
Intellectual Humility increases tolerance, improves decision-making - bootload
https://today.duke.edu/2017/03/modest-personality-trait-intellectual-humility-packs-punch
======
trevyn
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.)

~~~
hyperpape
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.

~~~
l_t
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
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
You can be intellectually humble, assertive AND have a opinion. They are not
at all mutually exclusive.

~~~
watwut
I was talking about situation when available evidence is not conclusive.
Confidently stating opinion and then insisting on it makes people look more
skilled then those who assertively state that we need to research more. Having
and pushing opinion in that situation is opposite of being "intellectually
humble", but still good for your career.

Intellectually humble people have disadvantage in competition, although they
may make better technical decisions.

~~~
pm90
That is not the definition that I perceived from the article. Maybe you are
thinking of "Intellectually honest"? What I read was basically that
Intellectually humble people are non-dogmatic; they will change their opinions
and evaluation if and when new facts show their opinion as being incorrect;
but they aren't restricted from forming an opinion in the absence of concrete
facts, as you seem to be assuming.

------
rosser
Can't this notion pretty much be summed with the Bertrand Russell quote, "The
trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are
full of doubt"?

~~~
WhitneyLand
Yes, but couldn't you argue it's preferable to be in group one? Imagine how
great life would be running around with no doubt, full of confidence, and
never having to deal with being wrong. Sounds like bliss.

~~~
AQuantized
I think there is almost always a part of you that knows, deep down, that you
fallible. That is just from my personal experience contrasting myself as a
younger person filled with hubris to my current self, though.

------
sova
Oh my god the dawning realization that I have absolutely no intellectual
humility absolutely terrorizes and embarrasses me. I can change.

~~~
Sharlin
Young people everywhere think they know everything. A big part of the thing we
know as "wisdom" is acquiring enough experience and metacognitive skills to
realize how little one knows, and to act accordingly.

~~~
sitkack
Metacognition should be the main focus of K-5. Everything else follows.

~~~
hawkice
I mean, for that timescale, I personally would prioritize making sure the kids
know not to poop on their desks and not to scream indoors, but sure,
metacognition, that's good too.

~~~
sova
Early childhood is very formative as a time-period and even at this age young
humans can have a strong sense of propriety. There are some character traits
that are exceedingly positive and simply need nurturing to blossom. Our system
positively filters for obedience, what we really need is more creative minds.

~~~
pm90
Absolutely agree that the emphasis on obedience is anachronistic. We need a
lot more creative minds; the education system that was originally designed for
churning out soldiers and factory workers needs to be realigned for the new
economy.

------
contingencies
There is some related material in the written lore of Buddhism. Interestingly
and perhaps tellingly the material is largely phrased on classifying the
motivations and appropriate responses to questions in general, rather than the
explicit act of decision-making: [http://www.accesstoinsight.org/index-
subject.html#questions](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/index-
subject.html#questions)

 _There are questions that should be answered categorically [straightforwardly
yes, no, this, that]. There are questions that should be answered with an
analytical (qualified) answer [defining or redefining the terms]. There are
questions that should be answered with a counter-question. There are questions
that should be put aside. These are the four ways of answering questions._

------
dlwdlw
Heres a model i though of: [https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2014/02/20/the-cactus-
and-the-wea...](https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2014/02/20/the-cactus-and-the-
weasel/)

The core is a 2x2 with strength of views on one axis and holding strength on
the other.

A fox is someone who knows many things and a hedgehog is someone who knows one
big thing.

The degenerate versions are the cactus, which stubbornly knows one thing, and
the weasel, whose views ate too two-faced.

The weasal does double-think while the fox can hold contradictory models in
mind and create a new one or use the one that better fits the situation. (e.g
particle wave theory)

The fox has better perspective, but because energy is spread out among too
many things, has trouble implementing. The hedgehogs energy is directed and
more focused with more momentum, but still has the ability to steer, unlike a
cactus.

Intellectual humility IMO is about flexibility of mental models. In terms of
real world success, hedgehogs have the most while foxes are more armchair
philosophers.

The article is telling cactuses to be more like hedgehogs, but the 1
dimensional terminology ropes in foxes as well, who despite having
intellectual humility as well, don't usually have as much direct impact on the
world.

------
MichaelBurge
> aimed at promoting qualities such as intellectual humility.

Did the paper conclude that changing a person to be more intellectually humble
causes the benefits described? If not, any promotion or changing of behavior
seems premature.

------
thetruthseeker1
The one thing I would have liked to see in this article would have been the
benefits and downsides of both qualities. Intellectual Egotism, and
Intellectual Modesty. That would have been a balanced approach.

There are people who know that they are intellectually modest that read this
article, and it may reinforce their belief that being intellectually modest is
the one true path! There are people who know that they are intellectually
arrogant and may feel that they are destined for hell by reading this article.
There are some advantages to being an egotist as well and disadvantages being
modest.

The other subtle incoherence I wanted to point out is, at some point the
author claims intellectually modest people are in both classes of people,
conservative and liberals. But he does say that republicans by and far are
more likely to not accept a person who has "flip flopped" [may or may not be
for good reasons] than a democrat. So assuming most conservative people are
republicans, and most liberal people are democrats there is some intellectual
quality that differentiates their bases. This probably needed more analysis in
my opinion.

------
sandGorgon
This is the very googley concept of psychological safety right ?

Google Rework has some great stuff about it
[https://rework.withgoogle.com/blog/how-to-foster-
psychologic...](https://rework.withgoogle.com/blog/how-to-foster-
psychological-safety/)

------
csense
Didn't Socrates have this figured out ~2500 years ago?

------
moomin
You could also add "Loses Elections"

~~~
mamon
Last US elections were strange because it seems both parties chose their worst
candidates. Any Democrat other than Hilary would beat Trump hands down, and
also any Republican would win with Clinton by even higher margin.

~~~
pottersbasilisk
Trump isnt any republican he successfully recreated the reagan coalition.

Its really mindboggling, how he took over the party.

~~~
CalChris
It is mind boggling that he took over the GOP but take over it he did. And
dismissing Trump as _not any republican_ is as _No True Scotsman_ as it gets.
In particular, if Republicans wanted him gone, Trump would be gone _tomorrow_.

~~~
pottersbasilisk
Except the fact hes not a normal republican. He ran left of even clinton on
some issues.

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-donald-trump-
is-...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-donald-trump-is-running-
to-the-left-of-hillary-
clinton/2016/05/09/ebde82da-147c-11e6-8967-7ac733c56f12_story.html)

~~~
CalChris
Maybe what you meant to say is that normal Republicans aren't normal
Republicans. Or perhaps that this is what normal Republicans actually are.
Because any which way, Trump remains popular with these whatever Republicans.

------
lutusp
Summary: one unfalsifiable study, not replicated, with no theoretical basis or
reference to other theories; a study unable to establish whether the measured
trait (intellectual humility) and the measured effect (more effective
functioning) are in fact related as cause and effect, or the reverse, or are
both related to some third unstudied property.

In a recent ambitious and well-funded replication project, only 39% of
published psychology studies could be replicated at all, and of the successful
minority, the average measured effect size was half that of the original
study, in some cases falling below generally accepted standards for
statistical significance. The take-away from the replication project is that,
when reading a random psychology study, the reader must remember that the
study's probability of having any relation to reality is less than 50%.

More on this topic:
[http://arachnoid.com/psychology_and_alchemy](http://arachnoid.com/psychology_and_alchemy)

~~~
dang
Your hundreds of comments on this, all saying the same thing and replicating
themselves like weeds in any remotely related context, have become so
excessive that I need to ask you to stop using HN this way.

We all respect your fabulous software work, but HN threads are for
conversation. Nothing spoils good conversation like obsessive repetition.
Taken as a whole, your comments on this matter are not conversation, they are
a harangue—apparently an interminable one. Harangue is off-topic here,
regardless of whether you're right or not.

~~~
lutusp
> Your hundreds of comments on this ...

You know, starting out with a wild exaggeration, an "alternative fact,"
undermines your otherwise meritorious point.

> ... I need to ask you to stop using HN this way.

In what way -- conversations about psychology? On what basis? HN regulars
often post links to psychology articles -- people don't complain about that
(and IMHO they shouldn't, because most are newsworthy). And by definition,
comments about those articles are as topical as the articles themselves.

Also, I never originate exchanges about psychology, I only respond to threads
introduced/posted by others. If psychology were never an established topic
here, I would never address it. This means you're objecting to a particular
viewpoint on the topic, not the topic itself.

> We all respect your fabulous software work, but HN threads are for
> conversation.

Indeed they are. Case in point -- this conversation.

Solely for balance you might consider objecting to the large number of
psychology articles posted here. I'm not recommending this -- I only say this
to try to get you to examine your position.

~~~
DanBC
> You know, starting out with a wild exaggeration,

[https://hn.algolia.com/?query=author:lutusp%20psychology&sor...](https://hn.algolia.com/?query=author:lutusp%20psychology&sort=byPopularity&prefix&page=0&dateRange=all&type=comment)

Over 300 results, all saying pretty much the same thing.

~~~
lutusp
> all saying pretty much the same thing.

The number is higher than I would have guessed, but they're certainly not
saying "the same thing." In many cases they're included in the search results
only because of the presence of the word "psychology" without any discussion
of the topic at all.

------
ouid
This isn't a study, this is an essay about an activity that some people did.

~~~
coldtea
So? Have essays and thinking outside of formal studies gone out of style now?

~~~
pottersbasilisk
If you are trying to make wide general conclusions from it, Yes.

Its probably due from once trusted institutions getting so much wrong from the
health pyramid, replication crisis, even election polling.

Nasim Taleb has a good series on why distrust is increasing.

[https://medium.com/incerto/the-intellectual-yet-
idiot-13211e...](https://medium.com/incerto/the-intellectual-yet-
idiot-13211e2d0577)

------
nabla9
Psychology is rubbish, that's already established, so there is no need to read
this particular study before forming an opinion, or criticizing the study
bases on it's merits. /s

On the other hand, published psychological studies are probably better than
opinion articles, essays etc. So maybe there is some value in it that.

I myself find these four studies in the paper interesting in the context of
ambiguity tolerance and critical thinking. Studies in personality and social
psychology like these are usually best understood as some sort of cluster
analysis.

Most interesting points form the discussion chapter that draws from many other
studies:

1\. Many of the effect sizes for intellectual humility were relatively small

2\. High IH might come together with epistemic curiosity, cognitive ability
and ambiguity tolerance.

3\. Most personality characteristics display substantial within-person
variability across situations. So the studies probably reflected domain
specific intellectual humility (IH).

4\. Intellectual humility did not correlate with religiosity or political
orientation.

5\. Indicators for stubbornness, rigidity, narcissism, or defensiveness are
not central aspects of low intellectual humility.

~~~
angry-hacker
Maybe not rubbish, but it sure isn't science. Nice opinion article --
probably.

------
pottersbasilisk
Intellectual humility doesnt get grants though.

~~~
RandomOpinion
> _Intellectual humility doesnt get grants though._

Amen. In industry, intellectual humility doesn't help get promotions or get
hired either.

~~~
jasonkostempski
It does if you work for people with the trait.

~~~
ouid
so it's dynamically unstable :P

------
desireco42
This is one of those articles and studies we've been warned about. It doesn't
mean anything, and you will be no better off reading it. It is interesting
point but it can't be taken as a scientific pointer you should apply for your
life.

As a newspaper article, I actually like it.

~~~
mlinksva
It is a captive venue news article / press release _about_ a paper at DOI:
10.1177/0146167217697695\. I've only skimmed so far, but seems interesting and
meaningful. What fraction of papers can be directly applied to your life? When
I read the paper more closely I'll be looking for some kind of apology for
religion since it was funded by the Templeton Foundation.

~~~
lutusp
> I've only skimmed so far, but seems interesting and meaningful.

Any meaning the study might have would have to be validated by (a) a
successful replication, and (b) construction of a falsifiable theory based on
it, one that predicts behaviors and corollaries not yet seen. I won't hold my
breath for that.

Much of published psychology consists of taking a common belief that "everyone
knows," crafting a study that seems to support it, then publishing the result
without bothering to conduct a replication or suggesting a reliable,
falsifiable theoretical basis.

The thesis seems sound -- many people see humility as a positive trait. But
that's why the study exists -- it's an example of confirmation bias in print.

An equally plausible study could be crafted to prove the opposite point, but
that study wouldn't be published. Psychology journals publish articles their
readers like, and aggressively reject articles their readers don't like.

~~~
trevyn
Richard Feynman: "A very great deal more truth can become known than can be
proven."

