Hacker News
points by bemtevi 3 days ago | 0 comments
It's obvious that it is. But I think it's also obvious that one can follow curiosity pathologically and have curiosity rewarded to the point that it becomes harmful. Even information can be addictive to the point that we pursue curiosity beyond a healthy level - or in other words to the point that we ignore other things like simplicity and minimalism.

For example, it seems that this is the trend in modern academia and science, where huge amounts of resources are used to pursue knowledge that wouldn't make sense if it weren't incentivized the way it is.

[–] oliculipolicula 3 days ago
Empirically, curiosity doesn't scale. By my own estimate,99% of the information or anything really, that an addict ingests has no "intrinsic value".

Most academics will admit that, despite their own curiosity, their actual output has almost nothing to do with curiosity. Nor are grants awarded based on curiosity, because that's really hard to measure.

We know HN is all about curiosity. But my addiction to it, if you call it that, has nothing to do with curiosity-- except that last bit in TFA about the invulnerability

I come for the curiosity, but I stay to feel ... vulnerable? Comfortable? Invulnerable? Fuck knows.

It's probably related to the "fact" that dopamine hits come from anticipation of reward rather than reward.. curiousity spikes once a couple of weeks on HN and that's too regular and sparse to get addicted to. Do people get addicted to buying lottery tickets? Unless the tickets smell really great, that seems unlikely. It's more of a compulsion.. thus even less related to curiosity.

I don't know about the other addicts. Eg those here who average 20-100s karma per comment maybe they do know how to scale curiosity, and that is a GOOD thing, no question about it.

[–] nukular 3 days ago
Yeah, I think the question should be “is novelty good for us?” Curiosity begins with attraction to what is “novel.” And novel does not equal meaningfully satisfying.
[–] oliculipolicula 3 days ago
"Novel" is easy to measure, it's now thoroughly Goodharted; only 1% of what's now called novel seems to be attractive to the median human. (how many submissions are there to HNovels everyday, vs how many you'd actually read?)

I'd say "surprising" is less Goodharted. 50% of surprising is roughly delightful to 50% of the people. (The other 50% is dreadful. Like say South Carolina turned blue. Surprising, but dreadful to 50% of their electorate)

"Curious" is even harder to measure than "surprising".. BUT maybe you can say, "potential for further or bigger surprise". Curiosity has something of a second order, a potentiality, a promise, a good promise. Is hope good for us? Is optimism? That's roughly the same order of question

(I'm aware that the article is talking about curiosity as a sort of skill. To me, it is. But folks tend to focus on curiosity as a trait, because that's seemingly more debatable. And ironically, just as the article feared, can defo threaten their identity)