Intellectual humility

Intellectual humility is often described as an intellectual virtue, along with other perceived virtues such as open-mindedness, intellectual courage and integrity, and in contrast to proposed intellectual vices, such as pride and arrogance. See "Doxastic Definition of Intellectual Humility". ’What should we do to be intellectually humble?’, is a question that can be asked in situations like disagreements or when it comes to testimony. Should we believe what people say or what should we do when we disagree with someone? These questions are all epistemological questions because the goal of being intellectually humble is to gain more knowledge and to find out what is true and what is not.

Importance

There is widespread agreement among philosophers and psychologists that intellectual humility is important and valuable in some way, especially if one is going to engage with deep disagreements in a productive way. However, there is little consensus about the precise nature of intellectual humility. For example, some philosophers emphasize the importance of a disposition to own one's particular limitations (e.g. the limitations of one's knowledge and perspective), while others focus on the connection between humility and a low concern for status. Meanwhile, psychologists such as Justin Barrett and Peter Hill are working on better understanding the science behind intellectual humility, and on developing accurate measures that can tell us more about how to quantify humility.

To this one must add that the participation of intellectual humility should not be prescribed, because when it is in a circle in which all the actors know the topic to be addressed, but for their private evidence are closed to the arguments to the contrary, intellectual arrogance (See "Intellectual Arrogance" defined in Section "A Virtuous Mean") is unproductive and inappropriate because it prohibits exposure to newer and radical ideas. Endowing class and honor also puts the chest for its evidence defended and known true from the beginning.

Doxastic definition

Drs. Ian M. Church and Peter L. Samuelson proposed a doxastic account of intellectual humility. They considered intellectual humility as a virtue, one of valuing one's own beliefs "as he or she ought."

A "Virtuous Mean"

With this "as he or she ought" as the guiding principle, Church and Samuelson proposed: “Prima facie, humility is the virtuous mean between arrogance, on the one hand, and self-depreciation or diffidence on the other."

People are intellectually arrogant when they erroneously evaluate their intellectual capacity higher than warranted (“smarter than average"). This results in the intellectually arrogant person being more closed-minded and biased than the intellectually humble person.

People who are intellectually diffident are those who fail “to appropriately recognize or appreciate their intellectual achievements.” Such a person is less inclined to speak out when he or she encounters wrong information.

Advantages

Drs. Church and Samuelson cite several advantages of this treatment of intellectual humility as a virtue. By adopting such an approach, one is better equipped to counter a natural tendency to overestimate one's strengths, and underestimate one's weakness, thus countering confirmation bias. 2 Church and Samuelson further propose that by being open to the viewpoint of others, one positions oneself for growth and learning.

The doxastic definition of intellectual humility does not necessarily mean that one abandons one's beliefs, only that one is open to new and alternative viewpoints.

Quotations

A little more listening to understand, a little less trying to convince, and a lot more intellectual humility would do everyone a world of good.

— Tania Israel, 'Dude, I'm Done': When Politics Tears Families And Friendships Apart

We need to enter the conversation willing to be wrong, willing to admit the limits of our own knowledge, willing to reconsider our evidence, sources, and premises. That is self-skepticism.

— Patricia Roberts-Miller, A quote from Demagoguery and Democracy