Is there more than one kind of curiosity? I found myself reflecting on this after reading a recent study about different curiosity styles. An analysis of 483,000 Wikipedia users found that people pursue their curiosity in three ways. Some browse articles as ‘hunters’, targeting ‘specific answers in a projectile path’, and their interests are more likely to be in science and technology. Others are nomadic ‘busybodies’, who explore more, building broad, loose networks of knowledge; they gravitate toward arts, culture and the humanities.

A third group are the ‘dancers’ – a little harder to define, they tend to leap ‘in creative breaks with tradition across typically siloed areas of knowledge’, taking an unstructured and inventive approach to information-seeking, across radically different subjects.

This made me wonder what kind of curious I am. When I’m reporting as a science journalist, I tend to adopt the ‘hunter’ style. This helps me meet deadlines, but am I missing out on the serendipity of discovering knowledge like the busybody or the dancer? I’d like to believe I’m curious about the world, but realising that other people’s curiosity might be more nomadic or creative gives me pause.

Another downside to the hunter style is that it’s associated with what’s called ‘deprivation curiosity’. This is the desire to banish the discomforts of uncertainty and lack of knowledge. It can lead people to accept easy answers or false facts. It also correlates with overconfidence in one’s worldview, and lower wellbeing. I hope I’m not motivated by deprivation curiosity when I’m hunting knowledge, but I can’t guarantee that’s always true.

The psychologist William James described curiosity as ‘the impulse towards better cognition’. If I take his words and the Wikipedia study to heart, perhaps I ought to be more curious about my curiosity.

There is a special kind of boredom that comes from listening to people talk about their dreams, so I’ll spare you. It’s enough to relay that I was being relentlessly chased by a rather large and ornery capybara, and that the incident was extremely trying. Then, a couple days later, I came across a passage in E R Dodds’s classic The Greeks and the Irrational (1951) that really made me laugh. Homer, or the bards he represents, clearly suffered from the same anxiety-inducing nightmare of being chased as I did – as we all do – because he describes an event in the Iliad like this: ‘as in a dream one flees and another cannot pursue him – the one cannot stir to escape, nor the other to pursue him – so Achilles could not overtake Hector in running, nor Hector escape him.’

Those moments of recognition across gulfs of time and culture are always affirming. No matter our differences, we’re all afflicted by the same dreamy frustration of trying to get away. But, as usually happens with the ancients, recognition swiftly gives way to strangeness. Dodds says that the Greeks often took their dreams to be messages from the gods, in which an authoritative personage is dispatched to inform the dreamer what’s going to happen or what needs to be done. Homer himself naturally became a common emissary, telling Socrates the date of his death and giving Alexander the Great some much-needed encouragement.

Given how demented dreams seem when reviewed in the light of day, I’m glad that they aren’t likely to be missives from the higher-ups. But it’s still a comforting thought that, regardless of how we interpret our dreams, all of us take a nightly sojourn into the phantasmagoric realms – and wake up wondering what the hell it all means.

It’s fun stumbling upon psychological concepts in unexpected places. I remember first learning about the Johari Window (an obscure framework for thinking about the limits of self-knowledge) in the Robert Galbraith novel The Cuckoo’s Calling (2013). It happened again the other day. I was enjoying the action thriller Nobody’s Hero (2024) by M W Craven – my middle-aged version of brain rot – when the hero Ben Koenig invoked the ‘Peter Principle’ – the idea that people tend to get promoted to the point of maximum incompetence.

Koenig is already a curious character for anyone interested in psychology. He has Urbach-Wiethe disease, which has calcified his right amygdala – apparently rendering him incapable of feeling fear (a handy attribute for an action hero). By dint of his training with various special forces, he’s also a repository of fun psychological wisdom, such as the Peter Principle, which he draws on to explain why the assassins have chosen to murder a bunch of mid-ranking infrastructure experts, rather than their superiors.

I checked it out, and the Peter Principle is a genuine concept that originated with a bestselling, semi-satirical book of the same name in 1969, co-written by two Canadians, the educationalist Laurence J Peter and the playwright Raymond Hull. There’s a simple logic to their idea – you keep performing well, you keep getting promoted, until you reach a managerial role at which you struggle and so you don’t get promoted again. Various studies have confirmed there’s a truth to the logic, at least in the context of sales, the military and academia.

I’m going to add the Peter Principle to my mental dictionary of psychological concepts – and use it as a reminder not to rest on my laurels. We can’t assume that the skills and knowledge that served us well in the past will be enough for whatever challenges we face in the future.