 06 Nov 2017 9:10 PST ←
Dear David,
The essay you mentioned does speak to curiosity enough in my opinion.Note #2:
There several other interesting essays and children's stories that you might also consider incorporating. Here's something written by about curiosity from Wisdom Commons.
Also, I have always been "curious" as to why 'outward - more public' displays of curiosity diminishes with age. I would think internal curiosity remains the same. Peer pressure? Negative reactions? Limited by society? All for now! Have fun writing!
Stella
→ Reply #1 to David Apollo was last updated 06 Nov 2017 11:00 PST ←
Hi Stella,
The Wisdom Commons piece that was written about Curiosity will be an excellent inclusion in the Preface section of the chapter.Reply #2:
Your questions/observations about Curiosity decreasing with age are a universal observation about the behavior. In fact it is considered so normal, because it is universally observed that I'm thinking it hints at the mechanism of action of the whole thing. My hypothesis is that your observations are related to how the whole thing is built in the first place.
Why do I say that? Well, because we don't usually see any deviations from the pattern.
I'm hoping to come up with something both novel AND testable that could explain that.
I do think that various social influences may also be in play as well. However, usually stereotypes that could cause exaggerated effects are based on something observed naturally as well. They start with some observed truism, and then the environmental influence impacts from there. So, we'll see.
I've run across some psych theories that if looked at a little differently, sort of out of the box, could provide a credible hypothesis that could possible be tested experimentally.
Wish I had some examples of Curiosity changing in one or more people due to some other variables that could be observed and maybe tested.
David
→ Note #2 to Stella Maronne was last updated 06 Nov 2017 PST 13:00 ←
Hi David,
I know someone who's mom has had Alzheimer's for awhile. She told me that her last unprompted communication primarily consisted of questions. That's how she would engage in conversations. Lot's of "whys". That was over 2 years ago.Note #3:
These days she talks very little, and when she does its responding to a question. Mostly "yes" and "no."
She's now had Alzheimer's maybe 15 or more years.
I'm not sure that may add much to what you have uncovered on Curiosity. But I thought I'd mention it.
→ Reply #2 to David Apollo from Stella was last updated 09 Nov 2017 9:15 PST ←
Hi again Stella,
Sorry it has taken me so long to write back. While I have been on to other projects, this one also just seems to take long for me to get just right.
I am finding out that the "understood meaning of words" we generally take for granted ... cannot be taken for granted with this chapter. So, its not that I'm redefinng the English language exactly. I'm just having to take time to make clear what English language understanding of certain words I actually do mean.
I'm sure (and expect) to get a reaction on some of that.
Anyway, I've got a significant amount of the early stuff written in maybe a first draft form, and I've also included your observation regarding Alzheimer's as part of the insight leveraged within the chapter.
If you are interested in any of the "observations that are consistent with the theory" stuff, check out The Big Picture.
The stuff written above where the Big Picture link takes you may also be interesting to you, depending on what's interesting to you. And, that's just the Intro Page. Links to the Main Page will get you to the Author's note and Preface.
Links to Multiple Filters and beyond may be on the Main Menus, but those pages are only stub outs. I'll begin developing them next.
Let me know what you think, and if you think I'm going in an acceptable direction. Does it resonate with you? Changes? All welcome!!
David
→ Note #3 to Stella Maronne was last updated 12 Nov 2017 PST 13:15 ←