Are You Intellectually Humble?

If you're being proved right, why change your mind? If it's too early to have data, then keep going. If data is starting to go against you, then intellectual humility will allow you to pivot to a better direction. Intellectual humility is not at the expense of intellectual rigor, it's what enables it. It's the difference between creating a high quality and fair experiment and creating one that's more likely to give you the result you want.

It's less about "I'm wrong i need to listen to everyone and rethink my opinions all the time", its "I could be wrong. If i see "data" that goes against my opinion, i should consider changing my opinion rather then assuming the data is wrong". Or just agree to disagree and implicitly don't assume the person disagreeing with you is an idiot/morally_bankrupt/etc...

The article touches on this from the perspective of threat but people have a tendency to lie to themselves; which is why so many mechanisms in experiments and medical studies exist to force intellectual humility into the process.

Being in software development, I have no choice! Feel like every time I blink there is a new something to learn. After working in this field for 14 years I am still very much a newbie.

The only thing greater than my intellect is my humility.

"I used to be humble - but now I'm perfect!" (seen on Linkedin).

When I am great enough to be humble, you'll know. I like the sentiment of the article, though I have become personally suspicious of much self effacement. Most of being smart is being open to becoming smarter, which means actively seeking out having your mind changed. Being wrong in public is one of the fastest ways to get elusive answers as well, though admittedly the openness can deprive people of the satisfaction of correcting you, and they can quickly stop offering solutions and become resentful. Sticking your neck out on being stupid often yields commensurate rewards in the correction. Counter to the effacing humility prescribed by the article, I'd propose being bold in your questions and initiative at trying things yourself and being so terrible at them that someone sees what you are trying to do and corrects it. YMMV, but while humility gets reliable results in small groups (and I do value and respect it), I'd defy anyone to give an example of something that scales faster than being stupid. I would ask whether it's the confidence or obliviousness for acting and iterating in ignorance that yields experience.