Talk:Curiosity

message: I'm  going to be doing some work on a new section on philosophy. I'm new to wikipedia, so please give feedback! --Lilraskalnikovs (talk) 20:13, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Philosophy and Curiosity

message: ====This week's edits====
This week I focused on adding and editing to the "Cause" section of this page. Each week I plan to edit each section a little further, contributing to the over all structure and informational content of the page. After contributing this week's edits I am contemplating the section layout of the page as well. The portion entitled "Causes" doesn't seem to speak to causes, instead just more the background and definitions of Curiosity. I may make this section a part of the lead and find a new way to introduce the causal section of this article. 
Input is welcome.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkburnett4 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits for Social Psych Course Assignment

message: This week I focused on adding and editing to the "Cause" section of this page. Each week I plan to edit each section a little further, contributing to the over all structure and informational content of the page. After contributing this week's edits I am contemplating the section layout of the page as well. The portion entitled "Causes" doesn't seem to speak to causes, instead just more the background and definitions of Curiosity. I may make this section a part of the lead and find a new way to introduce the causal section of this article. 
Input is welcome.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkburnett4 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: This week's edits

message: Benedict, B. M. (2001). Curiosity: a cultural history of early modern inquiry. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. 
Görlitz, D., & Wohlwill, J. F. (Eds.). (1987). Curiosity, imagination, and play: on the development of spontaneous cognitive and motivational processes. Hillsdale, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates. 
Hans-Georg Voss, Heidi Keller. (2013). Curiosity and Exploration: Theories and Results. New York, N.Y.: Academic Press, Inc.
Inan, I. The Philosophy of Curiosity. (2012). New York, N.Y.: Routledge.
Keller, H., Schneider, K., & Henderson, B. (Eds.). (1994). Curiosity and Exploration. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
Litman, J.A. (2005). Curiosity and the pleasures of learning: Wanting and liking new information. Psychology Press, 19 (6), 793-814. Retrieved from: http://www.research gate.net/profile/Jordan_Litman/publication/245823962_Curiosity_and_the_pleasures_of_learning_Wanting_and_liking_new_information/links/0deec5374481256066000000.pdf
Phillips, R. (2013). Space for curiosity. Progress in Human Geography, 28 (4), 493-512.
--Mkburnett4 (talk) 18:09, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  I will be using these references to aid the construction of this article: 

message: I wonder where the word "curious" comes from because "fuck" in German means "quaint" by contrast the French word "curieux" means "curious", too.--Homei 17:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  etymology 

message: "Curiosity ... is easy to observe in many other animal species. These include ...  insects". I rather suspect that the brainpower of insects is too limited to permit curiosity. Any cites on this one way or the other? -- 201.19.77.39 10:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Insects? Really?

message: isnt curiosity the same thing as intrest ? If so one of the two articles should be deleated. If not both articles should be eddited so that they clearly show the difference between the two articles. For example they would say something like curiosity is not be confused with intrest becuase...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theunhappymitten (talk • contribs) 17:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: article already exists

message: "Curiosity" is definitely very different from "interest", and I agree with Theunhappymitten that this difference should be clearly pointed out. Terms like "curiosity" have various meanings in different cultures, even of the same language, and can therefore be difficult to define accurately. However, curiosity has been defined for scientific purposes and studied in some detail (especially in the 1950's and 60's by Daniel Berlyne, and also more recently using fMRI and molecular experiments in animals). For this reason, I am considering making some significant changes to the curiosity wikipage in order to include the scientific investigations that have occurred, since it is something I have studied and continue to study. There are also interesting references in mythology (ex. Pandora's box) and history (discovery of new continents, motion of the stars, Albert Einstein). The article would certainly benefit from a detailed expansion, so long as each section is backed-up with the appropriate references. My general plan is to describe the variety of meanings that are ascribed to curiosity in the first section, and then to break it down in more detail in later sections. Berlyne, for example, divided curiosity into two broad categories: Epistemic and Perceptual, each with their own sub-divisions. His experiments from 50 years ago have been reproduced by other scientists recently and the study of curiosity is now emerging as an exciting new branch of cognitive neuroscience. Besh (talk) 16:16, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Expansion

message: Has any research been done to correlate the use of curiosity-driven teaching methods to the effectiveness of a student's learning? Linking to studies of this kind would take this article from being an interesting read to being a useful read. I'm curious about curiosity. Perhaps others are too.
Hubby2debbie (talk) 18:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Curiosity as a catalyst to learning

message: The recent expansion of this page is welcome, and I am eager to help improve further. For starters, it is not clear from where the so called "models" of curiosity originate - the only reference is a review article from 2005 published in a medium-ranking psychology journal. Where can we find the original proposal for the "Curiosity-drive model" or the "Optimal arousal model"? Citation to the primary sources would be appropriate if this section is to remain a part of the wiki article. 
Also, given that these models are heavy on theory and sparse on evidence, the heading of this section (currently "Brain") is perhaps misleading. The field of psychology does not restrict itself to (or ever necessarily consider) what is known about the biology of the brain. Would a title something like "Psychological Theories" then be more appropriate? 
Moreover, the "Integration of reward pathway" is vague and similarly unsupported by primary citations. For example, the statement "This is the neurobiology that motivates exploratory behavior" is much too definitive, given bodies of evidence that indicate other processes are also key, as even the very next sentence suggests (opioids).
I make these statements before modifying the article to give the recent editors(s) a chance to discuss how to best go forward. Besh Jan 9, 2013  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.60.51.125 (talk) 12:53, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: "Models" of curiosity

message: You have done great work with this article so far. I would suggest maybe explaining further how one can observe curiosity. You mentioned it is easily observable under the causes section, but more detail explaining how one is able to observe it might make it clearer. Nice work so far! Jlederz (talk) 01:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additions 

message: Hey MK! The article is coming along nicely. As I was reading, two specific things came to mind... First, under the Causes section, you mention infancy and adulthood. With the average layperson in mind, perhaps defining these and/or giving an example may help clarify. Also, under the Brain section there are many, many subsections. I'm not sure what your plans are with this section, but upon first glance, that section is overwhelming. I'm not entirely familiar with the topic so maybe all of those sections are necessary. But I would suggest, if at all possible, to either expand on the most important areas of the brain and get rid of the others, or organize them in a more user-friendly way. Excited to see the end product! LaurStuart (talk) 19:42, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Copy-Edit suggestions

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:51, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: I'm new to this, but the information in the theories seems a little short and could use more relevant sources, the optimal-arousal theory only has a source from 1960 that was over 60 years ago.75.174.50.5 (talk) 04:21, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theories