A new study published in Scientometrics provides evidence that human curiosity—especially the kind that drives scholarly inquiry—follows a remarkably consistent pattern across time and place. By analyzing the recorded interests of thousands of scholars born before 1700, researchers found that intellectual curiosity tends to cluster around three broad domains: the human, the natural, and the abstract. These clusters appear in similar proportions across vastly different regions and historical eras, indicating a possibly universal structure in the way people pursue knowledge.
To explore the nature of human curiosity, the researchers turned to the past. Today’s scholars are influenced by many modern constraints, from the structure of universities to the rising costs of conducting research. To get a clearer picture of pure curiosity—less shaped by institutions or professional incentives—the authors focused on historical figures. They used the Cultura 1.0 database, which compiles data from online catalogs and Wikidata, and restricted their analysis to scholars born before the year 1700.
This time frame was chosen deliberately. Before the rise of modern universities and the professionalization of science, research was more accessible and less regulated. Scholars could often explore multiple fields without facing the same economic or institutional pressures that shape research today. By examining the recorded occupations and areas of expertise of these historical figures, the researchers hoped to uncover broader patterns in how intellectual interests are structured.
“We were interested in the historical development of science,” said study author Hugo Mercier, a research director at the Institut Jean Nicod.
The researchers analyzed a dataset of 13,556 scholars. Among them, 2,317 individuals were considered “polymaths”—those with at least two distinct scholarly interests. These polymaths formed the core sample for constructing a network of scholarly interests. Each interest (such as mathematician, philosopher, or geographer) was treated as a node, and connections between them were based on how often they co-occurred within individual scholars. This network approach allowed the researchers to explore which combinations of interests occurred more frequently than would be expected by chance.
To avoid letting the dominance of European scholars skew the findings, the researchers created a “Global Network” by combining all non-European polymaths with a randomly sampled, equally sized subset of European polymaths. They also created separate networks for European and non-European scholars, and compared all of them using a statistical measure known as the Weighted Jaccard similarity. This metric allowed them to assess how similar the structures of scholarly interests were between regions.
The results showed that patterns of co-occurring interests were remarkably consistent across regions. Whether in Europe, the Middle East, or East Asia, certain interests tended to go hand in hand. Philosophy and mathematics, for instance, often appeared together—a pairing found not only in Western scholars like Pascal and Copernicus, but also in figures from other cultures such as Al-Khwarizmi in the Islamic world and Xu Yue in China. Other recurring pairings included astronomy with mathematics and theology with history.
When the researchers clustered the interests, three broad domains emerged. The Human Domain included fields like philosophy, theology, and history. The Natural Domain encompassed zoology, botany, and geography. The Abstract Domain featured interests such as mathematics, astronomy, and musicology. Most scholars were affiliated with one or more of these domains, and these affiliations appeared with striking regularity across different world regions.
Although there were some regional differences—such as a notable emphasis on natural sciences in early modern Europe—the overall proportions of interest in the three domains remained relatively stable. These differences were greater than what would be expected by chance, but the variation was modest. For example, in most regions, around a third of scholars were interested in each domain, with slight shifts depending on the century and location.
Mercier was surprised “how little variation across time and space we find in scholars’ interests: for instance, the share of scholars interested in what we call the ‘abstract domain’ (mathematics, astronomy, physics, etc.) is surprisingly similar in every area and every time period we looked at.”
To test whether the structure of curiosity had changed over time, the researchers also examined how these patterns evolved across different historical periods. Once again, they found remarkable consistency. The share of scholars in each domain remained relatively steady across centuries, with no strong evidence of long-term historical drift toward or away from any single domain.
The findings suggest that the way scholars distribute their intellectual curiosity may be rooted in something more fundamental than cultural norms or historical trends. One possibility is that these domains of knowledge correspond to basic cognitive preferences. Some individuals may be naturally drawn to abstract reasoning and seek out mathematics or philosophy. Others may prefer observational or classification-based thinking, leading them to fields like zoology or botany. Still others may be intrigued by human narratives and moral inquiry, gravitating toward history and theology.
Although practical constraints may explain some of the overlap between interests—such as how skills in geography could also aid botanical exploration—this does not fully account for the strength of certain pairings. For example, the recurring link between philosophy and mathematics may reflect shared mental dispositions rather than practical necessity.
The researchers also propose that the structure of scholarly interests could reflect an interaction between personal cognitive styles and environmental opportunities. In places or times when natural exploration was particularly feasible—such as in 17th-century Netherlands during the age of exploration—scholars may have had more incentive to pursue the natural sciences. But this tendency did not erase interest in other domains, suggesting that all three domains have persistent appeal.
“There appears to be universal patterns in the kind of things that people find interesting: everywhere, someone interested in mathematics is more likely to also be interested in astronomy than in history, for instance,” Mercier told PsyPost. “Moreover, it also seems that the share of people interested in different domains of inquiry–social sciences, natural sciences, etc.–is broadly similar across societies and time periods, at least until the enlightenment. ”
Despite the robustness of their findings, the study does have limitations. The dataset, though large, is incomplete and likely biased. Much of the data comes from records maintained or curated by contemporary Western institutions, and the categories of scholarly interests—like astronomer or theologian—may not be defined consistently across time or cultures. Many regions, especially outside Europe and the Middle East, are underrepresented due to limited historical records. Women are especially underrepresented, with only 144 included in the dataset compared to over 13,000 men.
Despite these caveats, the researchers argue that the overall patterns observed in the data are unlikely to be accidental. The consistent co-occurrence of specific interests across centuries and continents suggests the existence of an underlying architecture to human curiosity—one that is structured and perhaps rooted in stable psychological or cognitive differences among individuals.
Future research could build on this work by incorporating more refined data sources, such as digitized texts and treatises, to get a more detailed picture of what historical scholars were actually interested in. Studies could also focus on better documenting the intellectual contributions of women and non-Western scholars. The long-term goal is to “better understand the motivations of scholars and scientists, and whether they change with time and cultural context,” Mercier said.
The study, “The structure and evolution of scholarly interests from antiquity to the eighteenth century,” was authored by Charles de Dampierre and Hugo Mercier.
