= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Swimmer963 comments on The Limits of Curiosity - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (49)
I think you are probably right that people who make a great contribution to humanity tend to be unusually curious. But that doesn't mean that being unusually curious is rational for individuals.
Most people are highly unlikely to make a great contribution even if they really wanted to, and most people have other priorities anyway.
Kevin Laland and others recently ran a tournament to study how different learning strategies fared in evolution (Science 328: 208-213). They found that under a very broad range of conditions winning strategies tended to a) copy others rather than innovate and b) learn little, exploit a lot. This suggests that contestants generally overestimated the instrumental value of curiosity.
Replace "curious" with "X", and you've got a Fully General argument against any claim that it's rational to imitate people who make a great contribution.
...which may be due in part to their lack of curiosity...
Most people don't read LW. Among people who do, I expect a higher than normal percentage to have goals for which curiosity is atypically instrumentally valuable.
But even in general: most people's priority is maximizing their status. I claim that curiosity is positively correlated with status. (I don't claim the correlation is perfect.)
If your only goal is maximizing inclusive genetic fitness, then the "instrumental value" of a trait that only one species on Earth possesses is indeed unlikely to be very high.
Are humans the only species on Earth that have curiosity?
Yes, approximately. A few other species may possess primitive analogues, but even if you throw those in the proportion of species is extremely low.
Anecdotally, he fitness pressure of curiosity on cats appears to be negative.
Also anecdotally, fulfilled curiosity has made catkind among the first species to perfect resurrection.
Or at least quantum immortality.
This one I don't get. Explain?
Cats presumably have a reputation for having nine lives because they are observed in situations where they appear to narrowly escape dying, by a hair's-breadth chance.
I was comparing this to quantum immortality, while making an indirect reference to Schrodinger's cat as well... implying that Schrodinger's cat always turns up alive, due to cats' quantum immortality-based nine-lives capability. ;-)
(Cat-thropic principle, perhaps?)
Ailuric principle. (anthropos = human, ailouros = cat)
Can you show some research on that claim? Specifically, you seem to be claiming that theres a difference in kind (rather than just degree) between my own curiosity and that of other creatures.
Having observed a puppy gleefully searching new stuff found in his territory, or new people and places that he's just been introduced to and similar-seeming behaviour in other animals - I'm uncertain that we could claim they were non-curious.
I personally see little difference in kind between that and the similar actions seen in baby humans. The fact that a human is far better able to direct their curiosity, I think is based on our different quantity, or capacity for intelligent curiosity.
Number of species according to Wikipedia: at least 7 million, of which:
"Species" != "things like cute puppies".
While this is true (and I've upvoted your remark) I'd be curious if there are many examples of smart species that don't exhibit curiosity. As far as I can tell, pretty close to all species which are fairly intelligent and raise their young exhibit curiosity. Canines, felines, most primates, corvids and many other species of birds, and elephants all seem to do this.
5,416 species is a LOT. Even if only 20, or 10, of these species have 'curiosity', that's still a very different thing from ONLY humans having curiosity.
Precisely what I thought. A dog's curiosity doesn't get it as far as a human's does, since a dog has much less capacity for symbolic thought (but probably still some capacity) and no way to record its thoughts or share the thoughts of other dogs.
Some invertebrates, such as octopi and mantis shrimp, appear to exhibit curiosity. And some bird species are intelligent enough to be capable with basic communication with humans. Mammals may contain the most intelligent species known, but that doesn't mean they have a monopoly on intelligence or curiosity.
The "a few other species may have primitive analogues" disclaimer was supposed to cover things like this.
See above. This is not about human or mammalian chauvinism. This is about the fact that, whatever neat things some species can do, there also exist numerous biological niches that do not in fact involve higher-level cognitive functions such as "curiosity". Most organisms don't even have brains, for goodness' sake.
I'd say "what about birds?", but that wouldn't increase things much.
Interesting list... but the counter-claim does not require that 100% of all species on the earth have curiosity, but that curiosity exists in some non-human species.
Therefore only a single example (eg a cute puppy) will destroy that claim.
Actually listing the numbers of non-cute species does not in any way help the original claim.
This kind of nitpicking is a form of logical rudeness, not to mention being a violation of the principle of charity.
Let me remind you again what I said, with emphasis added:
(For some utterly bizarre reason this entirely reasonable and completely correct comment is currently sitting at -2.)
It is perfectly clear from the literal wording, never mind the context, that the statement is approximate, not absolute. Furthermore, the approximate claim was all that was necessary for the argument I was making -- so that even if I had made an absolute claim (in the sense of literal wording), you still should have interpreted it as an approximate or probabilistic claim by the principle of charity (as well as the principle of sticking-to-the-point-of-the-discussion-and-not-derailing-the-flow-of-discourse-with-an-attempt-to-gain-status-points-by-showing-off-your-knowledge-of-how-to-form-the-logical-negation-of-a-statement).
To do what you have done here is simply to create a communication barrier where none need have existed. As a result of this tangential argument-over-nothing, the original point has gotten completely lost, and I am now feeling a sensation of acute irritation despite having no idea whether you or any of the other nitpickers who have flocked to this subthread actually have a substantive disagreement with me or not.
Here, for the record, is my argument:
(1) Only a small minority of Earth's species have curiosity.
(2) Therefore, curiosity is not necessary for maximizing inclusive genetic fitness.
(3 Therefore, we should not be surprised by results such as that cited by lix.
If anyone actually has anything interesting to say against this argument, let them say it. Otherwise, let's not bother.
Wow, this is a really strong comment over something that I hadn't realised was so important to you.
Sure thing - if what I said was not relevant to the main point of your conclusion - tell me that... but accusing me of status-seeking, purposeful-derailment and showing-off is a bit strong for a simple question about your claim.
...and I still have to point out that earlier, you did claim that humanity was the only species with curiosity [emphasis added by me] :
It's fine if you then changed that point in your argument, and maybe I missed it due to miscommunication...
but I'd rather you point out "oops, you got my argument wrong" than "you're purposefully trying to create barriers to communication".
I find it ironic that you have brought up the principle of charity at this point...
you see, you've assumed that I was trying to derail your argument... which is particularly uncharitable about my intentions.
Actually, I'll be honest: I really couldn't care less about your argument - I'm actually (still) interested in what I originally asked...
You claimed to know something about curiosity in non-human species... and I'm curious about curiosity in non-human species.
So as I originally asked: do you have any actual research on that subject?
I can understand how it might seem that way, but you have to realize that this was in the context of a perfectly fine comment being downvoted to -3 (!), in addition to what felt like a flurry of comments suggesting I was displaying zoological ignorance and underestimating the intellects of puppies and octopi.
This particular subtopic isn't important to me at all; what's important to me is being able to efficiently have discussions on a high level of sophistication, without having to spend time and effort plugging status leaks resulting from someone's misunderstanding (willful or not) of my words.
No, I didn't assume that you were trying to derail the argument (read the comment again, carefully!); I just noted that you had, in fact, derailed it.
And, of course, I don't think the status-seeking/showing-off was deliberate or conscious on your part. It's what we're always doing, all the time, mostly unconsciously. We can't stop it, and nor should we; status is a basic need for neurologically normal humans (and yes, that category includes readers of LW). What we have to do is learn to recognize when it's interfering with our other aims, and make adjustments to reduce this interference.
For example, before making a correction to someone's comment (by default, an aggressive status move), ask yourself whether you will be communicating new information to the person -- something relevant to the discussion that they genuinely didn't know. If so, then -- especially in a setting like this, where information is highly valued -- it will usually be worth the tradeoff, and the person may even be grateful for the correction, willing to pay the status cost in exchange for the info. Otherwise, however, unless you're careful to signal that you're not making a status challenge (generally accomplished by packing your correction full of deferential language), you will most likely just end up provoking a verbal battle that won't actually produce anything of intellectual value.
The latter is basically what happened in this instance. I'm a pretty regular reader and commenter on this site, where knowledge of the basics of logic tends to be taken as a matter of course. As such, I can be assumed to be well-versed in the fact that the negation of a statement of the form "for all x, P(x)" is a statement of the form "there exists x such that not-P(x)". Consequently, pointing out to me that, as you put it,
is not informative. Instead, it's more like you "caught" me making a "mistake" in the "debate game", and are now seizing upon it to "score a point" -- as if we were playing chess, and I made a blunder that you were going to exploit.
Now, it's true that I did originally say that "only one" species possessed curiosity. However, somebody before you actually asked whether I meant that literally -- and I responded with a comment that should have made it clear (albeit implicitly) that my remark had been mainly an allusion not to human superiority over other intelligent mammals, but to the fact that most living species are things like bacteria. I then made that point explicit when you commented with your puppy anecdote. At this stage there should have been no room for misunderstanding about what my point was: even if we completely grant the strongest claims of animal enthusiasts, curiosity is still rare among life on Earth.
This is where you misunderstood. My claim was not about whether the animal enthusiasts are correct or not. Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. (I tend to think that even if they are, human curiosity is still an exceptional outlier of a phenomenon, if only quantitatively.) But regardless, the only thing I claimed to know was that if a species isn't human it probably doesn't have curiosity. Given that 71% of species are bacteria I regard that claim as trivially true.