Theory: humans like to maintain uncertainty at a constant level. If reality gets too predictable we tell more plausible make-believe stories. If it gets less predictable we tell fewer stories. If a coin always comes up heads, we tell stories of a world where it always comes up tails.

Blogger at ribbonfarm.com, running summerofprotocols.com, host of /gloom ☀️

is it uncertainty (a very broad category) that humans seek or ambiguity (a particular type of not-knowing where there are multiple possible readings, some of which might be more favourable than current perceived reality)?

not-knowing ✹ 🍕-fan ✹ productive discomfort + idk ✹ Marseille / Singapore / Auvergne ✹ The Uncertainty Mindset (2020) ✹ now: vaughntan.org/now-ish

mmm idk

anecdotally, we respond to diff kinds of not-knowing differently (embodied x cognitive response) and it looks quite sensitive

(wrote about this: https://vaughntan.org/why-not-knowing-feels-so-hard)

i might rephrase provisionally as: humans want to preserve the [level x type of not-knowing] that they expect

i agree though that we don't explicitly distinguish between diff types of partial knowledge

Hm not sure this nuance is something humans are sensitive to at the unconscious level I think my hypothesis applies. Your categories are good but strike me as constituting an acquired discipline. Almost a protocol for uncertainty.

I recall that uncertainty vs ambiguity paper you shared years ago which I cite a lot.