It’s an effective description and I can see how it can clarify the concept of knowledge in training situations. If I may make a couple of observations Jason: If you consider Curiosity a state of mind rather than an endeavour, it can seem to be a rather obvious sort of ‘insight’ that aligns with the corollary of the ‘creative’ -out-the-box approach, which isn’t really what organisations are after. Original thinking can imply too great an adjustment or shift, from which risk would then require an even greater offset, to hedge against any possible negative outcome. The requisite curiosity of seriously thinking out the box underpins a landscape for questioning that infers not what questions are, as much as what they facilitate. A question asks what is knowledge, for without its consequence, a question is nothing more than a door: anyone can open or close it, not everyone however can step through it and make something of what’s to be learned in having made the step through the door into whatever lies beyond it.

If a student will learn only if ready, companies too will only evolve, if they’ll willing to risk the full implications of knowledge offered by the expectation that questions be asked, in the first place.

Mark Twain, to me, pinned it down with the healthiest kind of clarity: “We are all ignorant, only, about different things.”

In the context of Business, were fearless curiosity (the bedrock of enquiry) and its questions benign, I argue that it would render the economic quarterly results model obsolete, as the corporate mindset would envisage growth as something far beyond the stock exchange spreadsheet. And at the heart of the matter, I wonder if the corporate mindset can really move beyond its own construct of doors and the formulations embedded in shaping what can be discovered: can questions by their very nature, exist purely on the status quo?