You Used to Wonder. Now You Just Ask.
Instant answers were supposed to make us smarter. Psychologists have spent thirty years documenting what we traded for them: the itch that was doing all the work.
When was the last time you didn’t know something for a whole day?
You remember the feeling, even if you haven’t had it lately. An actor’s name orbiting just out of reach at midnight. A pub argument that ran, gloriously unresolved, for a week. Google shrank that kind of not-knowing to about eight seconds, and we told ourselves the loss was confined to trivia. Then the new machines arrived, and they answer everything else: why your chest tightens when your mother rings, whether your business idea has legs, what the poem means, what he meant by that text. Every category of question now has a vending machine. The last habitats of wondering are being paved, and nobody filed an environmental impact report.
The itch is the point
Psychology has a precise account of what wondering is, and it is not a romantic one. In a landmark 1994 review, George Loewenstein proposed that curiosity is a form of “cognitively induced deprivation”: the felt gap between what you know and what you want to know (Loewenstein, 1994). An itch, in other words. Mildly unpleasant, which is exactly why scratching it feels so good, and why several trillion-dollar companies are best understood as scratch-delivery systems.
But the itch is not dead time before the answer arrives. It is the mind at its most productive. Neuroscientists at UC Davis put people in a scanner, provoked their curiosity with trivia questions, and watched what happened in the gap before the answer came: dopamine circuits in the midbrain lit up and the hippocampus shifted into a ready state, and people later remembered not only the answers they had craved but unrelated material that happened to drift past while they were curious (Gruber et al., 2014). The effect rode on the anticipation itself, the wanting before the getting. Wondering, it turns out, is the oven preheating. An instant answer is a meal served into a cold kitchen: the same information, a fraction of the nourishment.
We already ran this experiment once
We know what happens when a species outsources a cognitive itch, because we did it to memory a decade and a half ago. In a famous set of studies, people who believed a fact would remain retrievable by computer remembered the fact less and the folder more; the search bar had become a memory partner, what psychologists call transactive memory (Sparrow et al., 2011). For facts, a defensible bargain; brains have hired external storage since the first shopping list. The new machines, though, take custody of a different cargo: questions of judgment, interpretation and feeling, the kind that used to be processed by sitting with them.
And sitting with them was already our least favourite activity on earth. In one of psychology’s most notorious findings, people asked to spend fifteen minutes alone with their thoughts found it so disagreeable that many chose to give themselves electric shocks instead, shocks they had earlier said they would pay money to avoid; by the study’s count, two thirds of the men pressed the button (Wilson et al., 2014). Critics who reanalysed the data note, fairly, that most participants never shocked themselves at all, and that plenty passed the time happily planning beach holidays. Even the softened version is bleak enough: the inner room was uncomfortable before the machines came. The chatbot simply installed a fire exit in every wall.
What the itch was doing
Three jobs, quietly, for your whole life. First, incubation. An unanswered question runs as a background process; it is why the solution ambushes you in the shower. An answer you generate arrives welded to the reasoning that produced it. A delivered answer arrives alone, a fact without a family. Second, identity. You are, in part, a portfolio of open questions, and what you wonder about is far more distinctive than what you know, now that everyone knows everything eight seconds after everyone else. Blunt the wondering and people do not become stupid; they become similar.
Get Norazha Paiman’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
Third, and most delicate: the machine’s most seductive product is fluent closure on questions that have none. Why did she leave. Was it my fault. What should I do with my life. Ask a friend and you may get silence, an arm around the shoulder, an honest “I don’t know.” Ask the machine and you will get an answer, articulate, structured, confident, because producing answers is the only thing it knows how to do. A wrong certainty, kindly delivered, beats an honest ache in the moment. It also forecloses the slow, untidy work the ache was doing. In fairness, for the incurably curious the machine can be an accelerant, every answer breeding three fresh questions. But that is not the default setting. The default optimises for closure, and closure is precisely what an open question cannot survive.
Keeping a few questions alive
This is not a sermon about deleting apps; those essays are their own landfill. It is a case for aperture control over your own curiosity. Give non-urgent questions a twenty-four hour quarantine before you feed them to the machine, and watch how many answer themselves, differently and better. Keep a list of questions you are carrying the way you keep a list of books you mean to read; it will describe you more accurately than your search history does. Once a day, notice the reflex twitch towards the answer engine and hold it, briefly, like a breath.
And for the unanswerable kind, the advice was written in 1903, to an anxious young poet demanding verdicts about his life. Be patient with everything unresolved, Rilke told him, and try to “love the questions themselves” (Rilke, 1903/1934). It was gentle counsel then. It has aged into a survival skill.
The machines have made answers nearly free, and the price of a thing reflects its scarcity. The scarce good now is the held question, carried unscratched long enough to do its work. So the next time one lands in you at midnight, run the oldest experiment there is. Don’t ask anyone. Carry it to morning and see what it has turned into. The answer will keep. The wondering won’t.
References
Gruber, M. J., Gelman, B. D., & Ranganath, C. (2014). States of curiosity modulate hippocampus-dependent learning via the dopaminergic circuit. Neuron, 84(2), 486–496. https://www.cell.com/neuron/fulltext/S0896-6273(14)00804-6
Loewenstein, G. (1994). The psychology of curiosity: A review and reinterpretation. Psychological Bulletin, 116(1), 75–98. https://www.cmu.edu/dietrich/sds/docs/loewenstein/PsychofCuriosity.pdf
Rilke, R. M. (1934). Letters to a young poet (M. D. Herter Norton, Trans.). W. W. Norton. (Original work written 1903)
Sparrow, B., Liu, J., & Wegner, D. M. (2011). Google effects on memory: Cognitive consequences of having information at our fingertips. Science, 333(6043), 776–778. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1207745
Wilson, T. D., Reinhard, D. A., Westgate, E. C., Gilbert, D. T., Ellerbeck, N., Hahn, C., Brown, C. L., & Shaked, A. (2014). Just think: The challenges of the disengaged mind. Science, 345(6192), 75–77. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1250830
