81–90 of 267 posts
> The fact is, people who base their self-worth on being right about everything prevent themselves from learning from their mistakes. They lack the ability to take on new perspectives and empathize with others. They close themselves off to new and important information. From The Subtle Art of Not Giving a Fuck.
Also make sure you're not overly invested in having the attitude of NGAF.
One of the ways I think about humility is that it is the ability of a person to successfully integrate information that requires some non-trivial refactoring of one's internal model of the world. Refactoring can be a costly operation, so it makes sense that the mind shouldn't take on that task too often, especially if one's mind is more likely to suffer net harm from an unsuccessful or partial refactoring. However, i…
why would a partial refactor be bad for the mind? (I don't consider the mind to be digital, and the brain even less so) how can you know when you have completed a refactor?
Since this is done by the DMN instead of working memory, when this occurs I think that the best thing you can do is take a weekend off. When you are learning aggressively, like at a high level university, I imagine that a student will go through several of these a year in various subjects.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My problem lies in being open minded to hearing out someone who, after enough conversing, has an opinion that you’ve delved into deeply before and have seen the glaring shortcomings of, and when that individual is not open to those factual shortcomings. That is- dealing with stubborn, close minded people, is incredibly difficult to stay open for me- in the best case I just move on.
> and when that individual is not open to those factual shortcomings. That's when you should play the part of being stubborn and close-minded yourself, if this is what it takes to ensure that your points are heard. Intellectual humility is the best case, but sometimes it is best to cut one's losses.
It's a finding more pithily stated by the poet W.B. Yeats: "The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity" - The Second Coming (poem).
Is Yeats saying lack of conviction is a good thing? Or commenting on the fact that the wrong people have conviction?
Makes sense. Well educated people have educational credentials that protect their self-esteem. They can afford to be intellectually humble. Admitting to mistakes or ignorance doesn't hurt as much.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sounds to me like you enter conversations with a pre-made idea of what you want the conclusion to be. Questions to ask yourself if you feel that way regularly: Have you considered that various shortcomings might hold different weights to people depending on their background, experience in other adjacent domains, etc? That what is factual for you might not be so to others? How do you know that your analysis of the sho…
Note how I said ‘after enough conversing‘. I do give the benefit of the doubt for as long as I can. I admit to understanding positions that are premised on different values. I have a hard time when once I understand the values, inaccurate steps are taken to reach a false conclusion. What I’m talking about is more akin to talking with someone making a mistake in a proof, being pointed out the mistake, but still diggin…
Not all humans present that. They have reasons, some of which may just be their nature.
A questionnaire from the article: 1) I am willing to admit if I don't know something. 2) I like to compliment others on their intellectual strengths. 3) I try to reflect on my weaknesses in order to develop my intelligence. 4) I actively seek feedback on my ideas, even if it is critical. 5) I acknowledge when someone knows more than me about a certain subject. 6) If someone doesn't understand my idea, it's probably b…
Given the amount of cognitive bias each of us has, I'd say an important part of intellectual curiosity is making effort to learn to think better. I mean, a flat-Earther 9/11-truther astrologer could still claim to be primarily motivated by "intellectual curiosity".
A questionnaire from the article: 1) I am willing to admit if I don't know something. 2) I like to compliment others on their intellectual strengths. 3) I try to reflect on my weaknesses in order to develop my intelligence. 4) I actively seek feedback on my ideas, even if it is critical. 5) I acknowledge when someone knows more than me about a certain subject. 6) If someone doesn't understand my idea, it's probably b…
> Also (3) I don't get, because while I am extremely motivated by intellectual curiosity, I have maybe zero motivation to "develop my intelligence" like it was some kind of fitness thing. What's the difference between curiosity and a drive to develop your (crystallized) intelligence?
There's a saying in some Indian languages, which I'll paraphrase: the tree which bears a lot of fruit is always bent over . In other words, the person (tree) with lots of knowledge (fruit) is humble (bent over).
And it's knowledge itself that humbles them? I think this is a great saying.