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.
"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)
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)