Cultivating Curiosity—Part 2

We all possess some degree of curiosity. The key is to respond appropriately to those inquisitive feelings we get. Many people waddle through life half asleep—their minds dull and disinterested. When opportunities or novelties come along, they can be too preoccupied or dull witted to even notice them. So paying attention is crucial. As I wrote earlier, children—who have so much to learn—are naturally curious; evolution has built that into them. As we age, however, some of us lose that childlike sense of awe. We can become complacent and bored; we tell ourselves that there's nothing really new out there.

Unfortunately, modern society seeks thrills, more than learning. We seek quick, facile answers to life's quandaries; rather than taking the time to probe deeper. People are encouraged to grab hold of facts, rather than truly understanding things. As a wise person once said, “Facts are not knowledge, knowledge is not wisdom.”

Are some of us more curious than others? Sure, but is it because our genetic makeup determines our level of curiosity, or can we cultivate it? I'm convinced that we can develop our curiosity, largely because it is an emotion, rather than an instinct. Instincts cause us to behave in unconscious and fixed patterns. Emotions, however, can be changed and developed. They are flexible and can be built upon.

I did some research, consulting various essays and books on psychology and philosophy, about ways to cultivate one's curiosity. I came up with a list of eight practices that can help to strengthen one's curious nature:

1. Ask questions. Admit your ignorance and your need to learn. Acknowledging your ignorance is the best way to dispel it.
2. Don't take things for granted. Remain skeptical about what you hear or read, and then check it out. Be open to surprise and the possibility of being wrong; it's a great way to learn.
3. Don't label anything as boring or not worthy of your effort to understand. To do so just closes doors to insight and understanding.
4. Don't judge things too quickly. Keep an open mind. Have the humility to admit that you are limited and that you have a need to pause and learn. This opens the door to change and growth.
5. Read a wide range of things. Challenge yourself with new and different and unfamiliar material. Let it open your mind.
6. Gradually increase the complexity of what you do. Don't settle for facile or easy answers.
7. Seek excellence in what you do. Don't settle for shoddy or inferior behavior.
8. Pay attention; concentrate on each task at hand. Be ready to notice and pick up on anything and everything that comes along. Be mindful.

That's a great list to cultivate one's curiosity. I believe that by acting upon some of these items, we can regain that natural sense of inquisitiveness that children have. We can feel more alive and excited. Yes, unlike the doomed curious cat, curiosity is healthy for us.

Cultivating Curiosity—Part 1

I believe that curiosity is one of the most valuable attributes that we can have. And I do not mean in the sense of the old saw, “Curiosity killed the cat.” That saying tends to give curiosity a bad name, which might cause some people to be a little leery about being inquisitive. I think, however, that this quotation has actually been used as a warning to keep one's nose out of other people's business, to avoid prying into others' private matters. No, I see curiosity as a healthy attribute. Here's why.

But first, what exactly is curiosity? The dictionary definition is: “a strong desire to know or learn something.” Interestingly, its root meaning is to be careful. Well, maybe if that cat had been a little more careful, its curiosity would not have brought about its demise. So I'll stick with this definition, which describes curiosity as one's desire to learn. Kids are naturally curious, because their main function in life is to learn. Many people who seek to expand their knowledge do so by responding to their curiosity... sort of like kids do.

Returning to children: they are naturally drawn to novelty. When something new comes into their lives and they are curious about it; they have an innate tendency to wonder about it. Many animals also exhibit curiosity when they encounter something new. If it doesn't appear to be dangerous, they will check it out.

In fact, evolution has favored curiosity. Animals who have a general instinct for curiosity do better—they are more fit and thus are more likely to survive—than those who are complacent. Yes, there are dangers in the world, and it pays to be cautious, but critters who are curious usually do fare better. Their curiosity drives them to explore new things and experiences.

For example, one of the most successful species of bird is the house sparrow. Its natural bent for curiosity has enabled it to expand into new territory and learn new habits. As a result, the house sparrow is a very adaptable creature; it has spread its territory to the point that it now inhabits most every corner of the globe.

And there is no more adaptable creature on the planet than Homo sapiens. Our curiosity—like the house sparrow—has led us to spread across the Earth, inhabiting just about every environment there is. Evolution built curiosity into us, by favoring those of our ancestors who were most curious; they were better at learning new skills. When the environment changed, those with better skills could better adapt. Those who were dull or disinterested were more likely to perish when hard times came, because they had become stuck in their ways.

So curiosity is an advantageous quality to have. Those who are curious have an urge to learn, to seek answers to puzzles. They want to know why, even when there may be no immediate practical advantage to knowing. When we respond to that mental itch to understand—due to “idle” curiosity—we often find that it leads us to creative insights we never even knew existed. Our lives become richer for it. People who feel they have a very satisfying or exciting career are often those who are naturally curious and whose job allows them to explore their interests.

More on curiosity next time...

Capitalism and Evolution: Alike? (Part 2)

Last time we looked at a few similarities between evolution and capitalism that are regarded by some people as evidence that capitalism is the best economic way to go. But there are some key differences between them that we might also consider, to be more thorough in our examination. One big difference is how waste is handled. Nature recycles. One species' detritus becomes another's valuable resource. Decaying dead bodies are sustenance for many kinds of critters—even excrement is valued. Capitalist economies, however, create garbage that no creature wants. Moreover, it's often very toxic. Exhausted electronic devices become hazardous trash. Abandoned industrial sites pollute the environment.

Another difference is that capitalism is usually a zero-sum game: somebody wins only when somebody loses. This is a necessary result of economic competition for finite resources. Since capitalism does not recycle much at all, the resources it uses are limited. In contrast, nature often plays a nonzero-sum game, if, for no other reason than that it recycles. One species' waste, if it does well, provides even more resources for other species. They both do well.

Cooperation can also often be found buried deeply within nature's competitive process. Two complementary species, who, at first glance are seemingly in competition, can find themselves mutually beneficial to one another in the long run. A lean-and-mean corporation, however, is rarely concerned with anything beyond its immediate sphere of influence.

The various kinds of interactions between nature's many species also leads to another significant difference between evolution and capitalism: Evolution breeds diversity. A rich and healthy ecosystem is populated by a wide variety of interconnected species. Mother Nature tends to seek a sustainable balance in an ecosystem that finds a large number of plants and animals working together in a complex, symbiotic manner. As capitalism grows, however, the number of players dwindles. Monopolies emerge and grow ever larger—think Walmart or Microsoft. Since a monopoly can afford to be abusive (it has few effective checks and balances), it tends to care little for anything other than its quarterly economic bottom line.

It's interesting that scientists have come to see evolution as a “blind” process. That is, it has no intent, no design, and yet it has brought about a beautiful, complex, and effective process that has done extremely well for billions of years. In contrast, capitalism is very intentional and has a narrow and specific goal: maximization of profit. It works well in the short term (creating that quarterly profit), but often is not sustainable over the long run. Otherwise, would we pollute the planet as we do, or be causing the climate change we are? Greed—an inevitable part of capitalism—does not seem to play much of a role in evolution's game.

So, yes, capitalism and evolution do share some qualities... competition being the obvious one. “Survival of the fittest” plays a role in each system. It's useful to note, however, that Darwin, in presenting his elegant theory, never used the term “survival of the fittest.” He was really interested in the “natural selection” process of evolution, and realized that it is the cornerstone of nature's elegant and sustainable way. He also saw that nature's competition eventually even brought about cooperation.

And that factor of sustainability is crucial: evolution has worked beautifully for a few billion years now. Capitalism is an upstart that's been around for only a couple of hundred years. How much longer will it last?

Capitalism and Evolution: Alike? (Part 1)

Charles Darwin realized over 150 years ago that competition is the driving force behind evolution: similar species compete for limited resources and will duke it out until the “fittest” begins to dominate, while the less-fit may eventually become extinct. The process usually occurs when one species is better able to adapt to a particular environmental niche than another. The more-adaptable species will be more successful at reproduction and its offspring will dominate.

Most people in the business world see a similar situation playing out in a capitalist economy: competition between organizations or corporations winnows out the less-well functioning ones, leaving the successful ones to dominate. Similar to critters, corporations also compete for limited resources, with the “fittest” surviving, while the less-fit ones die off (or are bought up... a form of consumption?). In each case the argument is often made: leave the market or the natural world alone; this allows the competitive process to create an efficient and well-oiled world. The markets and nature will become well-tuned and balanced, if we don't mess with them. Just look at how splendidly nature has evolved! Capitalism, it is argued, is simply using the same principles as nature to become the most successful economic system, to the benefit of all.

So both nature and the marketplace operate in an atmosphere of competition, wherein limited resources promote rivalry. Here's another similarity: from time to time there is a variation introduced into the situation by one of the competitors—maybe a new marketing idea in a corporation or a genetic mutation in a plant or animal. If the idea or mutation is more suitable to the existing environment, those who posses it will do better. The modified corporation or critter can more effectively fill a niche. A similar situation occurs if the environment should change and one corporation or species is better able to adapt to that change.

I think we might take a closer look at the comparison between capitalism and evolution, however. How similar are they, really? Is the argument that capitalism is best—because it resembles evolution—a good argument? The resemblances described above may indeed seem to provide for some people a good argument to conclude that capitalism is the best economic system; and it indeed is the dominant one today. Mother Nature has done very well for billions of years with evolution, so maybe humans have come upon a similarly excellent system to govern their economy? There are a few significant differences to consider, however, before concluding that capitalism is so ideal. Let's look at some of them next time...