Explanation Is Effective Because It Is Selective

Abstract

Humans are avid explainers: We ask “why?” and derive satisfaction from a good answer. But humans are also selective explainers: Only some observations prompt us to ask “why?” and only some answers are satisfying. This article reviews recent work on selectivity in explanation-seeking curiosity and explanatory satisfaction, with a focus on how this selectivity makes us effective learners in a complex world. Research finds that curiosity about the answer to a “why” question is stronger when it is expected to yield useful learning and that explanations are judged more satisfying when they are perceived to support useful learning. Although such perceptions are imperfect, there is nonetheless evidence that seeking and evaluating explanations—in the selective way humans do—can play an important role in learning.

Mindfulness, curiosity, and creativity

“…We have argued elsewhere that curiosity might be sensitive to novelty, surprise, and related evaluations precisely because these cues signal the likelihood of future learning . Supporting this claim, curiosity is highest when expected learning is highest, above and beyond variation in novelty, surprise, or uncertainty ; see also Lombrozo & Liquin, 2023). Related work shows that the association between uncertainty and curiosity is modulated by future utility.…”

Longtime nemeses or cordial allies? How individuals mentally relate science and religion.

“…Consequently, individuals tend to be selective in their exploration of explanations, with only certain events prompting them to question "why does this happen?" and rarely regard plausible (scientific or religious) explanations emerging from these observations as equally valuable (Lombrozo & Liquin, 2023;Preston & Epley, 2005). Consequently, they may value science more than religion (or vice versa; Preston & Epley, 2005).…”

“…Due to humans’ need for coherence, it is not easy to discern that one explanation may be true and false at the same time (Swann & Brooks, 2012) or that two competing explanations can be both true or both false (Sloman, 1994). Consequently, individuals tend to be selective in their exploration of explanations, with only certain events prompting them to question “why does this happen?” and rarely regard plausible (scientific or religious) explanations emerging from these observations as equally valuable (Lombrozo & Liquin, 2023; Preston & Epley, 2005). Consequently, they may value science more than religion (or vice versa; Preston & Epley, 2005).…”

Breaking down (and moving beyond) novelty as a trigger of curiosity

“…We have argued elsewhere that curiosity might be sensitive to novelty, surprise, and related evaluations precisely because these cues signal the likelihood of future learning (Liquin et al, 2020, 2021; Liquin & Lombrozo, 2020). Supporting this claim, curiosity is highest when expected learning is highest, above and beyond variation in novelty, surprise, or uncertainty (Liquin & Lombrozo, 2020; see also Lombrozo & Liquin, 2023). Related work shows that the association between uncertainty and curiosity is modulated by future utility.…”