What Curiosity Actually Does to Your Brain

Summary

The video explains how curiosity affects learning, memory, aging, and relationships—and how to encourage it in ourselves and others.

Curiosity thrives in a “Goldilocks” zone

Curiosity arises in the gap between what we know and what we don’t know: we understand enough to form a question, but not enough to answer it. If something is already familiar, it may be boring; if it is completely beyond our understanding, it may feel inaccessible. Curiosity is strongest when an answer seems within reach.

An infant-attention study illustrated this “Goldilocks effect”: babies paid the most attention to sequences that were somewhat surprising but still understandable, rather than ones that were predictable or chaotic.

Curiosity can strengthen memory

In a 2014 UC Davis experiment, participants rated how curious they were about trivia questions, waited for the answers, and occasionally saw unrelated face images during the wait. Participants remembered more answers when they were curious—about 70% immediately, compared with 54% for less-interesting questions. After 24 hours, recall was 47% versus 28%.

Brain scans showed increased activity in reward-related regions and the hippocampus, which is involved in forming memories. Curious participants also remembered more of the unrelated faces. The narrator describes this as curiosity creating a “vortex” that helps the brain absorb both the information being sought and other nearby information.

Curiosity can support learning

A classroom study published in 2024 in the American Economic Review tested lessons designed to create questions before presenting material. Teachers might introduce a sealed box, show an unexplained space video, or tell a story related to an upcoming science topic, then teach the usual curriculum.

Across 134 schools and roughly 11,000 children, students who received this curiosity-focused approach were more willing to spend tokens on educational booklets and retained more of what they read. Their science scores improved, while math and reading scores were largely unchanged. A follow-up three years later found that the students still retained information better than peers.

The video also cites a meta-analysis suggesting that curiosity is an important contributor to academic achievement, alongside effort, conscientiousness, and cognitive ability.

Curiosity changes with age, and staying mentally active matters

The video distinguishes between curiosity as a general personality trait and curiosity about a particular question in the moment. General curiosity may decline with age, while interest in specific questions can increase.

A study reported in JAMA followed more than 800 people who did not have dementia at the outset. Higher engagement in cognitive activities—such as reading, visiting museums, or playing card games—was associated with lower Alzheimer’s risk. A one-point increase in the activity score was associated with a 33% reduction in risk, and a follow-up study suggested that an active lifestyle may delay dementia’s onset by as much as five years.

The narrator cautions that these findings do not prove curiosity prevents dementia. The proposed connection is that curiosity encourages exploration and mental activity.

Giving answers can sometimes shut down exploration

In a 2011 study, preschoolers were given a toy with several hidden functions. Children experienced one of four conditions: an adult demonstrated how the toy worked, began a demonstration but was interrupted, discovered a function by apparent accident, or offered the toy without explanation.

Children who received a full demonstration explored less and found fewer functions. They played for about two minutes and found an average of 0.72 functions; children in the other conditions played longer and found around 1.2. The researchers called this the “double-edged sword of pedagogy”: instruction is useful, but showing someone how something works can also signal that there is nothing more to investigate.

Practical lesson for parents, managers, teachers, and others who answer questions: Give help without closing every door. Consider saying, “I don’t know—let’s find out,” or demonstrating less than you know, so others still have room to explore.

Curiosity can foster connection and ease conflict

Psychologist Todd Kashdan’s research compared conversations between strangers. Some pairs were given questions intended to encourage closeness; others made small talk. In the small-talk condition, people who were more curious nevertheless reported feeling closer to their partners. They appeared to create connection by asking follow-up questions and finding something interesting in the other person’s responses.

The video also describes Kashdan’s work on romantic partners under provocation. Curious partners responded with less aggression. The suggested reason is that curiosity shifts someone away from defending their own position and toward trying to understand the other person. Its aim is not merely to obtain an answer, but to share the process of figuring things out.

A practical way to cultivate curiosity

The narrator’s closing advice is to follow Leonardo da Vinci’s example of writing down questions rather than immediately looking up their answers:

1. Notice a question or something you do not understand.
2. Write it down instead of searching for the answer right away.
3. Spend some time—an hour or a day—thinking about it.
4. Make a guess, even if it may be wrong.
5. Keep the knowledge gap open long enough to explore it.

The video’s central message is that curiosity is not aimless: it is sparked by a manageable question. To benefit from it, create those questions and avoid closing them too quickly.

Speakers and sources featured

• Narrator/host: The video’s presenter; the channel attribution identifies the host as Makai Elías Calles.
• Todd Kashdan: Psychologist whose research on curiosity, closeness, and responses to provocation is discussed and quoted.
• Kenneth Clark: Art historian, cited for describing Leonardo da Vinci as exceptionally curious.
• Research and publications referenced: George Loewenstein’s 1994 “information gap” account of curiosity; a 2012 University of Rochester infant-attention study; a 2014 UC Davis fMRI study; a meta-analysis on curiosity and academic performance; a 2024 American Economic Review classroom study; a 2002 JAMA study and follow-up on cognitive activity and dementia; a 2011 preschool toy-exploration study; and Todd Kashdan and colleagues’ study published in the Journal of Personality. Several researchers and authors of these studies are not named in the subtitles.