Are humans naturally curious?

The science says yes — and no

Photo by Jeremiah Lawrence on Unsplash

In Metaphysics, Aristotle said that:

1. Humans are naturally curious, and that
2. Evidence of this exists in the fact that we prefer to see (or have more information in general) even if we don’t intend on doing anything with that information.

Are these statements true?

The answer isn’t so simple, because just as there are multiple types of intelligence, there are multiple types of curiosity — and scientists don’t seem to agree on definitions for any of them.

1. Are we naturally curious?

The science seems to indicate that yes, humans are naturally curious. Babies eventually get bored of staring at the same patterns, playing with the same toys, and even crawling — that’s what motivates them to walk. They want to see more faster.

Science writer Grant Curin refers to this as perceptual curiosity. We just like knowing things, especially learning new things. ‘Variety is the spice of life,’ as William Cowper wrote. Novelty provides variety. This could motivate why we spend hours diving down Wikipedia rabbit holes, or bingeing YouTube videos on our latest obsession.

Curiosity could explain why it’s so exciting to fall in love — and the death of curiosity could be a harbinger for the end of your relationship. Our heads spin and hearts flutter when we get to know someone — not necessarily because we’re trying to get laid, but because it’s just exciting to discover a new world. (It’d be pretty manipulative if your only reason for wanting to get to know someone better is to extract sex or something else from them.) Assuming we know everything about our long-term partners, failing to maintain that curiosity, could lead to death of intimacy.

2. Are we curious for the sake of knowledge itself, or because we intend to act upon that knowledge?

The answer to this one is less clear. Babies seem to explore just because, but who’s to say their curiosity isn’t driven by some primal instinct to gather more information in order to eventually take action?

Humans have a distinct type of curiosity that sets us apart from other animals, which another science writer refers to as epistemic curiosity. We like to rule out uncertainty. In his claim, Aristotle didn’t seem to account for the fact that inaction is also a type of action. Quality control monitors — for food, laptops, clothing — often don’t take action. Good. Ideally they shouldn’t be, because these monitors are only supposed to interfere when something goes wrong. Inaction is a deliberate choice given sufficient information that nothing’s wrong (or insufficient information that something is wrong).

In the same way, some of us we might prefer to see not just because we like to look at things, but because seeing allows us to ensure there’s no dangers around us. Those threats can include anything from a staircase to an open manhole to a reckless driver barreling down the road from afar. Without this additional information, some of us might live in anxiety if we’re unable to find other ways to perceive threats.

What about distractive curiosity, and all the other definitions?

There’s other types of curiosity, too, including distractive curiosity. As the name suggests, this type of curiosity is driven more by the need to distract ourselves than anything else. Do we look up celebrity gossip because it truly brings us joy, or because we’re trying to numb ourselves?

Further complicating matters is the disagreement over terminology. In one paper, psychology professor Patrick Mussel seems to have completely different terms for the same concepts mentioned above. What I refer to as “epistemic curiosity” he refers to as “as a feeling of deprivation.” He further explains,

This dimension refers to rather unpleasant and aversive feelings of uncertainty which accompany curiosity, such as being annoyed at not knowing the answer to a question…

Professor Mussel defines epistemic curiosity instead as curiosity driven by the promise of a reward (instead of Grant Curin’s definition as curiosity driven by the desire to rule out uncertainty). One could argue that ruling out uncertainty is a type of reward, which would align the two definitions. But Professor Mussel thinks of epistemic curiosity more broadly and splits it into two types: specific and diverse. Specific curiosity is what motivates us to seek out specific pieces of information, while diverse curiosity was “first described as being motivated by feelings of boredom or a desire for stimulus variation.”

Professor Mussel’s definition of specific curiosity seems to align with writer Grant Curin’s definition of perceptual curiosity — but the underlying motivations differ. Grant Curin thinks of this type of curiosity as neutral, driven simply by the desire to know more, while Professor Mussel thinks of this type of curiosity as reward-driven.

Astrophysicist Mario Livio, who published a book about curiosity after his own curiosity motivated him to study the subject, seems to agree that perceptual curiosity drives us to collect new information through our senses, through perception. But he, too, has a different idea on the underlying motivation. He writes that perceptual curiosity is “an itch that we need to scratch,” driven by adversity, because we don’t like not knowing things. In this way, his definition of perceptual curiosity is more like writer Grant Curin’s definition of epistemic curiosity, driven not by joy but by adversity.

So yes, we’re naturally curious. Does it matter why?

The evidence is irrefutable: we’re naturally curious. Whether driven by the promise of reward, by joy, or by adversity, we want to learn more.

The debate about what exactly drives us reminds me of that iconic episode in F.R.I.E.N.D.S. where Phoebe and Joey debate whether any act is truly selfless. Is any form of information seeking truly aimless, driven by joy and not by the anticipation of reward, or staving off of uncertainty? Can we truly learn for the sake of learning without intending to take action upon that information later?

When you learn new skills or take up new hobbies, you could be driven by any number of things:

1. Simply wanting to know,
2. Prospecting for a hidden talent,
3. Distracting yourself from the humdrum of life,
4. Fear or anxiety of not being good at this skill (or of not being good enough in general),
5. Some combination of the above, like starting simply because you’re curious while hoping you might strike gold in discovering a hidden talent that could help you quit your humdrum day job.

But there’s a reason why Aristotle made these two statements in this order. First and foremost, we have a desire to learn. It’s probably more in the spirit of his teachings to simply explore your curiosity.

Sources:

• Metaphysics, Aristotle. http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/metaphysics.html
• Currin, Grant. “Why are humans so curious?” Live Science. July 19, 2020. https://www.livescience.com/why-are-humans-curious.html
• Livio, Mario. “The ‘Why’ Behind Asking Why: The Science of Curiosity.” Knowledge at Wharton Podcast. August 23, 2017. https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/podcast/knowledge-at-wharton-podcast/makes-us-curious/
• Mussel, Patrick. “Epistemic curiosity and related constructs: Lacking evidence of discriminant validity.” Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 49, Issue 5, 2010, Pages 506–510, ISSN 0191–8869. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.05.014.
• Cowper, William. “The Task.” https://www.gutenberg.org/files/3698/3698-h/3698-h.htm
• “How Curiosity Deepens Intimacy.” OnlyYouForever. (Citing various articles by Professor Mussel.) https://www.onlyyouforever.com/how-curiosity-deepens-intimacy/