Exhibit A: >Curious people are worth listening to, everyone else is not Exhibit B: >The answer to this must be culture >The solution is easy: curiosity. It

Exhibit A: >Curious people are worth listening to, everyone else is not Exhibit B: >The answer to this must be culture >The solution is easy: curiosity. It's an interesting model, but there's a serious contradiction here. You're claiming curiosity to be the 1-to-1 justification for being given an audience, yet making dogmatic assertions and setting out a viewpoint-driven agenda - you are not curious about curiosity, you dive right into how to . Therefore there must be a value that makes a non-curious person with a viewpoint-driven agenda (in this case, you) worth listening to. For brevity, the "90% of people who... want to contribute/validate their viewpoint/seek peer confirmation" can be more or less labelled "vainglorious". I think you're right about vainglory leading to nothing good. But, the hope of enacting that "something good" that there should be instead is the real reason to listen to non-curious people. And most everyone hopes to enact "something good", so now we're back where we started, listening to ideologues, be they curious or not. My suggestion is to modify the model by instead seeking to listen to people who are not vainglorious. I think finding people who aren't vainglorious to listen to, and finding out how to not be vainglorious myself is the right direction to point my curiosity.