#intellectual humility

[unsolicited-opinions]

I hate you, you ruined my life.

How am I supposed to go back to regular piss on the poor tumblr discourse with a self righteous tone and lack of actual knowledge and compassion now that I found this blog ???

This is (too) kind and funny, but you should know there are a couple of terms for what you're experiencing...and they're not my fault.

The first is Intellectual Humility

Writers in both philosophy and psychology define intellectual humility as the ability to recognize that:

Your knowledge is limited

Your beliefs might be wrong

Other people might know things you don't

You must be willing to revise your views when the evidence demands it

It is a higher-order epistemic attitude which involves beliefs not just about the world, but also about the reliability of one's own beliefs.

This doesn’t mean you're uncertain about everything. It means you're starting to notice the difference between feeling right and being right...and choosing not to confuse the two.

And this shift makes the online world seem strange.

Where once you saw confident moral certainty, you now see performance.

Where you used to see clarity, you now hear slogans.

This isn't cynicism, it's epistemic caution. You're not doubting your values, you're just realizing that sincerity isn’t the same thing as reliability.

That can feel like a dysfunction, but it's actually growth.

The second thing you're experiencing is Cognitive Dissonance.

Coined by psychologist Leon Festinger in 1957, cognitive dissonance describes the discomfort that arises from holding two conflicting beliefs... or when your beliefs conflict with your behavior or new information.

Cognitive dissonance is the existence of nonfitting relations among cognitions that cause psychological discomfort.

This discomfort motivates people to try to resolve the tension, but most people do this by rationalizing, denying, or redirecting attention.

Sounds familiar, right?

People will go to absurd lengths to avoid acknowledging that their worldviews might merit revision.

Most people never even consider updating their beliefs.

Example:

Let's say you believe in justice and compassion.

You see people on your "side" (Republicans/Conservatives/Democrats/Liberals/Progressives/socialists/Christians/Jews/Muslims...any shared group identity) using dishonest or dehumanizing tactics.

Instead of re-evaluating, most people tell themselves it's different when we do it.

Or they attack anyone who questions it.

That also probably sounds very familiar, and that's cognitive dissonance in action.

But you, Anon, aren't doing that.

You're not rushing to resolve the discomfort by doubling down.

You’re letting yourself stay in that uncomfortable space where things no longer add up.

That's not often easy or pleasant, but I think that's a hallmark of integrity.

It can hurt, but it also frees you from needing your ideology to be seamless, perfect, and unassailable.

And that lets you start thinking on purpose.

This is growth.

John Locke, in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690), argued that human knowledge is limited, and that we rarely reach certainty.

He warned against assuming that just because something feels clear or is widely repeated, it’s therefore true. Most of what we think we know is not demonstrated, but assumed.

That doesn't mean you should give up on truth, it just underlines that truth takes work and we shouldn’t mistake confidence with accuracy.

That's where you are now.

You're asking harder questions.

You're less interested in winning arguments and more interested in understanding how those arguments are built.

You don't want to be part of a crowd that screams the right things for the wrong reasons.

That's you finding your footing.

So....sorry not sorry, I guess..?

I didn't ruin you, Anon. You did this. You grew.

If that makes Tumblr harder to scroll, that's not dysfunction or loss, that's your brain turning the lights on.

Take the credit you rightly deserve, because you did all the hard work.

[natkhat-sa-shyam]

[lazyyogi]

Sometimes attaining the deepest familiarity with a question is our best substitute for actually having the answer.

Brian Greene

[whimsyinwarfare]

do you think ancient people having little morals and being more hateful and abusive towards each other on a normal basis has to do with morals forming as we our grow as a species (so evolution) or were we simply too new to that concept to rebel to discrimination and abuse yet?

In complete honesty, I believe that the sole reason why people in ancient times were more prone to unapologetic hatefulness and violence that we would consider crude and unacceptable at this time and age is simply because they weren't aware of the concept of discrimination. I also think that the way evolution took place was entirely randomized. Like if we completely undid everything and turned back time completely, morals would be entirely different or even completely opposite, like being kind and thinking critically could've been more discriminatory. So long story short, I think a lack of evolution at the time was entirely to blame for the abuse, violence, and hatefulness in ancient times. But idk, tell me what you think about it in the comments!!

[jstor]

Dropping in to say JSTOR Daily dropped a podcast!

The series brings scholars and community leaders together to discuss what intellectual humility looks like beyond academia.

Listen here or wherever you get your podcasts 🥳

[mbti-notes]

with regards to learning it may be important to know about IEOD(illusion of explanation depth) which may sometimes lead us to believe we understand more about the world than we think this can be especially true for those with an intuitive preference i write this because I've fallen for it too I hope this helps

I have discussed such learning problems in previous posts. After spending many years teaching, tutoring, and coaching students from a variety of backgrounds, in a variety of subjects, it never ceases to amaze me just how little people understand about learning. I believe that basic knowledge of learning theory is necessary for optimizing the learning process, if one hopes to be a good student of anything.

With so much information at the fingertips, it's more important than ever that people are mindful about how they learn. Being in the role of "student" is hard because you're a newbie and you're ignorant and you don't know the best way to tackle a big subject. Without a good teacher or an expert to guide you, you might come to rely on dubious sources of information, misinterpret what you read, misapply the ideas, or hit a seemingly insurmountable block/plateau.

Unfortunately, there are not enough good teachers to go around. Unfortunately, many teachers in public education are tasked with "babysitting" rather than teaching, to the detriment of learning. As a result, too many students get to high school, i.e., into adulthood, without a solid foundation of study skills.

Just recently, I was helping a twelfth grade student with essay writing. Being a good student, they couldn't understand why they kept getting low marks in writing despite putting a lot of effort into the assignments. Turns out, they kept submitting summaries of the literature when the teacher was explicitly asking for analysis of the literature. When I brought this problem to their attention, they were even more confused, because they thought they had been doing analysis all along. They had no clue that there was a difference between summary and analysis, so they were incapable of getting to the level of depth that the teacher was demanding.

One of the first things I often have to do with students is explain the difference between lower order vs higher order learning. Lower order learning is usually enough to pass the class throughout K-12 or achieve basic competency. Higher order learning moves people into expert territory. Without a clear vision of what they should be aspiring to, students tend to get stuck in lower order learning.

The difference between lower and higher order learning is neatly summarized by Bloom's Taxonomy, a conceptual framework for evaluating cognitive/intellectual ability. It breaks down the learning process into six categories/levels: 1) remember, 2) understand, 3) apply, 4) analyze, 5) evaluate, 6) create. Since it's hard to quantify exactly what's happening in a student's mind during learning, this framework helps by asking concrete questions about what the student can or cannot do.

My student got stuck at level 2 when the average requirement for the class was 4. They gave me a sample essay that their teacher considered to be "excellent" and it was easily at 5. While they could "feel" that there was a difference between their own essay and the excellent essay, they weren't able to articulate the difference at all.

One learning problem that people, Ns especially, often suffer is that they tend to get ahead of themselves, which is related to illusion of explanation depth. It's basically trying to run before walking. For example:

they believe "gist" is enough and dismiss details

they conflate knowing (theory) and doing (real world)

they judge/conclude without proper analysis

they try to create without mastering the basics

The above problems arise when a person doesn't realize how much they don't know (and in the case of an unhealthy personality, they refuse to acknowledge it). My student (N) is a good example. They believed that being able to do level 2 stuff (paraphrase, summarize, interpret, give examples) qualified as level 4 "analysis" and that this meant they had "mastered" the material. They simply didn't know any better or that more was possible. It wasn't until I explained to them the differences between lower and higher order learning that they began to realize how low-level their writing actually was.

I've talked before about the differences between a good student vs a good learner. A simple way to think about it: A good student is preoccupied with proving how much they know, so they are mainly motivated by extrinsic rewards or egotistical gain. By contrast, a good learner is preoccupied with how much they don't know, so they are mainly motivated by intrinsic rewards or intellectual humility that naturally breeds intellectual curiosity.

[frank-olivier]

The Battle for the Truth: Science, Rhetoric, and the Public Sphere

Reality is nothing but a collective hunch. — Lily Tomlin

The pursuit of knowledge is marked by a paradoxical dynamic where systems embodying the principles of scientific inquiry, acknowledging their own incompleteness and embracing the provisional nature of truth, are frequently attacked by counterparts that proclaim absolute certainty yet often lack a foundation in empirical evidence. This phenomenon raises a profound question about why rigorously scientific systems, aware of their limitations, incur criticism from unscientific systems that claim completeness. The underlying reasons for this critique are rooted in epistemological, psychological, and sociological factors that drive this seemingly counterintuitive conflict.

At the heart of scientific systems lies an inherent humility, an acknowledgment of the complexity of the subject matter, and a willingness to revise or even overturn existing theories based on new evidence. This openness is not a sign of weakness but a hallmark of the scientific method, which thrives on skepticism, peer review, and empirical validation. However, this selfsame openness can be misconstrued by critics from closed systems as indecisiveness or uncertainty, providing a perceived foothold for attack. In contrast, closed systems often present themselves as comprehensive and definitive, eschewing the nuanced uncertainties of scientific inquiry for the comforting simplicity of absolute truths. This appeal to certainty resonates deeply with a public frequently overwhelmed by the intricacies of modern life, seeking clear, uncomplicated answers to complex questions.

A significant portion of the critique stems from a fundamental misunderstanding or deliberate misrepresentation of the scientific process. The iterative nature of scientific inquiry, where theories are refined or revised based on new evidence, is often portrayed as flip-flopping or lack of conviction. Critics from closed systems may fail to grasp or choose to obscure the distinction between the provisional nature of scientific knowledge and the method's robustness in approaching truth. Beneath the surface of these critiques often lie power dynamics and ideological differences. Closed systems may perceive scientific findings as a threat to their influence, audience, or worldview, prompting a defensive stance that manifests as attacks on the scientific system's legitimacy. Philosophical disagreements over the nature of truth, the role of empiricism, or the balance between consensus and dissent also fuel these conflicts, highlighting the deeply entrenched nature of these disputes.

To address this paradox, education and awareness are crucial. Enhancing public understanding of the scientific method can foster a broader appreciation for its strengths and the inherent value of acknowledging complexity. Scientists and science communicators must effectively convey the provisional nature of scientific knowledge, highlighting its adaptive and refining aspects as strengths rather than weaknesses. Encouraging respectful, open dialogue between proponents of different systems, while challenging, can facilitate mutual understanding and, in some instances, reconciliation of viewpoints. Strengthening science education and promoting clear communication are key strategies to navigate this paradox, ultimately fostering a more informed, critically thinking society.

The critique of scientific systems by unscientific counterparts underscores a profound misunderstanding of the scientific endeavor. Rather than a vulnerability, the acknowledgment of incompleteness is a badge of honor, reflecting the scientific community's unwavering commitment to the pursuit of truth, no matter how complex or provisional. Embracing education, clear communication, and engaged dialogue becomes paramount, not only for the integrity of scientific knowledge but for the fostering of a society that values critical thinking and the pursuit of knowledge. By navigating this paradox with awareness and strategies aimed at enhancing public understanding and dialogue, we can work towards a future where the scientific method is valued for its strengths, and the provisional nature of truth is seen as a catalyst for continuous learning and improvement.

Marjorie Shapiro: Supersymmetry, Extra Dimensions and the Origin of Mass - Exploring the Nature of the Universe Using PetaScale Data Analysis (Google Tech Talks, June 2007)

String Theory isn‘t Dead (Sabine Hossenfelder, December 2024)

The Problem With Sabine Hossenfelder (Professor Dave Explains, October 2024)

No, Sabine, Science is Not Failing (Professor Dave Explains, November 2024)

Lawrence Krauss: God, String Theory, and the State of Physics (Robinson Erhardt, March 2024)

Sabine Hossenfelder Can’t Stop Acting Like a Complete Fraud (Professor Dave Explains, February 2025)

Wednesday, February 26, 2025

[hueman-instrumentality]

△➞ ://0006 Hueman ≈ Instrumentality • [1653] ➞ ▲

My biggest pet peeve is when someone begins to laugh at your position during a debate.

There's nothing funny about watching someone operate with a broken mental model of reality. It's actually sad - like watching someone navigate with a broken compass.

When someone starts laughing at your argument, they've already decided your mental model is worthless and your understanding is fundamentally stupid. They stop addressing your actual points and shift into performing ridicule. The message is clear: "I don't respect you enough to engage seriously." How can you have productive communication with someone who's essentially saying you're not worth the effort? It's not effective at all - it just kills any chance of understanding.

This gets worse in public forums. When there's an audience watching, people may feel even more compelled to mock. It's likely they're performing for whoever they think will agree with them, trying to rally their tribe and marginalize your perspective.

Why do they do this? It's simple. They're running your ideas through their consensus filter - their model of what they believe everyone knows to be true. But the bigger issue is that genuinely considering new ideas is physically exhausting. It takes real effort - cortisol, stress hormones, mental strain - to consider that what you think or believe might be wrong. So some people just give up. They don't have the mental energy for that. Maybe they're already stretched thin managing kids, careers, mortgages, aging parents - their cognitive resources are maxed out just keeping life together.

Sometimes what you're presenting requires them to overhaul their entire understanding of reality. That's overwhelming, I get it. But I can't stand someone disrespecting me with an "LOL" and no longer considering what I'm saying. Just stop talking to me if that's how it's going to be.

I imagine it like a soft— subconscious voice tells them they already know the truth and you're the stupid one. But it's never been about stupidity or being right or wrong. It's about discussing. Scientists estimate the human brain performs the CMOS computational equivalent of about 1 exaflop. When two people discuss, that's 2 exaflops working on a problem. Get 50 people genuinely engaging? That's 50 exaflops. We shouldn't limit ourselves to our individual processing power when we could be combining minds to actually understand reality. But mockery is exactly that limitation - a primitive monkey-mind tool that signals "don't climb the ladder" instead of explaining why the ladder might be dangerous.

It's a sad world when we stay in our little ponds, afraid of larger forums. We default to protecting the models we already have. It feels better than sitting with uncertainty you can't mentally or emotionally solve, than rebuilding your understanding, than admitting you might have been wrong about something fundamental.

But if you were truly confident in your understanding, why would you need to perform ridicule? It's fragile beliefs that need protection through mockery.

If the truth can be told so as to be understood, it will be believed.

There's real power in the effort to explain things on someone's level. The laughter, the "LOL," the dismissal - these are just primitive tools we use to maintain tribal conformity, the same way we were once coaxed into line ourselves. It's a relic of our evolutionary history, it needs to be done away with.