Korva is a scroll of the internet’s best ideas.
No input, no output
No input, no output
Joe Strummer of the Clash named this idea Strummer's law. One afternoon, a Stanford neurobiologist clearing a pile of chores that could be done mindlessly put a modern art history documentary on YouTube. Two artists came up who completely blew his mind, and the viewing sparked ideas about the visual system he worked on years ago and about eye health. The brain takes different nodes of interest and combines them, and that convergence becomes an original contribution, whether in exercise science, finance, or high school teaching.
What derails interest
Two things wreck that process: drama and numbing out. Anger can turn into a sense of justice and advocacy, which is a legitimate path into public policy or causes, but much of what is out there is built to pull people into meaningless drama or to numb them.
Structure while you wait
In the meantime, structure helps: a purpose each day, a job even if it's the wrong career, and the satisfaction of earning, saving, and spending some of one's own money. Showing up and trying to be good at something that isn't the calling builds skills that get used once the pull arrives. One person has kept a notebook since his teens listing people from science, fitness, art, and music whose careers resonated with him, crossing some out and adding others over the years, and his own career arc reflects that list.
How does curiosity change the brain?
In a 2014 study in Neuron, Matthias Gruber, Bernard Gelman, and Charan Ranganath scanned people while they read trivia questions. High curiosity activated the midbrain regions that release dopamine and the hippocampus, which forms memories. Volunteers also remembered unrelated faces better when those faces appeared while they were curious about an answer.
Why do mixed-up fields produce new ideas?
In a 2013 study in Science, Brian Uzzi and colleagues analyzed about 17.9 million scientific papers. The most influential papers combined mostly conventional pairings of earlier work with a small number of unusual pairings. Papers that were entirely conventional or entirely unusual were less likely to become highly cited.
More from Andrew Huberman
