We seem to learn for two main reasons: first, it’s instrumentally useful for achieving almost any goal; and second, it’s directly satisfying—there’s an innate desire to know things and to satisfy curiosity. Assuming the innate drive exists—the question is what to do with it.

I think we need to examine our desires as they will guide us. Identify whether the desires are instrumental or intrinsic, map them to each other, and determine what behaviors fulfill them. Knowledge pursued for instrumental reasons should be guided by the ultimate desire it serves. The desire for knowledge itself is trickier, because it has no further endpoint. So we need to better understand what we mean by desire for knowledge.

I think we mean two separate things. One is desire not for raw data, but understanding—an organized picture of the world that reduces confusion and uncertainty. To understand is to feel less anxious, more prepared, more in control. When I learn about cognitive biases or economic principles, I’m building a framework that makes the world less chaotic. The desire for satisfying curiosity, by contrast, often comes from the same part of us that enjoys stories, wonder, and discovery. It’s less about control and more about stimulation and delight. Reading about the mating habits of octopuses or the history of medieval trade routes serves this impulse.

For me, these two impulses—understanding and curiosity—call for different approaches. I should pursue the first by learning things that challenge and expand my worldview, integrating them immediately to stretch my mental comfort zone and improve my thinking—the strength training of the mind. The second I can treat as a form of high-quality entertainment, a healthier way to engage the instinct for novelty.