5 ms·

The "intellectual humility doesn't get grants" and "loses elections" comments lead me to believe that people aren't understanding the concept of intellectual hu

by trevyn 10y ago

The "intellectual humility doesn't get grants" and "loses elections" comments lead me to believe that people aren't understanding the concept of intellectual humility as presented in this article. It does not mean that you give the outward appearance of being humble in any way. It is defined in the article as "an awareness that one’s beliefs may be wrong" and "intellectually humble people can have strong beliefs, but recognize their fallibility and are willing to be proven wrong on matters large and small." This was tested with a study in which "participants read essays arguing for and against religion, and were then asked about each author’s personality", and evidence that "people who displayed intellectual humility also did a better job evaluating the quality of evidence." There is a distinction between an individual's internal mental processes (as tested in this study) and the way they present themselves externally. Being outwardly assertive and confident absolutely wins elections and grants, but this is not at odds with an ability to internally re-evaluate one's beliefs. I particularly enjoy this quote from the article, as it reveals that the authors may have missed a subtlety: “If you’re sitting around a table at a meeting and the boss is very low in intellectual humility, he or she isn’t going to listen to other people’s suggestions,” Leary said. “Yet we know that good leadership requires broadness of perspective and taking as many perspectives into account as possible.” I absolutely agree that good leadership requires broadness of perspective, but this does not imply that every suggestion should get an audience at meetings -- capable leaders often have a much broader range of experience than their reports, and dismiss suggestions not out of arrogance or closed-mindedness, but simply because they have already evaluated and discounted that path, and have elected not to spend their limited time bringing everyone else up to speed. (Which can have its own issues, but that's a digression.)

aphextron 10y ago
The article also states that they were unable to find any meaningful differences between poilitical ideologies and intellectual humility, yet they go on to state > "They were also less likely to criticize that politician for “flip-flopping.” There was less variability among Democrats: Democrats, whether intellectually arrogant or humble, were generally less likely to criticize a politician for changing his mind." Completely refuting that point only a few paragraphs later. I think that this study, like all social science research, must be taken with an extreme grain of salt.
- SamBam 10y ago
  I don't think it's contradicting itself at all. It's saying (1) there's no strong correlation between ideology and intellectual humility, by their measures, and (2) while intellectual humility generally correlated with not criticizing a politician for flip-flopping, Democrats across the board we're also less likely to criticize. Saying that correlation 2 is not string (because humbleness is not a good predictor of not-criticizing asking Democrats) does not negate point 1.
  - smhost 10y ago
    > Intellectual humility was associated with a greater willingness to believe and vote for a candidate who changed his position on an issue. Being open to the possibility of changing their own beliefs, people higher in intellectual humility view such behaviors more positively when observed in others. Interestingly, however, the effect was obtained only for participants who identified themselves as Republicans even though intellectual humility scores did not differ among Republicans, Democrats, and Independents. (DOI: 10.1177/0146167217697695) It's very badly written, but it says that correlation 2 is present only among Republicans. Which, as you said, doesn't negate point 1, but it's still a weird and interesting result.
- jwdunne 10y ago
  I'd have thought adherence to ideology is the opposite of the humility described. I've met free market capitalists and revolutionary socialists that refuse to accept anything but their view on what's best for society by and large, which is the strict adherence to the tenets of their ideologies. Is it possible to buy into only parts of an ideology or is it actually just pragmatic and a display of humility in accepting that some parts of an ideology may work in some situations?
  - WhitneyLand 10y ago
    >Is it possible to buy into only parts of an ideology Yes. One example is Christianity. >is it actually just pragmatic and a display of humility in accepting that some parts of an ideology may work in some situations? Yes. In fact good science requires that practioners be willing to consider that new ideas that may possibly be contradictory and superior to their own. Not sure why for some of us this seems the obvious and only logical way to proceed while many will spend a lifetime not realizing it.
WhitneyLand 10y ago
"Being outwardly assertive and confident wins elections and grants, but is not at odds with ability to internally re-evaluate one's beliefs" Incorrect. They are absolutely at odds. You have never noticed that at the times you are most sure of yourself it's easier to appear externally confident and assertive? Compared to times that you have self doubt? Maybe it's fair to say it doesn't necessarily impact how you project confidence, but sure doesn't mean they not at odds, and sure can mean it requires expending a lot more energy. Secondly you are misreading the leadership quote. You say it's ok for a leader to dismiss an idea already evaluated, which is true. However the quote refers to leaders who do not listen to suggestions, which very different and certainly poor leadership when given no other context to justify not listening.
- Razengan 10y ago
  > Incorrect. They are absolutely at odds. You have never noticed that at the times you are most sure of yourself it's easier to appear externally confident and assertive? Compared to times that you have self doubt? I disagree. You can harbor uncertainties and doubts about the outcome yet still be confident of the course of action you must take. My aunt recently had a brain injury and I was the only family available to attend to her. I had to choose between letting her die or opting for a controversial surgery that also carried a risk of mortality, little chance of improving her condition, and the possibility of incurring a lot of debt. I was uncertain, scared, yet also confident that some attempt to save her should be made.
  - WhitneyLand 10y ago
    I believe you misread, I did not say it wasn't possible, in fact I explicitly allowed that is possible. The claim is that in general they are forces at odds and in most of those situations in takes more energy to project confidence or assertiveness. However I am glad you were able to be strong for your aunt.
- trevyn 10y ago
  You can be 100% confident of your position given the information available, but still be willing to re-evaluate your position when new information arrives. This second quality is intellectual humility. I understand the leadership quote, but I find it interesting that the author did not go into the nuances of why leaders might not listen to suggestions, instead sending the reader down the garden path of "all suggestions are worth hearing", which I believe to be false.
hyperpape 10y ago
I really don't see how being that assertive is compatible with intellectual humility, short of actively lying. There will come a time where people expect you to state something firmly, and you will have to either say "the evidence isn't definitive" or be dishonest. Edit: of course you can often be assertive about some things while being intellectually humble. But what I mean to say is that the level of assurance that is expected of a CEO is not compatible with that humility.
- taurath 10y ago
  Think of a room full of assertive people. They hold their beliefs strongly but they /argue/. In a productive way. That way everything comes out on the table, so a decision can be made with everyone being heard, and even though your view may not be the final decision you get a better outcome.
- l_t 10y ago
  An assertive person could easily say, firmly and with confidence, that "I don't have an opinion on this topic, because the evidence isn't definitive." If you can't do that, then there is something in your scenario that's incompatible with intellectual honesty, but it's not assertiveness -- more likely, it's a feeling of needing to satisfy the expectations of others that you will have an opinion. That feeling is like antimatter for intellectual honesty, but it's totally different from assertiveness.
  - watwut 10y ago
    They can do that, but my observation is that they will loose to some who says: "I know this is better choice and the other choice is shitty". The latter is more likely to be promoted and will be assumed to be more competent - means his opinions will be taken more seriously and will get more interesting tasks.
    - pm90 10y ago
      You can be intellectually humble, assertive AND have a opinion. They are not at all mutually exclusive.
mindslight 10y ago
> Being outwardly assertive and confident absolutely wins elections and grants, but this is not at odds with an ability to internally re-evaluate one's beliefs Sure - except if one is outwardly confident about something that they're actually not completely sure about, it implies that they aren't concerned about the possibility of misleading people. This seems diametrically opposed to being humble.
- trevyn 10y ago
  Ok, here's a "Peter Thiel" secret: The display of confidence today is simply a tool that can be used to motivate, rally, and comfort your followers, for good or bad, in a more visceral and emotional way than intellectual argument alone. I believe that most very successful people who display confidence know this, and can correctly interpret other people's displays of confidence as a deliberate use of this tool. This is not an evil thing per se, because this is simply how human motivation works -- if a leader is intellectually sound but always externalizing caveats and risks, verbally or non-verbally, he will be less effective than a leader who is equally intellectually sound but uses all the motivational tools at his disposal.
  - mindslight 10y ago
    Your comment doesn't address what I said. I did not claim that being non-humble was "evil", and effectiveness is orthogonal.
  - watwut 10y ago
    Yes leaders who manipulate and say half truth are more successful. That does not make them more ethical - they are as unethical as I would be if I lied (for example about worked hours on timesheet or about status of the project).
- Klockan 10y ago
  We wouldn't get anywhere if everyone had to worry about every issue. Do you know about the concept called "clean code"? The idea is that our mental capacity is limited so we should try to reduce the amount of things you need to think about to solve a problem. High level interfaces like JavaScript might mislead people but they are still preferable to forcing everyone to bother with the gritty details of machine instructions. Similarly when we teach things we start with simple concepts and hide the ugly truths. The simplified versions might be wrong, but they are easier to learn and true enough to be useful. There have been many attempts to stop teaching those half truths and just go to the meaty concepts directly, but all of them have proven to be worse than just teaching half truths first. Thus it seems like people are good at handling being misled and later update their understanding to fit new data.

by trevyn 10y ago

aphextron 10y ago

The article also states that they were unable to find any meaningful differences between poilitical ideologies and intellectual humility, yet they go on to state > "They were also less likely to criticize that politician for “flip-flopping.” There was less variability among Democrats: Democrats, whether intellectually arrogant or humble, were generally less likely to criticize a politician for changing his mind." Completely refuting that point only a few paragraphs later. I think that this study, like all social science research, must be taken with an extreme grain of salt.

SamBam 10y ago
I don't think it's contradicting itself at all. It's saying (1) there's no strong correlation between ideology and intellectual humility, by their measures, and (2) while intellectual humility generally correlated with not criticizing a politician for flip-flopping, Democrats across the board we're also less likely to criticize. Saying that correlation 2 is not string (because humbleness is not a good predictor of not-criticizing asking Democrats) does not negate point 1.
- smhost 10y ago
  > Intellectual humility was associated with a greater willingness to believe and vote for a candidate who changed his position on an issue. Being open to the possibility of changing their own beliefs, people higher in intellectual humility view such behaviors more positively when observed in others. Interestingly, however, the effect was obtained only for participants who identified themselves as Republicans even though intellectual humility scores did not differ among Republicans, Democrats, and Independents. (DOI: 10.1177/0146167217697695) It's very badly written, but it says that correlation 2 is present only among Republicans. Which, as you said, doesn't negate point 1, but it's still a weird and interesting result.
jwdunne 10y ago
I'd have thought adherence to ideology is the opposite of the humility described. I've met free market capitalists and revolutionary socialists that refuse to accept anything but their view on what's best for society by and large, which is the strict adherence to the tenets of their ideologies. Is it possible to buy into only parts of an ideology or is it actually just pragmatic and a display of humility in accepting that some parts of an ideology may work in some situations?
- WhitneyLand 10y ago
  >Is it possible to buy into only parts of an ideology Yes. One example is Christianity. >is it actually just pragmatic and a display of humility in accepting that some parts of an ideology may work in some situations? Yes. In fact good science requires that practioners be willing to consider that new ideas that may possibly be contradictory and superior to their own. Not sure why for some of us this seems the obvious and only logical way to proceed while many will spend a lifetime not realizing it.

WhitneyLand 10y ago

"Being outwardly assertive and confident wins elections and grants, but is not at odds with ability to internally re-evaluate one's beliefs" Incorrect. They are absolutely at odds. You have never noticed that at the times you are most sure of yourself it's easier to appear externally confident and assertive? Compared to times that you have self doubt? Maybe it's fair to say it doesn't necessarily impact how you project confidence, but sure doesn't mean they not at odds, and sure can mean it requires expending a lot more energy. Secondly you are misreading the leadership quote. You say it's ok for a leader to dismiss an idea already evaluated, which is true. However the quote refers to leaders who do not listen to suggestions, which very different and certainly poor leadership when given no other context to justify not listening.

Razengan 10y ago
> Incorrect. They are absolutely at odds. You have never noticed that at the times you are most sure of yourself it's easier to appear externally confident and assertive? Compared to times that you have self doubt? I disagree. You can harbor uncertainties and doubts about the outcome yet still be confident of the course of action you must take. My aunt recently had a brain injury and I was the only family available to attend to her. I had to choose between letting her die or opting for a controversial surgery that also carried a risk of mortality, little chance of improving her condition, and the possibility of incurring a lot of debt. I was uncertain, scared, yet also confident that some attempt to save her should be made.
- WhitneyLand 10y ago
  I believe you misread, I did not say it wasn't possible, in fact I explicitly allowed that is possible. The claim is that in general they are forces at odds and in most of those situations in takes more energy to project confidence or assertiveness. However I am glad you were able to be strong for your aunt.
trevyn 10y ago
You can be 100% confident of your position given the information available, but still be willing to re-evaluate your position when new information arrives. This second quality is intellectual humility. I understand the leadership quote, but I find it interesting that the author did not go into the nuances of why leaders might not listen to suggestions, instead sending the reader down the garden path of "all suggestions are worth hearing", which I believe to be false.

hyperpape 10y ago

I really don't see how being that assertive is compatible with intellectual humility, short of actively lying. There will come a time where people expect you to state something firmly, and you will have to either say "the evidence isn't definitive" or be dishonest. Edit: of course you can often be assertive about some things while being intellectually humble. But what I mean to say is that the level of assurance that is expected of a CEO is not compatible with that humility.

taurath 10y ago
Think of a room full of assertive people. They hold their beliefs strongly but they /argue/. In a productive way. That way everything comes out on the table, so a decision can be made with everyone being heard, and even though your view may not be the final decision you get a better outcome.
l_t 10y ago
An assertive person could easily say, firmly and with confidence, that "I don't have an opinion on this topic, because the evidence isn't definitive." If you can't do that, then there is something in your scenario that's incompatible with intellectual honesty, but it's not assertiveness -- more likely, it's a feeling of needing to satisfy the expectations of others that you will have an opinion. That feeling is like antimatter for intellectual honesty, but it's totally different from assertiveness.
- watwut 10y ago
  They can do that, but my observation is that they will loose to some who says: "I know this is better choice and the other choice is shitty". The latter is more likely to be promoted and will be assumed to be more competent - means his opinions will be taken more seriously and will get more interesting tasks.
  - pm90 10y ago
    You can be intellectually humble, assertive AND have a opinion. They are not at all mutually exclusive.

mindslight 10y ago

> Being outwardly assertive and confident absolutely wins elections and grants, but this is not at odds with an ability to internally re-evaluate one's beliefs Sure - except if one is outwardly confident about something that they're actually not completely sure about, it implies that they aren't concerned about the possibility of misleading people. This seems diametrically opposed to being humble.

trevyn 10y ago
Ok, here's a "Peter Thiel" secret: The display of confidence today is simply a tool that can be used to motivate, rally, and comfort your followers, for good or bad, in a more visceral and emotional way than intellectual argument alone. I believe that most very successful people who display confidence know this, and can correctly interpret other people's displays of confidence as a deliberate use of this tool. This is not an evil thing per se, because this is simply how human motivation works -- if a leader is intellectually sound but always externalizing caveats and risks, verbally or non-verbally, he will be less effective than a leader who is equally intellectually sound but uses all the motivational tools at his disposal.
- mindslight 10y ago
  Your comment doesn't address what I said. I did not claim that being non-humble was "evil", and effectiveness is orthogonal.
- watwut 10y ago
  Yes leaders who manipulate and say half truth are more successful. That does not make them more ethical - they are as unethical as I would be if I lied (for example about worked hours on timesheet or about status of the project).
Klockan 10y ago
We wouldn't get anywhere if everyone had to worry about every issue. Do you know about the concept called "clean code"? The idea is that our mental capacity is limited so we should try to reduce the amount of things you need to think about to solve a problem. High level interfaces like JavaScript might mislead people but they are still preferable to forcing everyone to bother with the gritty details of machine instructions. Similarly when we teach things we start with simple concepts and hide the ugly truths. The simplified versions might be wrong, but they are easier to learn and true enough to be useful. There have been many attempts to stop teaching those half truths and just go to the meaty concepts directly, but all of them have proven to be worse than just teaching half truths first. Thus it seems like people are good at handling being misled and later update their understanding to fit new data.