In her article “Curious”, Kim Todd develops an amazingly complex and deep argument about the human nature of curiosity departing from what it seemed like a biology writing on toads. First, I felt completely bored by the article, I began reading the first two paragraphs and immediately though “Oh no, toads is probably one of the last things I want to read about right now”. Surprisingly, as I continue reading I realize that it was taking a completely different direction. In fact the toads where only an opening for the main idea, a small piece of the article’s big puzzle.
Indeed, I was missing the big picture until I finished the article. The fact is that the main argument behind it was “curiosity”, and how it can be a great and terrible part of the human condition at the same time. Kim presents both sides of the coin, she argues how some historical figures looked at curiosity with caution and fear since it, according to them, lead us to “spirituality drunkenness”. And other thought of it as the reason of our evolution as society and a necessary trait of our conduct. She does not only provides deep philosophical arguments but also brings up the scientific facts. Referring back to experiments conducted in Columbia and Yale, she presents the science behind this feeling that itches in the back of our brains.
In conclusion, my point is that sometimes we settle with skimming through the surface of articles, papers and any other written publication that goes by our eyes. We are used to get the information we want in a blink of an eye, and the smallest possibility of having to go into depth to find what the real argument is just kills our motivation. This habit is dangerous to the world of scientific writing, and the only solution is to put it to a side and dive into the information.