Loading...
Loading...
Click here if you don’t see subscription options
Matt EmersonSeptember 05, 2014
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.

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.
JR Cosgrove
10 years 7 months 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.

The latest from america

F. Scott Fitzgerald was not a favorite of America's editors for many years, but they all read 'Gatsby.' Everyone reads 'Gatsby.'
James T. KeaneApril 15, 2025
The root cause of the chronic U.S. trade imbalance is macroeconomic: We save too little relative to our major trading partners. Tariffs will not address that problem.
Paul D. McNelis, S.J.April 15, 2025
Asked whether the pope would meet with U.S. Vice President JD Vance, a Catholic convert who will be in Rome for the Easter weekend, the director of the Holy See Press office said he did not have information on that.
Gerard O’ConnellApril 15, 2025
All over the world, Christ is again being crucified in the bodies of human rights lawyers and journalists who stand up for justice in the face of criminality, whether from gangs or governments.
Thomas J. ReeseApril 15, 2025