Wikipedia Searches Reveal Differing Types of Curiosity

Wikipedia Searches Reveal Differing Types of Curiosity

By Gary Stix edited by Sarah Lewin Frasier

The web site Wikipedia describes curiosity as a “quality related to inquisitive thinking, such as exploration, investigation, and learning, evident in humans and other animals.” However there’s much more to this prime motivator for a lot of human habits—and Wikipedia, because the world’s largest encyclopedia, is now serving to social scientists deepen the definition of curiosity.

Tracing how Wikipedia searchers flit amongst matters and lose themselves in Wiki rabbit holes revealed three completely different types of human inquisitiveness: the “busybody,” the “hunter” and the “dancer.”

“Curiosity actually works by connecting pieces of information, not just acquiring them.” —Dani Bassett, College of Pennsylvania

On supporting science journalism

When you’re having fun with this text, take into account supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By buying a subscription you might be serving to to make sure the way forward for impactful tales concerning the discoveries and concepts shaping our world right now.

On this lexicon, a busybody traces a zigzagging route by means of many typically distantly associated matters. A hunter, in distinction, searches with sustained focus, shifting amongst a comparatively small variety of carefully associated articles. A dancer hyperlinks collectively extremely disparate matters to attempt to synthesize new concepts. “Curiosity actually works by connecting pieces of information, not just acquiring them,” says College of Pennsylvania community scientist Dani Bassett, co­senior creator on a current examine of those curiosity sorts in Science Advances. “It’s not as if we go through the world and pick up a piece of information and put it in our pockets like a stone. Instead we gather information and connect it to stuff that we already know.”

The group tracked greater than 482,000 folks utilizing Wikipedia’s cell app in 50 international locations or territories and 14 languages. The researchers charted these customers’ paths utilizing “knowledge networks” of linked info, which depict how carefully one search subject (a node within the community) is said to a different. Past simply mapping the connections, they linked curiosity types to location-based indicators of well-­being, inequality, and different measures.

In international locations with increased training ranges and larger gender equality, folks browsed extra like busybodies. In international locations with decrease scores on these variables, folks browsed like hunters. Bassett hypothesizes that “in countries that have more structures of oppression or patriarchal forces, there may be a constraining of knowledge production that pushes people more toward this hyperfocus.” The researchers additionally analyzed matters of curiosity, starting from physics to visible arts, for busybodies in contrast with hunters (graphic). Dancer patterns, extra lately confirmed, have been excluded.

Princeton College psychologist Erik Nook praised the examine’s “dazzlingly large” scope. The authors, he says, introduced collectively experience from a spread of fields—topology, psychology, cognitive science, affective science, medical science, sociology and computational modeling—to disclose a “host of insights into human behavior.”

The seeds of this work have been planted in 2016 when Bassett and their twin brother, Perry Zurn, a professor of philosophy at American College, seen that loads of educational analysis had examined creativity—however comparatively little had gone to its requisite precursor, curiosity. Zurn emerged from a deep dive into 2,000 years of Western historic and philosophical literature with descriptions of varied curiosity types, together with the three investigated within the current paper. Wikipedia then offered the real-world take a look at mattress to verify this busybody-hunter-dancer typology, drawn from the work of philosophical greats. Heidegger and Nietzsche may by no means have imagined that their work would in the future affect the community science of Wiki rabbit holes.