Curiosity is easy to praise in theory but harder to justify in practice.
It’s often described as the path to discovery, scholarship, or progress, but the kind I experience works differently. It rarely appears when it would be useful. Instead, it interrupts ordinary tasks and lingers on questions at times when settling on an answer would be far more convenient. That persistent and admittedly routine kind of curiosity is the only one I’ve ever really known.
In elementary school, I never knew how to answer when teachers asked about my favourite subject. I liked learning, but not because I was especially ambitious. I wasn’t loyal to math over English, or science more than art—I just wanted things to make sense. My world, as far as I could tell in childhood, was a set of rules that were made before I was born. Asking questions seemed like a good way to participate, even if adults sometimes wished I wouldn’t.
My parents tolerated this phase with more patience than I deserved, before realizing it was easier to provide me with places to look than to keep up with every question. So, they brought home encyclopedias, paperbacks, and oversized books about the solar system, and eventually surrendered the computer. It was from my parents that I learned that the point wasn’t to have all the answers, but to keep searching for them.
I read whatever was available: science fiction, geology, Renaissance art, things I didn’t fully understand but continued reading in case they made sense later. It didn’t feel like learning, at least not in the classroom sense. It was just what I did when there wasn’t much else to do.
Adults sometimes praised me for being “a reader,” but that never struck me as a virtue so much as a way to avoid being bored. I wasn’t preparing for anything or trying to distinguish myself. I read because the world was more manageable if I had words for what was happening in it. Even when I didn’t understand something fully, it helped to know other people had tried to.
By twenty-one, I assumed this tendency would’ve gone away with age or at least matured into something more focused, but it hasn’t. I don’t ask for books for my birthday anymore, but the habit of wondering, especially about things with no immediate relevance, remains fully intact.
Strangely, it shows up at the worst possible moments. I’ll be drafting an e-mail and suddenly wonder how early mapmakers decided where mountain ranges were, or why some languages can name emotions more precisely than others. None of this helps me finish anything, which is probably why those thoughts come to me so consistently. That’s also why I’ve never identified with the way curiosity is usually celebrated.
At university, curiosity is treated as a cornerstone of intellectual life—nurtured in labs and lecture halls, leveraged for grant funding, and encouraged by courses that promise to challenge your worldview. In my high school science wing, the posters depicted curiosity as a practically mythical force credited with inventing calculus, sequencing DNA, and putting people on the moon. However, my curiosity seems far less ambitious and tends to materialize only when I’m trying very hard to concentrate on something else.
And when curiosity is expected, like when a syllabus earnestly mandates “critical inquiry”, it tends to disappear. Nothing kills wonder faster than being asked to perform it on cue. So, a lot of what passes for curiosity in the classroom feels rehearsed: carefully phrased questions meant to sound insightful, without revealing any real confusion.
We ask these questions less because we want the answer and more because we want to look like the kind of people who ask good questions in front of the people who write our reference letters. While curiosity isn’t necessarily discouraged in the classroom, it can feel supervised and moderated.
This makes sense. It’s easier to defend what can be measured. Grades, assignments, and exams—these are used to prove knowledge and diligence in a way people recognize. Curiosity, which is difficult to quantify and doesn’t always lead to something productive, doesn’t fit well.
You can list Dean’s List Honours on a resume, but you probably wouldn’t list the number of afternoons spent reading about something simply because you were interested in it. And so, it becomes easier and more justifiable to pursue what’s measurable, instead of what might be worth knowing out of sheer curiosity.
Still, I’ve come to think that curiosity doesn’t compete with discipline and success so much as precedes it. Research papers, experiments, art, and even personal decisions don’t begin with knowledge. They begin with not knowing. I’ve learned that curiosity is based on the willingness to tolerate that uncertainty. It isn’t ambition so much as perspective: the awareness that your understanding is incomplete, and this is reason enough to keep learning.
Of course, not everything I’m curious about is promising. Some of the things I still pay attention to are decidedly unproductive: the shape of a leaf, the design of a street, the shape and colour of the clouds that appear before a storm. Entertaining these questions doesn’t improve my GPA or job prospects, but it reminds me that the world’s much bigger and more interesting than the part of it I’m tested on.
To be clear, I don’t mean this as an argument against formal education. There are, admittedly, excellent reasons we validate knowledge. I’d much prefer someone who’s operating on me to have a medical licence than a particularly vivid sense of wonder. Institutions matter, and so does structure. But it seems limiting, and perhaps unimaginative, to think learning only happens within these sanctioned structures. The sincerest kind of learning often starts long before anything is graded, when we’re simply interested enough to find out for ourselves.
Maybe that’s why curiosity is hard to defend. It rarely guarantees achievement, and I doubt it says much about intelligence or ambition or any of the traits we like to admire. If anything, I think it shows tolerance for ambiguity, for other people, and sometimes for ourselves.
In a culture that favours efficiency and measurable progress, indulging a question that has no outcome can easily be mistaken for a lack of discipline. Curiosity doesn’t necessarily make us more productive, but it does keep us from becoming indifferent.
When I was eight, that felt like a reasonable way to make sense of the world. At twenty-one, it still does.
Tags
curiosity, Discovery, Education, School
All final editorial decisions are made by the Editor(s) in Chief and/or the Managing Editor. Authors should not be contacted, targeted, or harassed under any circumstances. If you have any grievances with this article, please direct your comments to journal_editors@ams.queensu.ca.