# Does intellectual humility make us smarter?



## JohnG (May 21, 2021)

Why we all fall foul of the Dunning-Kruger effect - BBC Reel


We all find it difficult to admit when we might be wrong. In an increasingly polarised world, it seems as if people are becoming more convinced of their own beliefs and less willing to contemplate other points of view. But could this be to the detriment of our intelligence? In the third part...




www.bbc.com





Contrary to the popular line, it's not that we're necessarily wrong-but-in-denial, it's that we are so ignorant in some areas such that we are blind -- we really aren't even aware that we are wrong.


----------



## Land of Missing Parts (May 21, 2021)

JohnG said:


> Why we all fall foul of the Dunning-Kruger effect - BBC Reel
> 
> 
> We all find it difficult to admit when we might be wrong. In an increasingly polarised world, it seems as if people are becoming more convinced of their own beliefs and less willing to contemplate other points of view. But could this be to the detriment of our intelligence? In the third part...
> ...


Ignorance is self-concealing.


----------



## Living Fossil (May 21, 2021)

I guess the daily dose of Dunning-Kruger experience also became a much bigger issue since lots of discussions take place in the internet. 
It's even quite a normal thing that when you start to explore something you have a great interest in talking about it.
There's this saying about the first 4 phases when doing something that's often mentioned in eastern (martial) arts like Aikido:

1. Beginner
2. Almost a master
3. Beginner
4. Still a beginner (there are several versions of this, so this might not the most poetic version)

However, in addition to the Dunning-Kruger effect one should not forget that there is also
the fact that sometimes a very little knowledge in combination with common sense may outrule
an enormous detailed knowledge in specific areas that has few connection to the "whole picture" and thereby overrules common sense.
That's basically the hermeneutic essence of the fairytale "The Emperor's New Clothes".

I've encountered this a lot in academia as well as in avantgarde music. 
And a lot in my younger self. But this also goes for the Dunning-Kruger thing. And i guess
those both effects still happen.


----------



## JohnG (May 21, 2021)

I like that @Living Fossil but I guess I still think we need the juice we get from being audacious and ignorant. 

*Ignorance is Courage*

I read interviews with media (TV, game, movie) composers sometimes in which they claim credit for "innovations" that often are 50 years old or older. So then, does one take a moment to bask in smugness, knowing that some composer famous enough to be interviewed is, nevertheless, ignorant of some artistic development of the 1930s?

Not really, because even when people do borrow explicitly from the past, or from decades-old _avant garde, _typically they make it their own. And besides, who cares? To that composer it may be a genuine innovation in _his _work, and thus gives him the inspiration, the thrill, that led to the piece overall.


----------



## Living Fossil (May 21, 2021)

JohnG said:


> *Ignorance is Courage*


That's a great sentence!

Maybe it's indeed about finding the balance between courage and humility...


----------



## MarcusD (May 21, 2021)

Interesting video, always enjoy these thought provoking posts you occasionally drop, John.

Building opinions based on ignorance, has far less work involved than to build an opinions based on facts. We are all guilty of this. I suppose being ignorant isn't a bad thing, providing one has the humility to accept when wrong and learn from it, we can fast track. It's when stubbornness prevents us from learning, that we continue to perpetuate nonsense. This is when our behaviour becomes an issue.


----------



## LamaRose (May 21, 2021)

“Speak what you think today in hard words and tomorrow speak what tomorrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said today.”
Emerson

There are no hard truths, only fleeting perspectives. Even "hard" science has been left in the dust by the Quantum perspective... that which is constantly changing via the mediums of attention and creative thought.


----------



## JohnG (May 21, 2021)

LamaRose said:


> There are no hard truths, only fleeting perspectives.


Well, that's certainly one of the arguments John Stuart Mill advanced in favour of free speech. No matter how certain "everybody" is today about -- anything -- some time later, it will turn out that "everybody" was wrong. Even morality. And therefore free speech, being the catalyst to change, must remain wholly unfettered.

*All is Impermanent*

@LamaRose you seem to be taking it, with the quantum reference, to a "nothing is certain because it's always changing." I sort of agree with you, but not really!

Of course, at some point the Earth will fall into the Sun, or an asteroid will boil the oceans, or some such, and then we're all finished and everything we strove for might seem futile.

*...But Even So...*

But, like free will, I find that when I try to operate as though my duties have real meaning, I'm happier and I think I make those around me happier. Whether it's the duties I owe to my family, neighbors, charity groups, music projects I'm on -- doesn't matter. Living up to those responsibilities does seem to matter to them, though, and even if it's ultimately meaningless, it matters to me too.

It's like free will. Maybe we inhabit universe in which everything was determined at the Big Bang / creation, and free will is an illusion, either because of physics or Calvinism, but either way it _feels _as though we have free will, and that what we choose matters.


----------



## Double Helix (May 21, 2021)

(1) My theory of learning is that I don't know what I don't know until I find out that I don't know it. I embrace my ignorance as opportunities to learn--it is the only way forward.
(2) I do not buy any arguments (that I have heard thus far) that validate free will. To a greater or lesser degree we are pre-disposed (certainly not "chosen," in the Calvinistic sense). @JohnG , I believe that this is distinct from "meaning." (Borges' famous essay "Kafka and His Precursors" essentially makes the argument that we only see this in retrospect, that we create our own precursors. This might be applicable to the essential thesis of the concurrent John Williams thread.)
(3) Finally, I do not believe there is anything close to "objectivity"--external reality does not exist-- because all knowledge is generated via human consciousness, which is the sum of our sensory perceptions.
(David Chalmers asks the hard problem about consciousness, which I believe is essentially a tautology. But I could well be mistaken because I don't have the math.)


----------



## GtrString (May 22, 2021)

I think humility keeps our mind open, and courage closes it down. Thats why it can be good to shut off your mind when trying to get something done, you can’t sit and grumble about it. It’s basically a psychological defence mechanism. But to grow and to be creative you need to be humble and get to the deep listening first in order to give it meaning. That’s the hard yet deeply rewarding part, not too many engages in. It’s a pendulum process that you‘re not always fully in control of, I think, allthough I believe it helps to be educated in the arts/ humanities.


----------



## Ivan M. (May 22, 2021)

Pride prevents us from second guessing our oppinion, therefore making us blind to our errors.


----------



## Rex282 (May 22, 2021)

uhhh that sounds very similar to"do you still beat your wife".....I'll have to think about that.... I mean the former....your question...I mean....nevermind...


----------



## Rex282 (May 22, 2021)

When I read up on the Dunning Kruger syndrome and found it it wasn't restricted to a species that inhabits the northern hemisphere and love pretty bright hats it was a bit jolting...but moi...surely you jest...bitch...oh wait......oh fuck!!!!.I'm an idiot too!!!!!!!

The reality is..it's much worse than most can imagine.Dr.Donald Hoffman postulates in his book "The Case Against Reality" with a tight mathematical Theorem(that he knows is not 100% correct) that humans receive 0% of objective reality(yeh that's 1 zero).

His main analogy is our perception of reality is "like" a VR game. So in effect materialuniverse is just icons and we are Avatars.He is not saying we aren't real just that we are perceiving everything through the VR headset and nothing in it is the true reality.Here's the kicker..including your brain and its neurons....not even the Moon..take that Einstien!!

Again lest you think he is nuts he is a cognitive psychologist and professor at UC Irvine .His study of brain science for years is what brought him to his theorem. The fact is the hard problem of consciousness is iron clad. Scientist have 0% idea what consciousness is.The have zero verifiable evidence of any kind what causes something as simple as the taste of chocolate ,the feel of velvet, the sound of a trumpet(even JXL!!)This led Hoffman to theorizing everything(matter) emerges out of consciousness not the other way around ( materialist).

Hoffmans theorem is based on Evolutionary game theory that basically states to achieve fitness(survival) it is necessary to not perceive the truth about objective reality because it is to complicated and we would die.
His analogy of the VR game is ,the player that just concentrates on getting the most points is the fittest and has more chance of winning(passing on it's genes).The player that tries to figure the objective reality of how the game works never survives.To try and toggle the voltages and read the code while playing the game is futile.

Hoffman conjectures all material objects are more like icons used to do things to simplify their use hmmmmm and inside the VR game we use VI's to simplify how to make the sounds of many instruments we are not really playing.A game within a game...sounds like a movie.We are REALLy out of touch with reality.


----------



## LamaRose (May 22, 2021)

JohnG said:


> But, like free will, I find that when I try to operate as though my duties have real meaning, I'm happier and I think I make those around me happier. Whether it's the duties I owe to my family, neighbors, charity groups, music projects I'm on -- doesn't matter. Living up to those responsibilities does seem to matter to them, though, and even if it's ultimately meaningless, it matters to me too.


I'm with you here... I have many responsibilities and mouths to feed, and it's important to do the utmost to those under my care. But there are times - maybe daily - that I must step back and look at my own personal belief in the bigger picture... and for me that means, in the final accounting, that all is well, and that no foul have I done nor has been done unto me.


----------



## Tim_Wells (May 26, 2021)

It's interesting. I generally feel like I don't know shit about most subjects. Not sure if that's intellectual humility or some kind of self-esteem issue. 

For anyone interested in learning a topic deeply, Nobel Prize winner Richard Feynman developed a simple technique. Simple, but not easy. This video does a good job of explaining. Maybe I'll even try it myself, someday.


----------



## el-bo (May 26, 2021)

Tim_Wells said:


> I generally feel like I don't know shit about most subjects.


Yeah! I just assume that on any given topic, in any given room, I know the least. Invariably I'm right, which is a win I'm happy to take 

Seriously, though: At nearly 50-years-old I am trying to embrace the realisation of how little I really do know. And while I wish to celebrate the letting-go of the need to be right, and to have some semblance of an understanding of that which I *don't* know, it all comes crashing down when faced with little Youtube/Insta-tykes, 'running' around acting like they are possessed of 'The Truth™️'. 

Yeah, I get it...You're WOKE! Now piss off and let me live my life!

Cheers for the video. Could do with some tips


----------



## rgames (May 26, 2021)

There's a balance. Intellectual humility means you sometimes defer to others on matters of fact.

But... to whom to you defer? The problem is people make that decision on the basis of emotion and, sometimes, who happens to be the loudest voice in their circle. And the pepole they choose are often no smarter than they are.

So yes, question everything, including yourself. But never discount your own experience or knowledge.

The other issue is that "facts" are actually very difficult to come by. Very basic physics gets close but even there we have issues on what is factual.

In general, if you can express it mathematically and prove it's true then it's very close to fact. Outside of that, opinion comes in to play.

A better approach to life is not to figure out what is "fact" (unless you're one of those hardcore physicists) but to figure out what is "probably fact". For example, is climate change understood to the point of being factual? No. Is our understanding probably factual? Yes, so best to act accordingly, especially in the absence of any compelling reasons not to.

The problem arises when people treat things as "fact" when they're "probably fact" or "related to fact". Continuing on the climate change example, back in 2009 or so John Kerry famously said that the arctic would be ice-free in 2013. Of course, it was not, and even in 2021 the ice is still there. What he stated as fact was never considered fact by anyone in the know. But he had the voice and influence. People use those kinds of examples to discount what is "probably fact" or "related to fact". The response is "See. You're wrong. Therefore you're wrong about everything."

The responsible thing to do is to admit the difference between "fact" and "probably fact" or "related to fact." But that behavior tends not to grab much attention. People like to be told things are black-and-white and the path is clear. It's not.

rgames


----------



## JonS (May 26, 2021)

JohnG said:


> Why we all fall foul of the Dunning-Kruger effect - BBC Reel
> 
> 
> We all find it difficult to admit when we might be wrong. In an increasingly polarised world, it seems as if people are becoming more convinced of their own beliefs and less willing to contemplate other points of view. But could this be to the detriment of our intelligence? In the third part...
> ...


Humility always wins!


----------



## quickbrownf0x (May 26, 2021)

I'm at the very least smart enough know that I'm woefully ignorant about most things and that this isn't going to change anytime soon. Maybe because I'm as lazy as I'm ignorant.

It's probably a good idea to know these things about yourself and at the same time, surround yourself with people who _do_ know what they're talking about, in areas where you may fall short.

I mean, I (up to a point) taught myself quantum field theory, but I'm also last week's 'put-my-headphones-backwards-and-never-noticed-for-a-solid-half-hour-guy'. So there's that.

Being a bumbling idiot, in the dark about things sometimes doesn't scare me. It just means that there's still a whole lot left to figure out. Pretty sure someone can find a good Feynman quote on that.

At least I know I can play a mean bit of Misfit Fiddle. And that's an absolute fact.


----------



## bill5 (May 31, 2021)

JohnG said:


> Why we all fall foul of the Dunning-Kruger effect - BBC Reel
> 
> 
> We all find it difficult to admit when we might be wrong. In an increasingly polarised world, it seems as if people are becoming more convinced of their own beliefs and less willing to contemplate other points of view. But could this be to the detriment of our intelligence? In the third part...
> ...


That should be required reading in school. Heck - outside of school.


----------



## el-bo (Jun 1, 2021)

This was recommended in a Twitter feed I was reading (Can't remember whose). Haven't read it, but it seems apropos 

*Edited:* to add link:









"The book that changed how I think about thinking"


A conversation with writer Julia Galef on how to think less like a soldier and more like a scout.




www.vox.com


----------



## NYC Composer (Jun 1, 2021)

Excellent thread.

I think there are various measures of intelligence. For example-I’m a pretty good speller, but I know some people I consider brilliant in science but are fairly lousy spellers. People who are very verbally facile but lousy at math or science. So many measures.

One very consistent sort of intelligence is the ability to have strong views yet accept new information and modify those views constantly. When the perceived facts on the ground change, so must the initial premise, or so I think. Hardened positions are like narrowed arteries-just as the arteries make it difficult for blood to flow through, so hardened positions make it difficult for new information to be added to or accepted by an intellect.

I think peoples’ inability to change or modify their positions is mostly based on their egos. I also think the need to be “right” and the insistence that other people be “wrong” has grown and become more and more dangerous, especially in America where we’re separating into armed camps of opposition.


----------



## Trash Panda (Jun 2, 2021)

NYC Composer said:


> I think peoples’ inability to change or modify their positions is mostly based on their egos. I also think the need to be “right” and the insistence that other people be “wrong” has grown and become more and more dangerous, especially in America where we’re separating into armed camps of opposition.


I believe you are correct. Furthermore, I believe those who are the loudest about insisting they are right in matters that are subjective are deeply insecure and take a bad approach in seeking validation.

I get really annoyed when people tell me how smart they think I am because for one area where I’m knowledgeable, there is an infinite number of related and unrelated areas where I’m completely ignorant.

Then you have people like my grandfather, who isn’t the most educated, not the most intelligent or inquisitive, but his wisdom and insights are incredible, and he’s damn genius when it comes to matters of gambling.

I’ve come to believe that most people tend to be incredibly intelligent in one or two specific fields of focus, no matter how smart or dumb they seem.


----------

