[air7]

parent comment was a bit tounge-in-cheek but I'll continue the sentiment: You're saying that the curiosity is "natural" hence one is either born with it or not. I think that there is no way around the fact that it will be hard and uncomfortable to mimic the progress of someone that has an innate inclination towards a subject (be it talent or focus or curiosity) artificially.

[card_zero]

Hey, that doesn't have to be what "natural curiosity" means. Besides which it makes no sense to say people are born with complex interests. I mean, OK, your genes might incline you a certain way, but that's not the same thing.

Being interested in a subject is massively helpful to learning it. But interest arises circumstantially, it's an emotion. The grim reality that it would be really useful to you to learn a certain subject does not necessarily make you interested in the subject, unfortunately. (Perhaps "financially interested", but that's something else.)

[ericd]

I think there is some natural inclination towards abstract thinking versus more grounded in reality, just judging based on kids I know. Some of them really enjoy playing with ideas in their heads, some enjoy playing with things they can touch more. It seems likely that those different attractions would express themselves in how much they practice different things as time goes on.

[elbear]

I was talking about curiosity in general not curiosity about something in particular. We are naturally inquisitive to the point we have to be restrained by our parents. The problem is some of the restraints are based on the fears of our parents and not on actual dangers. Also, it's hard to develop an appreciation for something when it's forced fed to you.

[kdfjgbdfkjgb]

> You're saying that the curiosity is "natural" hence one is either born with it or not.

Why does curiosity being natural necessarily mean some people are born without it? It could also mean everyone (or every average human) is born with it, and overtime it gets pushed out of people.

[Retric]

Some infants explore vastly more than others.

So the minimum might not be zero, but it isn’t some fixed quantity.

[elbear]

That's not because it doesn't exist, it's because it's restrained

[Retric]

How?

People do studies on weeks old babies, it seems unlikely curiosity has been restrained at that point.

[elbear]

Good point!

I think the case you mentioned is explained by an idea covered in attachment theory. Children explore when they feel safe and secure. Safety and security come from the caregivers, the parents. When that is absent, because the parents' emotional state makes the children feel insecure, then the children are restrained by their own emotions.