2019 September
How do people become interested in “things”?
The question: What causes people to make thinking and analysis a part of their daily lives rather than just going along without really questioning some of the bigger ideas, or any ideas, of the world or a specific subject?
Most of my life I have debated with my friend Alan about why or how people get into asking questions, debating, or just how we get interested in History, Science, Philosophy, or any subject of thought or analysis—interested in “things”. One could be specific and say, how did you get into the subject you love and think about most? Or generalize, how did you get interested in “things”?
Our debate is usually very biographical, inconclusive, and contains outlines of possibilities. We discuss the intellectual, or as I prefer, pseudo-intellectual, ideas we have had; questioning and its importance; diversity of interests. Following are some biographical roads to interest in “things”.
I began debating–my interest in “things” –when I was in elementary school. I have always been a questioner and rarely let authority stop me from questioning what I did not like or did not understand. My friend Alan, whom I have know since we fought over pacifiers as babies, is also a debater. We were always curious—we tried to build a submarine in my back yard in elementary school. For my part, I began with an interest in native Indians–I have a deer skin mitten that was said to have been made by one of my ancestors that fascinated me—and a love of history, especially George Washington. My mom read to me and my sister. We had the world book encyclopedia and the yearbook, common to my generation that I looked through often. Another elementary school friend, Scott Frostad, was also into “things”. He had one of the first programable calculators—it could land on the moon–and was into photography and, in the fifth grade, taught himself Russian.
In middle school we began an interest in Astronomy. Scott and I spent many a night freezing to death watching stars in his yard. We then, in the seventh grade, took science from Malcolm Kennell. He allowed us to explore ideas during class and after class. He encouraged us, listened to us, played with our ideas, and challenged without condemning things we said or ideas we had—I still have a paper I wrote from that time, very silly but fun to see the range of ideas we explored. We studied Astronomy a lot and he used us to help the upper grades in their star gazing using the school’s two telescopes. Mal and I are friends to this day. I have to mention here, Ralph Kuhns, who was my mom’s boyfriend, who taught me a lot–more if I would not have rebelled against him, a common divorced problem, for years—about practical “things” and showed me beyond doubt that a degree does not equate to intelligence or interest in “things”.
I got addicted to reading in middle school, helped by my older sister giving me books she read in high school that I devoured. I later, in High school, got hooked on Shakespeare, Dickens, and Twain. I read everything from Philosophy and History to fiction and poetry.
I still debate, still argue, still read, still discuss. Mine is an endless fascination with humans and ideas. This has been a lifelong habit that was encouraged by peers, Alan and Scott, and teachers, Malcolm Kennell to name only one, and constant reading. It has been a blessing and, at times, a curse, but I cannot stop.
But this is not the only way to get here. I have a friend who took a very different road to a similar place. She began by being encouraged in Biology by a teacher. Her dad is also interested in “things”. She did not follow Biology, did not go on to college, did not pursue ideas–for a time. She married in her early twenties (her age is not actually relevant except for timeframe). Her husband was not interested in ideas, reading, or “things”. He shied away and made it clear how uncomfortable he was with her pursuing these “things”. The idea died–atrophied.
Then she got divorced. Two kids, very young, and a lack of money led her back to learning. Her love of “things” led her down multiple paths and came alive again. She was helped along in her pursuit by a very supportive family who never questioned her intelligence or laughed at her ideas. One of her bosses encouraged her learning and the expansion of her responsibilities. He opened the idea to her that she could do anything, she took the opportunity. She is now, or I should say back, into “things”. She looks for opportunities to expand her ideas and learn different “things”. She loves her job now that she found a profession that fits her personality and allows here to learn. A different road than mine but the end lead to the same place.
Another example, and a different way, is Kris Hayes of MSNBC. This is drawn from comments on his podcast and in a book of his I read–incomplete information surly. But it does indicate another way to become interested in “things”. As Hayes states he had a great History teacher in High school. A teacher that really turned him on to the subject. His father was also a community organizer and he attended a special public school that, at the time he was there, was very diverse ethnically and economically for kids who did well on entry exams. Very high quality and diverse education. Thus, we have three examples. All different but leading to the same idea of an interest in “things”.
What are the commonalities?
An environment where ideas are not frowned upon.
Encouragement by teachers. It is possible that only one teacher, without other combinations, is not enough.
Support of parents (or authority figures). This is a rather interpretable commonality. It can range from parents who are interested in “things” to parents who allow, support, or encourage, freedom of thought and questions.
Peers, either groups of friends or an environment where “things” are important–as in schools, classes, or just groups.
Reading, this need not be diverse or general. Though I think it may begin or end so. I do not believe this is limited to personal reading but also parental reading.
As one can see there is no formula, no “bottle of intellectual interest” that can be administered to kids or adults that would make them interested in “things”. There is also no time limit to when interest can begin, in contrast, I suspect, there is no time limit to stopping it either.
There is, however, a wish list:
Parent, teacher, or peer reading to kids.
Parents interested in “things” or parents who allow or encourage questions.
Teachers, schools, groups that are interested in questions and ideas.
Lots of discussion with few taboo topics.
A spouse, or peers, that are interested in “things”.
A lack of “fixed” answers or topics.
Diverse experiences at a young age.
Diverse sources of information.
The most important: the conglomeration of some or all of these at the “right” time.
The disclaimer: This is not a moral statement of accusation or failure on the part of those not, or only mildly, interested in “things”. Everyone is different and the world is made of diverse people—and should be. Democracy requires, should encourage, diverse people and their ideas. Humanity needs diversity in thought and personality to survive. Why are some thinkers and some doers and some just going along, this is another question? Life and survival push out thought as does avoidance as Blaise Pascal puts it,
“The only thing that consoles us for our miseries is diversion, and yet this is the greatest of our miseries. For it is mainly what prevents us from thinking about ourselves, leading us imperceptibly to our ruin. Without it we would be bored, and this boredom would drive us to seek a more solid means of escape. But diversion amuses us and guides us imperceptibly to death”.
We should encourage more thinkers. We should change our education methods to encourage questions rather than answers. With computers it is always tempting to just add more rather than re-think the ideas that created them in the first place. Cell phones are great trivia devices but there is no wisdom in them.
Destroying interest in “things” is easier than promoting it. Statements like these I have heard all my life: ‘You think too much’; ‘tell us what you really think’. Then there are the less quenching things: ‘Take my word for it’; ‘Because I said so’; ‘No time for questions’. The idea that authority “gives” answers or that education is all about testing and not about how to learn also quash interest. I know the statements of education, they encourage logic and thought, but do they? A large deterrent is the idea that everyone is “the same”, everyone is great. If everyone is the same, why ask questions? Why wonder about difference if all is great? Your ideas are no more important or worth discussion than mine which is a major cause of a lack of ideas.
How did you become interested in “things”? Please comment with your story below.
Hark 