In our credentialed world, we tend to believe that learning, expertise, and educational achievements flow logically from classrooms, curricula, and degrees. Yet, as we know from our understanding of human history and cognitive science, this isn’t necessarily so. Some of the most adaptive thinkers, innovators, and leaders were also those who learned to think differently through their self-educating journeys.
Cognitive science distinguishes between routine expertise, which we can master as long as we operate within our comfort zone, and adaptive expertise, which involves our ability to innovate, improvise, and solve problems even in unfamiliar contexts. The former can be easily acquired through formal education. The latter, which involves curiosity-driven learning, cannot.
The following are ten psychological characteristics that are deeply ingrained in the self-educating mind and help us understand why curiosity-driven autodidacts tend to approach problems and solve them differently.
Classrooms are places where we attempt to eliminate cognitive discomfort. We want our students to understand what we are teaching as clearly as possible. We want to reduce ambiguity and increase clarity. Not so with autodidacts. They tend to be comfortable with confusion. They know that this is the time when they are most likely to learn. Robert Bjork, a psychologist, has termed this concept ‘desirable difficulty.’ He has shown that learning that requires us to struggle to understand is far more likely to stick with us. Curiosity-driven learners are interested in underlying structures. This is because they are not confined to a particular domain. Therefore, they are able to connect different concepts from different fields, for instance, technology and philosophy, art and engineering, and so on. This pattern recognition ability is what drives innovation. This is because curiosity-driven learners do not only ask questions about the process but also about the patterns and connections. Innovation happens only when pattern recognition is not confined to procedure.
Educational institutions are characterised by a sense of certainty. This includes the use of grades and qualifications. On the other hand, curiosity-driven learners are characterised by a lack of this certainty. This is because they seek knowledge without a sense of when they are done or when they will be certified. Psychological research has shown a strong correlation between a high tolerance for ambiguity and success in innovation and entrepreneurship. In a world characterised by volatility and technological disruptions, this is a strategic advantage. Unlike in the traditional classroom, where students are guided by professors who question their thoughts and ideas, the autodidact is his or her own professor. Therefore, they can question themselves.
Why is this? What am I missing? What if the opposite were true? This self-examination ability helps the autodidact to be humbler. This is because they can recognise the limits and boundaries they can see. In a paradoxical manner, this humility gives them a high degree of confidence. This is because the knowledge they seek is the knowledge they can question. Therefore, it is the only authority that they need.
Unlike the traditional classroom, where the theoretical aspect comes first and then the application comes later, the curiosity-driven learner learns in reverse. This means that they start with a problem that needs a solution. This problem shows them a knowledge gap. This gap shows them what they need to learn. This ‘problem-first’ approach aligns with experiential learning theory. Knowledge learned under pressure has deep staying power because it is immediately applicable. It isn’t learned as information; it’s learned as a solution. They learn not for hypothetical futures, but for present necessity. Grades can give a sense of judgment. In structured learning settings, failure can have important social and emotional implications. In self-directed learning settings, failure has no such implications. A failed effort simply tells the autodidact what needs improvement. Developmental psychology has shown that repeated experimentation can build cognitive flexibility. Autodidacts do not fear institutional repercussions of failure.
Academic learning settings tend to be hierarchical and linear. But curiosity is nonlinear. Self-directed learners build knowledge webs. This can mean they may learn advanced ideas before they learn the foundational ideas. Later, they revisit the foundational ideas to reinforce the web of knowledge. The knowledge web structure enables the autodidact to synthesise knowledge. This integration of knowledge can be less compartmentalised and more holistic. Complex problems require integrative thinking. Knowledge webs facilitate integrative thinking. Academic learning settings often reward performance. Grades, test scores, and status all measure performance. Autodidacts do not have external performance metrics. Their only reward is to understand. Autodidacts want to understand why something works, not just that it works.
Cognitive science has identified the depth of autodidactic learning as ‘transfer-appropriate processing.’ Because their only reward is to understand, their learning sticks. Understanding beats performance every time.
Academic learning settings often provide safety nets to protect the student from prolonged uncertainty. Autodidacts often lack these safety nets. They struggle alone. Over time, this develops emotional resilience. They are no longer easily intimidated by the complexities they face or the struggles they endure. They are accustomed to perseverance. Resilience is not easily taught in a classroom; it is taught in adversity. Traditional formal learning is often built upon extrinsic reward systems. Learners who are driven by curiosity are instead motivated by intrinsic drive. They do not simply wish to fulfill an extrinsic requirement; they wish to create, solve, understand, or improve something important to them. Self-Determination Theory is a branch of psychology that recognises the value of intrinsic motivation in the learning process. Purpose is more likely to drive perseverance than is a sense of obligation.
It is worth noting that the above analysis is not intended as a critique of the formal learning process. The learning process is an important foundation of knowledge, scholarship, and intellectual discipline. As an educator, I believe strongly in the value of the learning process.
It is also important to note, however, that the role of struggle, curiosity, and self-direction in the development of cognitive traits is in the learning process. Routine expertise is important. Adaptive expertise is more important.
In an increasingly technological world in which the rise of artificial intelligence could reshape the very landscape of economies and the rise of new economies could reshape the very landscape of the globe, the value of adaptability could far outweigh the value of expertise.
The value of the learning process could lie in integrating the two: structure and struggle, the learning process, and curiosity. Because at the end of the day, the value of the learning process is not the learning process itself. It is the way it teaches us about the world. It is curiosity and struggle that teach us how to reshape it.
The writer is a Professor, Journalism and Mass Communications, Savannah State University, USA. E-mail: [email protected]
