View Full Version : 'Intellectually Humble'


sarahsweets
03-29-17, 03:30 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/intellectually-humble-personality_us_58d02277e4b0ec9d29de4ac7

Mind you, this was published in The Huffington Post and only been subjected to like, 1 study. But it fascinated me. I had never heard of it before and I have never in my life identified with any personality related test or thing, as much as I identify with this.
The only variation would be work. I do not work, but I have and I was always a team player.
I also do not believe in most of the science behind personality tests. I have taken plenty and some more than once, and have never gotten consistent results. I am not saying everyone who does believe in these tests is wrong, just that it hasnt been that way for me.

I dont know if this is a real thing or not but it was a fun thing to read and share.

xxxooo

unstableAngel
03-29-17, 03:51 AM
Wow! Thats me to a tee, all except being a good leader. I can lead ppl but not in a work environment as I don't like telling people what to do, or do things for me (issue), id rather do it myself than ask. But the rest....spot on! I am completely open minded, don't judge or have preconcieved notions about people based on religion, race, ethnicity or class. Always willing to test my beliefs about things, therefore im not usually dead set about most things. Mind you there are some things unacceptable & no one can tell me otherwise. But i'd like to understand why people do what they do, ex. domestic violence, emotional abuse, predjudice, judging others and having no empathy. All pretty hard core things but as stated i'm open & willing to learn others beliefs, opinions etc. We can always learn something from other people if you just listen. :)

dvdnvwls
03-31-17, 01:16 AM
Having no empathy, really none, is evil.

Some very intelligent people have claimed that sympathy is superior to empathy in the positive effects it generates, and that empathy has too many negative side effects. I'm fascinated by that and want to learn...

But a person without ANY empathy is a monster, no exceptions.

dvdnvwls
03-31-17, 01:30 AM
Hmmmm. I'm not sure if I fit in their article or not. I have all the traits except one very strongly ... but not all the time. I'm rarely sure if what I'm saying is right, but when I am sure, I can seem insufferably arrogant. I am also not a leader at work.

Hermus
03-31-17, 01:55 AM
Open to other viewpoints When they are not too much opposed to my own core believes. So not really.

You recognize when you're wrong Yes, I do. Defending false facts makes people look quite stupid.

You challenge your own beliefs against facts One counterfact doesn't necessarily invalidate a belief. But if the facts against my point of view are building up, I might change my position somewhat.

You're a leader at work Often when engaging in projects, I quite quickly and naturally take on a leadership role. And people like me to.

You're able to compromise Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't.

You hae relationships with people of all different beliefs That's one of my strenghts. I can get along with people from quite diverse walks of life and with quite different views. There always are similarities to be found.

Your ego is in check Not really. I sometimes discredit others as an ego-defence.

You're open minded Quite so. Always open for something new.

Not the most humble, but also not the most unhumble (is that a correct word?)

sarahsweets
03-31-17, 05:54 AM
The only thing I didnt identify with was leader at work. I was a good team player and when crisis hit, I was a good decision making leader, but being THE leader wasnt my thing.

WheresMyMind
03-31-17, 08:40 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/intellectually-humble-personality_us_58d02277e4b0ec9d29de4ac7

Mind you, this was published in The Huffington Post and only been subjected to like, 1 study. But it fascinated me. I had never heard of it before and I have never in my life identified with any personality related test or thing, as much as I identify with this.
The only variation would be work. I do not work, but I have and I was always a team player.
I also do not believe in most of the science behind personality tests. I have taken plenty and some more than once, and have never gotten consistent results. I am not saying everyone who does believe in these tests is wrong, just that it hasnt been that way for me.

I dont know if this is a real thing or not but it was a fun thing to read and share.

xxxooo

The personality characteristics discussed are considered to be normal characteristics for people with healthy psychological well-being. The scale for this was created by Carol Ryff I think in the 1950s.

The majority of the people I work with fit that description. People in politics almost never do - it's hard to get into office if you are normal in that manner. Self-promotion, and flipping your opinion on a mention in a newspaper is common.


By the way, the entire editorial is written from the view of someone who's rigidly confined in a belief system of "equal pairs of opposites". Starts with good versus evil, then right/wrong and eventually, this belief system prevents real education by believing that things have two sides.

I've seen the light of day in 7 decades and have yet to see any issue with ONLY two sides.

I was lucky, in my 20s, to read a book called Edward de Bono's thinking course. There were six strategies and the two that stuck with me most are:

- If you can see both sides of an issue, then you don't know enough yet to form an opinion.
- When given choices A, B and C, always pick D.

In other words, don't get boxed in.

IMO, both our press and politics are driving minds closed faster than ever.

Consider this:
- Are you open to the idea of people who believe the exact opposite? If not, you're not open minded. Open-mindedness doesn't mean being open to people just like you - that's called forming a faction. I don't mean you, specifically, Sarah, but the bigger "you" of general people-dom.

dvdnvwls
03-31-17, 10:58 PM
It's a hard thing to make sense of IMO.

If I'm open to the idea of people who believe the exact opposite, but not actually open to what they're saying, then that's pretty pointless IMO.

Letching Gray
04-01-17, 10:59 AM
Mind you, this was published in The Huffington Post and only been subjected to like, 1 study. But it fascinated me. I had never heard of it before and I have never in my life identified with any personality related test or thing, as much as I identify with this.

The profile said I was remarkably normal in all ways, except for eating spinach, which bordered on some bizarre Freudian fetish and urged me head to the closest emergency room or turn myself in to the cops. Otherwise, they would report me to INTERPOL.

I'm shocked

Cyllya
04-01-17, 09:08 PM
The article acts like this is a newly discovered personality trait that "is only just beginning to be studied by researchers," but I'm pretty sure this is actually the "P" from the Jung/Myers-Briggs philosophy. (That is, people with a very high "J" score prefer to make decisions ASAP and stick with that decision.)

(Granted, personality tests inevitably lump multiple traits into each category, so depending on the exact test you take, the P-versus-J might also reflect something like how messy your desk is.)

Having no empathy, really none, is evil.

Some very intelligent people have claimed that sympathy is superior to empathy in the positive effects it generates, and that empathy has too many negative side effects. I'm fascinated by that and want to learn...

But a person without ANY empathy is a monster, no exceptions.

The problem with "empathy" is that the same word gets used for multiple distinct ideas, and then people conflate those ideas willy-nilly. The most common ones are...
1: emotional vicariousness, feeling other people's emotions as if they are your own (this is the one reflected in most dictionaries), having your emotions effected by others;
2: being able to figure out what other people's emotions are, based on things like body language, tone of voice, and facial expression;
3: caring about other people's feelings or well-being.

Having none of #3 is effectively "evil" (sociopathy), but since people don't make a distinction between these, that leads to weird conclusions like being bad at reading others emotions' means someone is evil, or that there's something virtuous about getting hysterical because other people are hysterical.

dvdnvwls
04-01-17, 09:31 PM
Agreed.

But sociopathy is not "effectively" evil - just evil, no modifiers required.

Fuzzy12
04-01-17, 10:36 PM
Hmmmm. I'm not sure if I fit in their article or not. I have all the traits except one very strongly ... but not all the time. I'm rarely sure if what I'm saying is right, but when I am sure, I can seem insufferably arrogant. I am also not a leader at work.

You are one of the least intellectually humble people I know!! :lol:

Fuzzy12
04-01-17, 10:47 PM
I'm probably not very intellectually humble either. I used to be but I think I'm becoming less accepting of all viewpoints with age in the sense that now I think thst it's not all just a matter of perspective. there are viewpoints that just don't make much sense.

I'm open to other viewpoints and I have recognised in the past that I have been wrong. Of course I cant be sure that i always recognise this but I am always aware of the possibility.

I'm constantly checking my own beliefs against facts and updating them.

I'm. Definitely not a leader at work.

I'm not always able to compromise. Sometimes I can't and sometimes I don't want to.

I can have relationships with people of other beliefs but I do find that some beliefs make it hard for me to consider or desired friendship. Especially with age I'm becoming more and more picky. There are some viewpoints and beliefs that I just find hard to respect.

I'm. Not sure what it means to have your ego in check but I suspect I don't.

I think.I'm fairly open.minded. I try to not make value judgements and I try to consider all points of view but I do think that some points of view are just false or based on false premises

Fuzzy12
04-01-17, 10:59 PM
The article acts like this is a newly discovered personality trait that "is only just beginning to be studied by researchers," but I'm pretty sure this is actually the "P" from the Jung/Myers-Briggs philosophy. (That is, people with a very high "J" score prefer to make decisions ASAP and stick with that decision.)

(Granted, personality tests inevitably lump multiple traits into each category, so depending on the exact test you take, the P-versus-J might also reflect something like how messy your desk is.)



The problem with "empathy" is that the same word gets used for multiple distinct ideas, and then people conflate those ideas willy-nilly. The most common ones are...
1: emotional vicariousness, feeling other people's emotions as if they are your own (this is the one reflected in most dictionaries), having your emotions effected by others;
2: being able to figure out what other people's emotions are, based on things like body language, tone of voice, and facial expression;
3: caring about other people's feelings or well-being.

Having none of #3 is effectively "evil" (sociopathy), but since people don't make a distinction between these, that leads to weird conclusions like being bad at reading others emotions' means someone is evil, or that there's something virtuous about getting hysterical because other people are hysterical.

I agree that only (3) is a distinct marker of sociopathy amd I think that's a very important distinction that you mention.

However being evil is not a thing. I'm not sure what it is supposed to mean even. Sociopathy is a disorder, an aberration to normal human functioning, that's all.

unstableAngel
04-02-17, 12:11 AM
i can see why they say that, cause empathy can cause u to actually feel someones pain. Not sure i agree tho, as its something i love about myself as many are incapable of even sympathy. Empathy is deeper and allows you to truly understand anothers position, pain.etc. But im interested in finding out more as well.

dvdnvwls
04-02-17, 01:46 AM
I don't believe there would be a long-established and well-known word for something that isn't meaningful to people. Whether it's well defined or not is important, and I think maybe it's not well defined. But similarly, "good" is most certainly a thing, and yet is not well defined.

Take for example the famous murderous dictators from various times and places. List them in quiz format, and give check-boxes "Evil", "Not Evil", and "Can't Say". See what kind of responses you get. :)

Fuzzy12
04-02-17, 02:18 AM
I don't believe there would be a long-established and well-known word for something that isn't meaningful to people. Whether it's well defined or not is important, and I think maybe it's not well defined. But similarly, "good" is most certainly a thing, and yet is not well defined.

Take for example the famous murderous dictators from various times and places. List them in quiz format, and give check-boxes "Evil", "Not Evil", and "Can't Say". See what kind of responses you get. :)
That's because people like to judge without understanding or considering the biology behind someone's behaviour.:)

Remember that you and me are just lucky thst we aren't sociopaths.

sarahsweets
04-02-17, 09:14 AM
By the way, the entire editorial is written from the view of someone who's rigidly confined in a belief system of "equal pairs of opposites". Starts with good versus evil, then right/wrong and eventually, this belief system prevents real education by believing that things have two sides.

I've seen the light of day in 7 decades and have yet to see any issue with ONLY two sides.

I was lucky, in my 20s, to read a book called Edward de Bono's thinking course. There were six strategies and the two that stuck with me most are:

- If you can see both sides of an issue, then you don't know enough yet to form an opinion.
- When given choices A, B and C, always pick D.

In other words, don't get boxed in.
I think seeing things from two sides is a good start for dialogue.

dvdnvwls
04-02-17, 11:13 AM
I think seeing things from two sides is a good start for dialogue.
Yes it's a start, but only a start; too often, people think it's the best there is.

dvdnvwls
04-02-17, 11:40 AM
That's because people like to judge without understanding or considering the biology behind someone's behaviour.:)

Remember that you and me are just lucky thst we aren't sociopaths.

If I was an evil dictator, biology might explain my behaviour, but it wouldn't make me not evil.

dvdnvwls
04-02-17, 12:34 PM
You are one of the least intellectually humble people I know!! :lol:
When I don't know what I'm talking about, I try to shut up. Occasionally, I even succeed! :D

Sorry about that. :o

Fuzzy12
04-02-17, 12:40 PM
If I was an evil dictator, biology might explain my behaviour, but it wouldn't make me not evil.

Yes I suppose you could define evil like that and if it's done without judgement I don't object to that.

I just think it's important for people to remember that if circumstances were different they would probably be a very different person.

namazu
04-02-17, 12:42 PM
When I don't know what I'm talking about, I try to shut up. Occasionally, I even succeed! :D

Sorry about that. :o
Part of being intellectually humble may be the ability to recognize when we don't (or may not, or cannot) know what we're talking about, too.

dvdnvwls
04-02-17, 01:01 PM
Yes I suppose you could define evil like that and if it's done without judgement I don't object to that.

I just think it's important for people to remember that if circumstances were different they would probably be a very different person.
I agree.

The fact that things could be different doesn't change the fact that things are as they are. Value judgments are still possible, even while recognizing that they are always based on changeable circumstances. If we declare value judgments inherently impossible, I think we run into all kinds of problems. Maybe problems of our own biological need for value judgments, but... still. :)

Fuzzy12
04-02-17, 01:36 PM
I agree.

The fact that things could be different doesn't change the fact that things are as they are. Value judgments are still possible, even while recognizing that they are always based on changeable circumstances. If we declare value judgments inherently impossible, I think we run into all kinds of problems. Maybe problems of our own biological need for value judgments, but... still. :)

No if someone is a threat to others understanding why they are a threat or having compassion for then does not make them less of a threat and does not reduce the need to protect yourself.

I also can understand why humans have evolved to make value judgments: they enable quick and easy decision making ajd when you are faced with a threat to your life quick and easy decision making is vital.

However, most of us live in an environment where our life is not constantly threatened. Most of us have the luxury to think about and consider something or someone beyond good (safe) or evil (threat).

It's also.important thst we do this because it's the most effective way to protect both threats (eg sociopaths) and society. It's only when you try to understand someone's behaviour thst you can start to find ways to prevent mitigate or counteract it. If i remember right empathy is learnt ans early intervention can make a huge difference.

Another reason why it's important is because it has huge implications in terms of the justice system. A justice system thst considers people to be bad or evil punishes rather than rehabilitates (or rather thsn focussing on protecting society) and in my opinion that is not justifiable given what we understand now about humans and behaviour

dvdnvwls
04-02-17, 01:50 PM
I agree completely with your description of what's needed. However, I believe there is no choice but to have it coexist with value judgments, because humans being humans, value judgments are not going away.

WheresMyMind
04-02-17, 03:00 PM
Having no empathy, really none, is evil.

Some very intelligent people have claimed that sympathy is superior to empathy in the positive effects it generates, and that empathy has too many negative side effects. I'm fascinated by that and want to learn...

But a person without ANY empathy is a monster, no exceptions.

I've actually been on about a six-month quest to understand empathy, sympathy and compassion.

The first problem is the words - it seems everybody who writes about them has very different definitions for the words.

For years, it seemed to me that sympathy is like saying "I know how I'd feel if that happened to me", whereas empathy is like saying "I know this person and their values, and therefore, I know how THEY feel because that thing happened to them." IMO, therefore, empathy requires a more connected relationship between the two of you and is superior - in that if you can experience empathy, you can probably experience sympathy as well, but not vice-versa.

Compassion, based on how I see people discussing it (notably Dan Siegel of the Mindsight Institute, and Dacher Keltner of UC Berkeley's Greater Good Science Center), seems even bigger..not only are you able to feel what the other person feels, but you are insightful enough to want to help, and can identify specific steps to help.

Joseph Campbell, a cultural historian, said this of compassion - that the "com" part of the word has the same root as in the word "encompass". As a concept, he claims that it appears in Sumerian writings (cave pictures?) of about 2000BC...so it's a very old concept. The encompassing part, he claims is that if you picture yourself as a living being - that is, an entire consciousness that happens to have taken residence in a human body - then compassion means to expand your being (the non-corporeal parts - your spirit, emotions, thoughts) outward until they completely encompass the body inhabited by another human being. This creates a two-way conduit in which your emotional strength can strenghthen theirs, and you literally feel what they feel.

Now, Campbell was not a scientist, he was more of a philosopher, so I took these notions as figurative. Also, as Campbell died in '87, he did not have the benefit of the unbelievable advances in neuroscientific knowledge that we have experienced since the advent of PET scanning and MRI, especially the past five years. Dan Siegel, on the other hand, is all in the midst of the latest research...and Siegel, who I don't think ever met Campbell, is saying the same thing - that is is, indeed, possible to extend one's emotional, mental and spiritual boundaries to encompass another person - and this is the case in the very best romantic relationships.

So, compassion, if it is actually as described above, is pretty darned significant stuff and makes empathy and sympathy seem like also-rans.

I found an article online in Psychology Today, while searching for empathy and sympathy - and it gave a wonderful big-picture look.

They placed four different feelings along a continuum. Starting at the low end is pity, which is feeling bad for someone else, but in a way that places them at a lower stature than yourself - and does not hold them responsible for anything. Then sympathy then empathy, which are about as I'd thought they were - and both of them incorporate some element of believing that the person suffering may have themselves taken some action that partially led to the suffering. By the way, that is GOOD news for those suffering - if you had a role in your current suffering, then you have the power to reduce the chances of experiencing it again. Finally at the "high" end of this spectrum, they place compassion.

Compassion, the article says, "is associated with an active desire to alleviate...suffering...elevating your shared emotions into a universal and transcending experience." And - of all four feelings, compassion is the only one that usually leads to a more broadly-felt desire to be altruistic.

Also noted in my articles is that compassion, by its nature, can encompass ONLY one other person. If it were possible, and you did encompass two people at the same time, the brain could not process the conflicting messages, as two people are never identical in feelings.

Here's a PDF of the article from Psychology Today:
2546

WheresMyMind
04-02-17, 03:13 PM
I think seeing things from two sides is a good start for dialogue.

I used to think that - but most of the time, if I encounter someone who make sure they "see things from both sides" - that's where they stop.

Only the most rigid people think anything is one-sided. Once you've broken free of that bondage, what makes "two sides" special?

BTW, based on my last few years' review of cultures around the world, the notion that "everything has two sides" is a unique concept, held only on societies that are fundamentally based on beliefs from Judeo/Christian/Islamic cultures.

I spent a great deal of time working in several Asian countries. You may have heard that in some Asian cultures, they have a difficult time saying "no" to a yes/no question. It's actually bigger than that -they have a difficult time with any question that appears to allow only two answers. Two is not, to them, a naturally occurring number! Nature has very few "twos" in it...gender identification amongst mammals is the only big one I can think of.

WheresMyMind
04-02-17, 03:18 PM
Part of being intellectually humble may be the ability to recognize when we don't (or may not, or cannot) know what we're talking about, too.

I never know what I'm talking about and I don't think anybody else does, either. This makes it so easy to accept what anybody says as their opinion only.

And opinions are formed from a lifetime of experience, intentional and unintentional education, formative messages from youth, culture, work, and so on. All opinions are valuable, whether or not I choose to incorporate them in my own value system.

Once you break free of a strong desire to "know" something as "fact" or not, it becomes much easier to emotionally distance yourself from the concepts, and then evaluate them with respect to other concepts, then compare all of the above to observable facts. From the scientific perspective, an observable fact is something that is detectable by human senses or scientific measurement instruments, and in doing so, most humans would observe the "fact" the same way as other humans. A belief cannot, therefore, be a "fact" since a belief is internal and personal and nobody else can detect your beliefs...even if they can detect and approximately correctly interpret your words.

dvdnvwls
04-02-17, 03:41 PM
I never know what I'm talking about and I don't think anybody else does, either. This makes it so easy to accept what anybody says as their opinion only
This means that you accept nothing and no one, that you reject all possibilities out of hand - a stance of mere tolerance and no more, equally for all. Many things that people say are true, and many things that people say are false. Assigning all ideas a neutral value has the same effect as disrespecting everyone and rejecting everything everyone has to say. Temporarily reserving judgment is not the same as abdicating reason.

dvdnvwls
04-02-17, 05:27 PM
I never know what I'm talking about and I don't think anybody else does, either. This makes it so easy to accept what anybody says as their opinion only.
To put my earlier statement more clearly, or at least in a different form, what you've expressed there is pure cynicism - no matter what you may choose to call it.

Fuzzy12
04-03-17, 07:00 AM
I think there's also an important distinction between considering other viewpoints, seriously and respectfully, and accepting as true each and every viewpoint.

With some things it's not obvious and sometimes it's not determinable what is true and sometimes what is true depends on perspective but some things really are just nonsense no matter how you look at them.

...at least till more convincing evidence is provided.

Bluedasher
04-03-17, 09:30 AM
Firstly, I just want to make note that I've struggled with being intellectually humble for the majority of my life. Over the years I made it a point to try and improve this about myself since I have often valued wanting to win in an argument over maintaining solid friendships. I've done well to change this about myself. A lot of people have told me in the past that I do have an ego. My ex tells me now how it was the cause of a lot of tension in our relationship even though I thought everything was fine. I was always confused because I never even noticed this and knew my intentions were always good. Turns out, I've just needed a major overhaul in how I communicate with people.

I've done all of this without medication just through experience, but I will say that finding the successful medication for me has improved this about myself and made me a lot more humble. I'll often hear someone say something that's just flat out factually wrong and not feel compelled to correct them or make sure everyone else knows that I know the right information. I can keep this knowledge to myself and not care as much about what others think. I can also more easily tell the time and place when it is appropriate to correct or teach people and I am much better at communicating where I'm coming from. This has improved relationships and other people's perception of me quite a lot.

aeon
04-03-17, 09:34 AM
I fit the description well enough, save the leader part.


Cheers,
Ian

VoxPopuli
04-03-17, 01:42 PM
I'm always leery of any test that asks me if I'm open minded?

That always sounds to me like whoever developed the question is selling something and needs me to lower my inhibitions. I mean, if you ask 10 people if they think they're open-minded, I'd bet 8 or 9 would say "sure"...It sounds like the word "fair" to me...tell me how you define "open-minded" and "fair" for me first, then I'll decide if you are or aren't...barring that, I have to ask myself: what does the one asking the question have to gain from me being open-minded?

Mine is probably a pretty common, learned reaction for ADDr's. We've been constantly categorized as "incorrigible," "disruptive," "lazy," etc., and we've spent so much of the first part of our lives trying to prove those categories NOT true, that we have so little tolerance the rest of our lives for being set up with false choices and pop-psychology designed to get you to join, buy, stand-out, or blend-in.

At least in my case, I have found I'm tired of explaining myself and defending my beliefs. So I am humble on matters relating to style, but I am fixed on matters of principle.