Curiosity versus Insecurity driven learning

My working space at my Tokyo residence

I think learning/growth in most individuals can originate from two sources, namely, curiosity-driven and insecurity-driven learning processes.
Let me first talk about curiosity-driven learning, herein, a mind is self-directed, focused on personal goals, and uses the available knowledge to succeed in their goal. Moreover, the mindset is driven by intrinsic thoughts, with a motivation of growth and free from external pressure or comparison. Such an approach fosters originality, leading to the development of unique ideas and work.
In contrast, an insecure mind more often follows others, always seeks external validation and avoids risks, leading to a path defined by external influences rather than personal aspirations. It is mostly guided by induced thoughts, moreover, ideas are shaped by the expectations and achievements of others. With this mindset, we may have career growth, but we may lose the authenticity and the originality. However, there can be an alternate view to it, I do not dismiss another view.

A good example of these two mindsets is as follows: a curious mindset is like a person running a marathon with enthusiasm, driven by the excitement of reaching a destination out of curiosity. In contrast, an insecure mindset is like a person running the same marathon distance but motivated by the need for security, as if they are being chased— by someone, here it's their own insecurities.

As I mentioned, these views are based on my personal experience and encounters with people who struggle with imposter syndrome and overthink a lot. Their learning and growth trajectory is driven by the thought of competition, consequently forgetting what they actually want to achieve.

PS: This is my personal view.

Comments

Science: Creating Knowledge or Solving Societal Problems?

Picture from Okinawa island in Japan I want to share my perspective on research, particularly in basic science. I’ve noticed that many renowned scientists, especially physicists, often choose research problems that fascinate and excite them. Interestingly, many of these scientists also have a deep interest in the humanities and arts. They dedicate their resources and efforts to these pursuits, ultimately publishing their findings. Along the way, they develop quantitative and analytical tools or physics-based models to better understand the problems they are investigating. For example, I recently attended a talk by a well-known physicist from the UK who was studying literature from the medieval era. I approached the talk with curiosity but found my interest waning as it progressed, likely due to my limited understanding of literature. However, what really lingered with me was the question: Is this an important problem to study? Should leaders in the fiel...

Live to improve

Pokhara Lake, Nepal In today's society, it's common to be constantly bombarded with images and messages of people who seem to have it all together. From social media influencers with perfectly curated feeds to celebrities with seemingly perfect lives, it's easy to fall into the trap of wanting to prove ourselves to others. However, I believe it's much more important to live to improve rather than prove. Living to prove implies a constant need for external validation. We might feel like we must constantly prove ourselves to others by achieving certain milestones or reaching certain goals. While there's nothing wrong with striving for success, it can be dangerous to base our self-worth solely on the opinions of others. When we live to prove ourselves, we essentially give others control over our lives, which is never a good thing. On the other hand, living to improve means that we're constantly striving to be better versions of ourselves. We're not focused on...

hisay lama

Search This Blog