What was new in Langlands' work, besides technical depth,
was the proposed connection to number theory, together with its rich
organisational structure hypothesised (so-called functoriality).
Harish-Chandra's work exploited the principle that what can be done for one semisimple (or reductive) Lie group
can be done for all. Therefore, once the role of some low-dimensional
Lie groups such as GL(2) in the theory of modular forms had been
recognised, and with hindsight GL(1) in class field theory, the way was open to speculation about GL(n) for general n > 2.
In all these approaches technical methods were available, often inductive in nature and based on Levi decompositions amongst other matters, but the field remained demanding.
The conjectures have evolved since Langlands first stated
them. Langlands conjectures apply across many different groups over many
different fields for which they can be stated, and each field offers
several versions of the conjectures. Some versions are vague, or depend on objects such as Langlands groups, whose existence is unproven, or on the L-group that has several non-equivalent definitions.
Objects for which Langlands conjectures can be stated:
Representations of reductive groups over local fields (with different subcases corresponding to archimedean local fields, p-adic local fields, and completions of function fields)
Automorphic forms on reductive groups over global fields (with subcases corresponding to number fields or function fields).
Analogues for finite fields.
More general fields, such as function fields over the complex numbers.
Conjectures
The conjectures can be stated variously in ways that are closely related but not obviously equivalent.
Langlands attached automorphic L-functions to these automorphic representations, and conjectured that every Artin L-function arising from a finite-dimensional representation of the Galois group of a number field is equal to one arising from an automorphic cuspidal representation. This is known as his reciprocity conjecture.
Roughly speaking, this conjecture gives a correspondence
between automorphic representations of a reductive group and
homomorphisms from a Langlands group to an L-group. This offers numerous variations, in part because the definitions of Langlands group and L-group are not fixed.
Over local fields this is expected to give a parameterization of L-packets of admissible irreducible representations of a reductive group over the local field. For example, over the real numbers, this correspondence is the Langlands classification of representations of real reductive groups. Over global fields, it should give a parameterization of automorphic forms.
Functoriality
The functoriality conjecture states that a suitable homomorphism of L-groups
is expected to give a correspondence between automorphic forms (in the
global case) or representations (in the local case). Roughly speaking,
the Langlands reciprocity conjecture is the special case of the
functoriality conjecture when one of the reductive groups is trivial.
Generalized functoriality
Langlands generalized the idea of functoriality: instead of using the general linear group GL(n), other connected reductive groups can be used. Furthermore, given such a group G, Langlands constructs the Langlands dual group LG, and then, for every automorphic cuspidal representation of G and every finite-dimensional representation of LG, he defines an L-function. One of his conjectures states that these L-functions satisfy a certain functional equation generalizing those of other known L-functions.
He then goes on to formulate a very general "Functoriality Principle". Given two reductive groups and a (well behaved) morphism between their corresponding L-groups, this conjecture relates their automorphic representations in a way that is compatible with their L-functions. This functoriality conjecture implies all the other conjectures presented so far. It is of the nature of an induced representation construction—what in the more traditional theory of automorphic forms had been called a 'lifting', known in special cases, and so is covariant (whereas a restricted representation is contravariant). Attempts to specify a direct construction have only produced some conditional results.
The geometric Langlands program, suggested by Gérard Laumon following ideas of Vladimir Drinfeld,
arises from a geometric reformulation of the usual Langlands program
that attempts to relate more than just irreducible representations. In
simple cases, it relates l-adic representations of the étale fundamental group of an algebraic curve to objects of the derived category of l-adic sheaves on the moduli stack of vector bundles over the curve.
In 2024, a 9-person collaborative project led by Dennis Gaitsgory announced a proof of the (categorical, unramified) geometric Langlands conjecture leveraging Hecke eigensheaves as part of the proof.
Status
The Langlands correspondence for GL(1, K) follows from (and is essentially equivalent to) class field theory.
Langlands proved the Langlands conjectures for groups over the archimedean local fields (the real numbers) and (the complex numbers) by giving the Langlands classification of their irreducible representations.
Lusztig's classification of the irreducible representations
of groups of Lie type over finite fields can be considered an analogue
of the Langlands conjectures for finite fields.
Andrew Wiles' proof
of modularity of semistable elliptic curves over rationals can be
viewed as an instance of the Langlands reciprocity conjecture, since the
main idea is to relate the Galois representations arising from elliptic
curves to modular forms. Although Wiles' results have been
substantially generalized, in many different directions, the full
Langlands conjecture for remains unproved.
In 1998, Laurent Lafforgue proved Lafforgue's theorem verifying the global Langlands correspondence for the general linear group GL(n, K) for function fields K. This work continued earlier investigations by Drinfeld, who previously addressed the case of GL(2, K) in the 1980s.
In 2018, Vincent Lafforgue
established one half of the global Langlands correspondence (the
direction from automorphic forms to Galois representations) for
connected reductive groups over global function fields.
Gérard Laumon, Michael Rapoport, and Ulrich Stuhler proved the local Langlands correspondence for the general linear group GL(n, K) for positive characteristic local fields K. Their proof uses a global argument, realizing smooth admissible
representations of interest as the local components of automorphic
representations of the group of units of a division algebra over a
curve, then using the point-counting formula to study the properties of
the global Galois representations associated to these representations.
Michael Harris and Richard Taylor proved the local Langlands conjectures for the general linear group GL(n, K) for characteristic 0 local fields K. Guy Henniart gave another proof. Both proofs use a global argument of a similar flavor to the one mentioned in the previous paragraph. Peter Scholze gave another proof.
Fargues–Scholze program
Laurent Fargues
and Peter Scholze recast the local Langlands correspondence in
geometric terms using the Fargues–Fontaine curve. In their approach, the
key automorphic object is the stack of -bundles on the Fargues–Fontaine curve, viewed as a geometric replacement for the representation theory of over a non-archimedean local field .
Fargues and Scholze develop a theory of -adic sheaves on , prove a version of the geometric Satake equivalence for the Fargues–Fontaine curve, and define a geometric moduli stack of Langlands parameters.
Their work also formulates a conjectural categorical form
of local Langlands, in which the usual correspondence between
representations and parameters is expected to arise from a deeper
relationship between categories of sheaves on
and coherent sheaves on the stack of Langlands parameters. This is thus
not a complete proof of the local Langlands correspondence for all
reductive groups, but a geometric reformulation that yields new results
and a broadened conceptual framework for the subject.
In 2008, Ngô Bảo Châu proved the "fundamental lemma",
which was conjectured initially by Langlands and Shelstad in 1983 and
is required in the proof of some essential conjectures in the Langlands
program.
Pure mathematics is an informal term to describe the study of the properties and structure of abstract objects, such as the Mandelbrot set. This may be done without focusing on concrete applications of concepts in the physical world.
In the context of the philosophy of mathematics, pure mathematics is an informal term to describe the study of mathematical concepts independently of any application outside mathematics.
These concepts may originate in real-world concerns, and the results
obtained may later turn out to be useful for practical applications, but
research is not primarily motivated by such applications. Instead, the appeal is attributed to the intellectual challenge and aesthetic beauty of defining new mathematical objects or working out the mathematical consequences of basic principles.
Nevertheless, almost all mathematical theories remained
motivated by problems coming from the real world or from less abstract
mathematical theories. Also, many mathematical theories, which had
seemed to be totally pure mathematics, were eventually used in applied
areas, mainly physics and computer science. A famous early example is Isaac Newton's demonstration that his law of universal gravitation implied that planets move in orbits that are conic sections, geometrical curves that had been studied in antiquity by Apollonius. Another example is the problem of factoring large integers, which is the basis of the RSA cryptosystem, widely used to secure Internet communications.
It follows that, currently, the distinction between pure and applied mathematics is more a philosophical point of view or preference rather than a rigid subdivision of mathematics.
History
Ancient Greece
Mathematical Platonism
Ancient Greek mathematicians were amongst the earliest to make a distinction between pure and applied mathematics. Plato helped to create the gap between "arithmetic", now called number theory, and "logistic", now called arithmetic.
Plato regarded logistic (arithmetic) as appropriate for businessmen and
men of war who "must learn the art of numbers or [they] will not know
how to array [their] troops" and arithmetic (number theory) as
appropriate for philosophers "because [they have] to arise out of the
sea of change and lay hold of true being." In this wise Euclid of Alexandria,
when asked by one of his students of what use was the study of
geometry, asked his slave to give the student threepence, "since he must
make gain of what he learns." The Greek mathematician Apollonius of Perga, asked about the usefulness of some of his theorems in Book IV of Conics, asserted that
They are worthy of acceptance for the
sake of the demonstrations themselves, in the same way as we accept
many other things in mathematics for this and for no other reason.
And since many of his results were not applicable to the
science or engineering of his day, Apollonius further argued in the
preface of the fifth book of Conics that the subject is one of those that "...seem worthy of study for their own sake."
Aristotle
It is worth noting that in ancient Greek philosophy, an experimental approach of mathematics and no real distinction between mathematics and physics was already present in authors such as Thales and Archimedes, and for example in Aristotle and his school. This duality of platonism vs Aristotle is still present in modern mathematics.
Different historical records of the school of Pythagoras show this contradiction too from elements of mysticism similar to Plato to the proof irrationality which leads to the paradox that an infinite non repetitive set of digits cannot belong to the "finite" and "well defined" world of Euclidean geometry. Last but not least Zeno paradox
shows again this duality between the pure logical reasoning (splitting
distance by two is always possible) and the applied realm (the fact that
the traveler never arrives).
19th century
Pure mathematics invented
The term "pure mathematics" itself is enshrined in the full title of the Sadleirian Chair,
"Sadleirian Professor of Pure Mathematics", founded (as a
professorship) in the mid-nineteenth century. The idea of a separate
discipline of pure mathematics may have emerged at that time. The generation of Carl Friedrich Gauss (1777 to 1855) made no sweeping distinction of the kind between pure and applied. In the following years, specialisation and professionalisation (particularly in the Weierstrass approach to mathematical analysis) started to make a rift more apparent.
The problem of infinities
After Weierstrass, by the end of 19th century, an important discussion about the role of infinities came from authors like Gregor Cantor and early examples of fractals and chaos. Ludwig Wittgenstein considered Cantor's approach with uncountable sets the cancer of mathematics. Henri Poincare seems to have compared set theory to a temporary disease Infinities in general are difficult to treat axiomatically, and
therefore have been always considered on the fringe of pure mathematics,
and this complexity became evident in the works of Bertrand Russell and Gödel on paradoxes in the early 20th century.
20th century
At the start of the twentieth century, mathematicians took up the axiomatic method, strongly influenced by David Hilbert's example. The logical formulation of pure mathematics suggested by Bertrand Russell in terms of a quantifier structure of propositions seemed more and more plausible, as large parts of mathematics became axiomatised and thus subject to the simple criteria of rigorous proof.
Pure mathematics, according to a view that can be ascribed to the Bourbaki group,
is what is proved. "Pure mathematician" became a recognized vocation,
achievable through training. That said, the case was made pure
mathematics is useful in engineering education:
There is a training in habits of thought,
points of view, and intellectual comprehension of ordinary engineering
problems, which only the study of higher mathematics can give.
Major advances in the beginning of 20th century was the formalization of abstract algebra and topology; these two fields were deeply influenced by the pure mathematics philosophy.
By the end of the century numerical proofs of the four color theorem were primary examples of the advance of computers. Famous mathematicians such as Paul Cohen
already in the 1970s challenged the concept of pure mathematics,
stating that there will be a moment in the future that most
mathematicians will be replaced by computers.
French vs Russian schools
The French school of mathematics and the western authors in
general were deeply influenced by the Bourbaki group and therefore by
the philosophical idea to detach mathematics from natural sciences. The
Russian school of mathematics instead (e.g., Kolmogorov, Gelfand and Vladimir Arnold) believed that mathematics is actually fully grounded in experimental sciences such as physics and biology,this was reflected in the separation of the two schools during the Cold War era due to geopolitical motivations and by the works of authors like Robert Langlands which started to piece wise reconnect work from both schools.
Looking at recent research fields such as the Analytic Langlands conjecture one can see that the distinction between pure and applied blurs again. Another example is the emergence of chaos in number theory and authors like Robert Langlands advocate for the unification of mathematics with Physics through the Langlands program.
Pure versus applied mathematics
Mathematicians have always had differing opinions
regarding the distinction between pure and applied mathematics. One of
the most famous (but perhaps misunderstood) modern examples of this
debate can be found in G.H. Hardy's 1940 essay A Mathematician's Apology.
It is widely believed that Hardy considered applied
mathematics to be ugly and dull. Although it is true that Hardy
preferred pure mathematics, which he often compared to painting and poetry, Hardy saw the distinction between pure and applied mathematics to be simply that applied mathematics sought to express physical
truth in a mathematical framework, whereas pure mathematics expressed
truths that were independent of the physical world. Hardy made a
separate distinction in mathematics between what he called "real"
mathematics, "which has permanent aesthetic value", and "the dull and
elementary parts of mathematics" that have practical use.
Hardy considered some physicists, such as Einstein and Dirac, to be among the "real" mathematicians, but at the time that he was writing his Apology, he considered general relativity and quantum mechanics
to be "useless", which allowed him to hold the opinion that only "dull"
mathematics was useful. Moreover, Hardy briefly admitted that—just as
the application of matrix theory and group theory
to physics had come about unexpectedly—the time may come where some
kinds of beautiful, "real" mathematics may be useful as well.
Another insightful view is offered by American mathematician Andy Magid:
I've always thought that a good model here could be drawn from ring theory. In that subject, one has the subareas of commutative ring theory and non-commutative ring theory.
An uninformed observer might think that these represent a dichotomy,
but in fact the latter subsumes the former: a non-commutative ring is a
not-necessarily-commutative ring. If we use similar conventions, then we
could refer to applied mathematics and nonapplied mathematics, where by
the latter we mean not-necessarily-applied mathematics... [emphasis added]
Friedrich Engels argued in his 1878 book Anti-Dühring
that "it is not at all true that in pure mathematics the mind deals
only with its own creations and imaginations. The concepts of number and
figure have not been invented from any source other than the world of
reality".He further argued that "Before one came upon the idea of deducing the
form of a cylinder from the rotation of a rectangle about one of its
sides, a number of real rectangles and cylinders, however imperfect in
form, must have been examined. Like all other sciences, mathematics
arose out of the needs of men...But, as in every department of thought,
at a certain stage of development the laws, which were abstracted from
the real world, become divorced from the real world, and are set up
against it as something independent, as laws coming from outside, to
which the world has to conform."
In education
After the year 2000, the case was made by authors like Cédric Villani that pure and abstract mathematics without a constructivist approach and taking into account other cognitive processes can become detrimental to education. More precisely that in order to reform the school system and the
curriculum during 1960s and 1970s it was asked to the leading
mathematicians how to teach mathematics and founding the educational
system on set theory seemed to be the way to go. This led to a generation of un-prepared teachers, a generation of
low-quality educational material and ultimately poor education.
We actually don't
know how people learn mathematics, and an experimental approach to
understand how to teach mathematics should be promoted.
Any exact science contains typically two cognitive processes: an inductive one (i.e. from experimental evidence to abstraction) and a deductive one (i.e. from axioms to theorems and proofs). Both of them are key in the pedagogical
process and more precisely the deductive one is typical of pure
mathematics whereas the inductive one is key to mathematics education
and to experimental mathematics.
As of 2026, major commercially available LLM can reproduce
multiple proofs of classical theorems, other LLMs can have very high
scores in mathematical olympiads reflecting average high school mathematics. This technology, even
without being able to produce novelty, has the potential to ideally
transform education but it is currently not the case.
In artificial intelligence
As of 2026 it may be feasible in some cases to automatically create large databases of mathematical knowledge(i.e. automating aspects of the experimental process) and automatically find patterns across large sets of data with artificial intelligence to derive mathematical conjectures (i.e. automating aspects of the inductive process). Then, putative proofs generated by artificial intelligence can be verified via proof assistant tools such as Lean, and large supporting databases of theorems (automating the deductive process). Some mathematicians believe that these approaches may become mainstream in the 21st century.
Space and telescopes have been a quintessential symbol for curiosity.
Curiosity (from Latin cūriōsitās, from cūriōsus "careful, diligent, curious", akin to cura "care") can be a quality related to inquisitive thinking, such as exploration, investigation, and learning, evident in humans and other animals.It can also refer to something (an even, object, person, etc.) which
can cause curiosity. When it is for an object it may be called a curio, and a collection of curios or curiosities may be stored together as a collection called curiosities.
The term curiosity can also denote the behavior, characteristic, or emotion of being curious, in regard to the desire to gain knowledge or information. Curiosity helps human development, from which derives the process of learning and desire to acquire knowledge and skill. Curiosity as a behavior and emotion is the driving force behind human development, such as progress in science, language, and industry.
Curiosity can be considered to be an evolutionaryadaptation based on an organism's ability to learn. Certain curious animals (namely, corvids, octopuses, dolphins, elephants, rats, etc.) will pursue information in order to adapt to their surrounding and learn how things work. This behavior is termed neophilia, the love of new things. For animals, a fear of the unknown or the new, neophobia, is much more common, especially later in life.
Causes
Children peer over shoulders to see what their friends are reading.
Many species display curiosity including apes, cats, and rodents. It is common in human beings at all ages from infancy through adulthood. Research has shown that curiosity is not a fixed attribute amongst humans but rather can be nurtured and developed.
Early definitions of curiosity call it a motivated desire for information. This motivational desire has been said to stem from a passion or an appetite for knowledge, information, and understanding.
Traditional ideas of curiosity have expanded to consider the difference between perceptual curiosity, as the innate exploratory behavior that is present in all animals, and epistemic curiosity, as the desire for knowledge that is specifically attributed to humans.
Daniel Berlyne recognized three classes of variables playing a role in evoking
curiosity: psychophysical variables, ecological variables, and collative
variables. Psychophysical variables correspond to physical intensity,
ecological variables to motivational significance and task relevance.
Collative variables involve a comparison between different stimuli or
features, which may be actually perceived or which may be recalled from
memory. Berlyne mentioned four collative variables: novelty, complexity, uncertainty,
and conflict (though he suggested that all collative variables probably
involve conflict). Additionally, he considered three variables
supplementary to novelty: change, surprisingness, and incongruity.
Finally, curiosity may not only be aroused by the perception of some
stimulus associated with the aforementioned variables ("specific
exploration"), but also by a lack of stimulation, out of "boredom" ("diversive exploration").
Curiosity-driven behavior is often defined as behavior through which
knowledge is gained – a form of exploratory behavior. It therefore
encompasses all behaviors that provide access to or increase sensory
information. Berlyne divided curiosity-driven behavior into three categories: orienting responses, locomotor exploration, and investigatory responses or investigatory manipulation. Previously, Berlyne suggested that curiosity also includes verbal activities, such as
asking questions, and symbolic activities, consisting of internally
fueled mental processes such as thinking ("epistemic exploration").
Theories
Like other desires and need-states that take on an appetitive quality
(e.g. food/hunger), curiosity is linked with exploratory behavior and
experiences of reward. Curiosity can be described in terms of positive
emotions and acquiring knowledge; when one's curiosity has been aroused
it is considered inherently rewarding and pleasurable. Discovering new
information may also be rewarding because it can help reduce undesirable
states of uncertainty rather than stimulating interest. Theories have
arisen in attempts to further understand this need to rectify states of
uncertainty and the desire to participate in pleasurable experiences of
exploratory behaviors.
Curiosity-drive theory
Curiosity-drive theory posits undesirable experiences of "uncertainty" and "ambiguity".
The reduction of these unpleasant feelings is rewarding. This theory
suggests that people desire coherence and understanding in their thought
processes. When this coherence is disrupted by something that is
unfamiliar, uncertain, or ambiguous, an individual's curiosity-drive
causes them to collect information and knowledge of the unfamiliar to
restore coherent thought processes. This theory suggests that curiosity
is developed out of the desire to make sense of unfamiliar aspects of
one's environment through exploratory behaviors. Once understanding of
the unfamiliar has been achieved and coherence has been restored, these
behaviors and desires subside.
Derivations of curiosity-drive theory differ on whether curiosity
is a primary or secondary drive and if this curiosity-drive originates
due to one's need to make sense of and regulate one's environment or if
it is caused by an external stimulus. Causes can range from basic needs that need to be satisfied (e.g. hunger, thirst) to needs in fear-induced situations. Each of these derived theories state that whether the need is primary
or secondary, curiosity develops from experiences that create a
sensation of uncertainty or perceived unpleasantness. Curiosity then
acts to dispel this uncertainty. By exhibiting curious and exploratory
behavior, one is able to gain knowledge of the unfamiliar and thus
reduce the state of uncertainty or unpleasantness. This theory, however,
does not address the idea that curiosity can often be displayed even in
the absence of new or unfamiliar situations. This type of exploratory behavior, too, is common in many species. A
human toddler, if bored in his current situation devoid of arousing
stimuli, will walk about until he finds something interesting. The
observation of curiosity even in the absence of novel stimuli pinpoints
one of the major shortcomings in the curiosity-drive model.
Optimal-arousal theory
Optimal-arousal theory developed out of the need to explain this
desire to seek out opportunities to engage in exploratory behaviors
without the presence of uncertain or ambiguous situations.
Optimal-arousal suggests that one can be motivated to maintain a
pleasurable sense of arousal through such exploratory behaviors.
When a stimulus is encountered that is associated with
complexity, uncertainty, conflict, or novelty, this increases arousal
above the optimal point, and exploratory behavior is employed to learn
about that stimulus and thereby reduce arousal again. In contrast, if
the environment is boring and lacks excitement, arousal is reduced below
the optimal point and exploratory behavior is employed to increase
information input and stimulation, and thereby increasing arousal again.
This theory addresses both curiosity elicited by uncertain or
unfamiliar situations and curiosity elicited in the absence of such
situations.
Cognitive-consistency theory
Cognitive-consistency
theories assume that "when two or more simultaneously active cognitive
structures are logically inconsistent, arousal is increased, which
activates processes with the expected consequence of increasing
consistency and decreasing arousal." Similar to optimal-arousal theory, cognitive-consistency theory
suggests that there is a tendency to maintain arousal at a preferred, or
expected, level, but it also explicitly links the amount of arousal to
the amount of experienced inconsistency between an expected situation
and the actually perceived situation. When this inconsistency is small,
exploratory behavior triggered by curiosity is employed to gather
information with which expectancy can be updated through learning to
match perception, thereby reducing inconsistency.
This approach associates curiosity with aggression and fear.
If the inconsistency is larger, fear or aggressive behavior may be
employed to alter the perception in order to make it match expectancy,
depending on the size of the inconsistency as well as the specific
context. Aggressive behavior alters perception by forcefully
manipulating it into matching the expected situation, while fear prompts
flight, which removes the inconsistent stimulus from the perceptual
field and thus resolves the inconsistency.
Integration of the reward pathway into theory
Taking into account the shortcomings of both curiosity-drive and
optimal-arousal theories, attempts have been made to integrate
neurobiological aspects of reward,
wanting, and pleasure into a more comprehensive theory for curiosity.
Research suggests that desiring new information involves mesolimbic pathways of the brain that account fordopamine
activation. The use of these pathways, and dopamine activation, may be
how the brain assigns value to new information and interprets this as
reward. This theory from neurobiology can supplement curiosity-drive theory by explaining the motivation of exploratory behavior.
Role of neurological aspects and structures
Although curiosity is widely regarded, its root causes are largely
empirically unknown. However, some studies have provided insight into
the neurological mechanisms that make up what is known as the reward pathway which may influence characteristics associated with curiosity, such as learning, memory, and motivation.
Due to the complex nature of curiosity, research that focuses on
specific neural processes with these characteristics can help us
understand of the phenomenon of curiosity as a whole. The following are
descriptions of characteristics of curiosity and their links to
neurological aspects that are essential in creating exploratory
behaviors:
Motivation and reward
Dopamine pathway in the brain
The drive to learn new information or perform some action may be prompted by the anticipation of reward. So what we learn about motivation and reward may help us to understand curiosity.
Reward is defined as the positive reinforcement of an action,
reinforcement that encourages a particular behavior by means of the
emotional sensations
of relief, pleasure, and satisfaction that correlate with happiness.
Many areas in the brain process reward and come together to form what is
called the reward pathway. In this pathway many neurotransmitters play a role in the activation of the reward sensation, including dopamine, serotonin, and opioids.
Dopamine is linked to curiosity, as it assigns and retains reward values of information gained. Research suggests higher amounts of dopamine are released when the reward is unknown and the stimulus is unfamiliar, compared to activation of dopamine when stimulus is familiar.
Nucleus accumbens
The nucleus accumbens
is a formation of neurons that is important in reward pathway
activation—such as the release of dopamine in investigating response to
novel or exciting stimuli. The fast dopamine release observed during
childhood and adolescence is important in development, as curiosity and
exploratory behavior are the largest facilitators of learning during
early years.
The sensation pleasure of "liking" can occur when opioids are
released by the nucleus accumbens. This helps someone evaluate the
unfamiliar situation or environment and attach value to the novel
object. These processes of both wanting and liking play a role in
activating the reward system of the brain, and perhaps in the stimulation of curious or information-seeking tendencies as well.
Caudate nucleus
The caudate nucleus
is a region of the brain that is highly responsive to dopamine, and is
another component of the reward pathway. Research suggests that the
caudate nucleus anticipates the possibility of and reward of exploratory
behavior and gathered information, thus contributing to factors of
curiosity.
Anterior cortices
Regions of the anterior insula and anterior cingulate cortexcorrespond to both conflict and arousal and, as such, seem to reinforce certain exploratory models of curiosity.
Cortisol
Cortisol
is a chemical known for its role in stress regulation. However,
cortisol may also be associated with curious or exploratory behavior.
Studies suggesting a role of cortisol in curiosity support optimal
arousal theory. They suggest the release of some cortisol, causing some
stress, encourages curious behavior, while too much stress can initiate a
"back away" response.
Attention
Attention
is important to curiosity because it allows one to selectively focus
and concentrate on particular stimuli in the surrounding environment. As
there are limited cognitive and sensory resources to understand and
evaluate stimuli, attention allows the brain to better focus on what it
perceives to be the most important or relevant of these stimuli.
Individuals tend to focus on stimuli that are particularly stimulating
or engaging. The more attention a stimulus garners, the more frequent
one's energy and focus will be directed towards that stimulus. This
suggests an individual will focus on new or unfamiliar stimuli in an
effort to better understand or make sense of the unknown, rather than on
more familiar or repetitive stimuli.
Striatum
The striatum
is a part of the brain that coordinates motivation with body movement.
The striatum likely plays a role in attention and reward anticipation,
both of which are important in provoking curiosity.
Precuneus
The precuneus
is a region of the brain that is involved in attention, episodic
memory, and visuospatial processing. There is a correlation between the
amount of grey matter in the precuneus and levels of curious and
exploratory behaviors. This suggests that precuneus density has an
influence on levels of curiosity.
Memory and learning
Memory plays an important role in curiosity. Memory is how the brain
stores and accesses stored information. If curiosity is the desire to
seek out and understand unfamiliar or novel stimuli, memory helps
determine if the stimulus is indeed unfamiliar. In order to determine if
a stimulus is novel, an individual must remember if the stimulus has
been encountered before.
Curiosity may also affect memory. Stimuli that are novel tend to
capture more of our attention. Additionally, novel stimuli usually have a
reward value associated with them, the anticipated reward of what
learning that new information may bring. With stronger associations and
more attention devoted to a stimulus, it is probable that the memory
formed from that stimulus will be longer lasting and easier to recall,
both of which facilitate better learning.
Hippocampus and the parahippocampal gyrus
The hippocampus is important in memory formation and recall and therefore in determining the novelty of various stimuli. Research suggests the hippocampus is involved in generating the motivation to explore for the purpose of learning.
The parahippocampal gyrus (PHG), an area of grey matter surrounding the hippocampus, has been implicated in the amplification of curiosity.
Amygdala
The amygdala
is associated with emotional processing, particularly for the emotion
of fear, as well as memory. It is important in processing emotional
reactions towards novel or unexpected stimuli and the induction of
exploratory behavior. This suggests a connection between curiosity
levels and the amygdala. However, more research is needed on direct
correlation.
Early development
Jean Piaget
argued that babies and children constantly try to make sense of their
reality and that this contributes to their intellectual development.
According to Piaget, children develop hypotheses, conduct experiments,
and then reassess their hypotheses depending on what they observe.
Piaget was the first to closely document children's actions and
interpret them as consistent, calculated efforts to test and learn about
their environment.
There is no universally accepted definition for curiosity in
children. Most research on curiosity focused on adults and used
self-report measures that are inappropriate and inapplicable for
studying children.
Exploratory behaviour is commonly observed in children and is
associated with their curiosity development. Several studies of
children's curiosity simply observe their interaction with novel and
familiar toys.
Evidence suggests a relationship between the anxiety children might feel and their curiosity. One study found that object curiosity in 11-year-olds was negatively related to psychological maladjusted so children who exhibit more anxiety in classroom settings engage in
less curious behaviour. Certain aspects of classroom learning may depend
on curiosity, which can be affected by students' anxiety.
An aptitude for curiosity in adolescents may produce higher
academic performance. One study revealed that, of 568 high school
students, those who exhibited an aptitude for curiosity, in conjunction with motivation and creativity, showed a 33.1% variation in math scores and 15.5% variation in science scores when tested on a standardized academic exam.
Other measures of childhood curiosity used exploratory behaviour
as a basis but differed on which parts of this behaviour to focus on.
Some studies examined children's preference for complexity/the unknown
as a basis for their curiosity measure; others relied on novelty
preference as their basis.
Researchers also examined the relationship between a child's
reaction to surprise and their curiosity. Children may be further
motivated to learn when dealing with uncertainty. Their reactions to not having their expectations met
may fuel their curiosity more than the introduction of a novel or
complex object would.
Curiosity as a virtue
Curiosity has been of interest to philosophers. Curiosity has been recognised as an important intellectual (or "epistemic") virtue, due to the role that it plays in motivating people to acquire knowledge and understanding. It has also been considered an important moral virtue, as curiosity can
help humans find meaning in their lives and to cultivate a sense of
care about others and things in the world. When curiosity in young people leads to knowledge-gathering it is widely seen as a positive.
Due to the importance of curiosity, people debate about whether
contemporary societies effectively cultivate the right type of
curiosity.
Some believe that children's curiosity is discouraged throughout
the process of formal education: "Children are born scientists. From the
first ball they send flying to the ant they watch carry a crumb,
children use science's tools—enthusiasm, hypotheses, tests,
conclusions—to uncover the world's mysteries. But somehow students seem
to lose what once came naturally."
Impact from disease
Left: normal brain. Right: Alzheimer's disease afflicted brain. Severe degeneration of areas implicated in curiosity
Neurodegenerative diseases and psychological disorders can affect various characteristics of curiosity. For example Alzheimer's disease's
effects on memory or depression affect motivation and reward.
Alzheimer's is a neurodegenerative disease that degrades memory.
Depression is a mood disorder that is characterized by a lack of
interest in one's environment and feelings of sadness or hopelessness. A
lack of curiosity for novel stimuli might be a predictor for these and
other illnesses.
Social curiosity
Social curiosity is defined as a drive to understand one's
environment as it relates to sociality with others. Such curiosity plays
a role in one's ability to successfully navigate social interactions by
perceiving and processing one's own behavior and the behavior of
others. It also plays a role in helping one adapt to varying social
situations.
A crowd mills around the site of a car accident in Czechoslovakia in 1980.
Morbid curiosity is focused on death, violence, or any other event that may cause harm physically or emotionally. It typically is described as having an addictive quality, associated
with a need to understand or make sense of topics that surround harm,
violence, or death. This can be attributed to one's need to relate
unusual and often difficult circumstances to a primary emotion or
experience of one's own, described as meta-emotions.
One explanation evolutionary biologists
offer for curiosity about death is that by learning about
life-threatening situations, death can be avoided. Another suggestion
some psychologists posit is that as spectators of gruesome events, humans are seeking to empathize
with the victim. Alternatively, people may be trying to understand how
another person can become the perpetrator of harm. According to science
journalist Erika Engelhaupt, morbid curiosity is not "a desire to be
sad", instead it "has the ability to set our minds ... at ease by
reassuring us that even death follows the rules of the natural world."
Interest in human curiosity about difficult circumstances dates back to Aristotle in his Poetics, in which he noted, "We enjoy and admire paintings of objects that in themselves would annoy or disgust us." A 2017 paper in the journal PLOS One
concluded that people choose to see graphic images even when presented
the option to avoid them and look at them for a longer period of time
than neutral or positive images.
State and trait curiosity
Curiosity can be a temporary state of being, or a stable trait
in an individual. State curiosity is external—wondering why things
happen just for the sake of curiousness, for example wondering why most
stores open at 8 a.m. Trait curiosity describes people who are
interested in learning, for example by trying out a new sport or food,
or traveling to an unfamiliar place. One can look at curiosity as the
urge that draws people out of their comfort zones and fears as the
agents that keep them within those zones.
Curiosity in artificial intelligence
AI agents can exhibit curiosity through intrinsic motivation.
This can improve the success of an AI agent at various tasks. In
artificial intelligence, curiosity is typically defined quantitatively,
as the uncertainty the agent has in predicting its own actions given its
current state.
In 2019, a study trained AI agents to play video games, but they were rewarded only for curiosity. The agents reliably learned advantageous game behaviors based solely on the curiosity reward.
Curiosity mementos
Red sandalwood curio box with bamboo-veneered decoration. Qianlong era (1736-1795). National Palace Museum 故雜001284N000000000
People will designate things as a 'curiosity' to share their interest with others.
A collection may be stored in an anthology, curiosities cabinet, museum, or some other way to display curios. The following quote is from an antiquarian's anthology of what he found curious:
An antiquary lights on many a curiosity whilst overhauling the dusty tomes of ancient writers. This little book is a small museum in which I have preserved some of the quaintest relics which have attracted my notice during my labours. The majority of the articles were published in 1869. I have now added some others.