What's the Best Measure of Intellectual Humility?
A new project aims to develop the gold standard intellectual humility scale.
I think we can all agree that intellectual humility is sorely lacking in the world today. But how should one measure intellectual humility?
The literature on intellectual humility has exploded in recent years, and there are now at least 10 different ways you can measure intellectual humility. All of the scales are grounded in a common core: recognition of intellectual limitations.
However, most scales only measure the positive aspect of intellectual humility without measuring intellectual vices such as intellectual arrogance. Also, almost none of the humility scales study intellectual humility within the context of intergroup conflict. In recent years, philosophers have noted that work on intellectual humility needs to be more social and not just based on one’s thinking in isolation of social context. Having intellectual humility is a lot easier when you are criticizing your out-group than when dealing with your peers. Research on the willingness to offer in-group criticism has been largely ignored.
Enter a new project aimed to provide a unifying measure of intellectual humility and bring together all the existing measures into a single scale. Over the course of ten studies with nearly 5000 participants the researchers found 5 main dimensions best describe the full range of intellectual humility: open-mindedness, intellectual superiority, defensiveness, arrogance, and in-group criticism. They call their scale the “Collected Intergroup Intellectual Humility Scale”. Here are all the items on their scale:
Open-mindedness
I like finding out new information that differs from what I already think is true.
I welcome different ways of thinking about important topics.
I enjoy diverse perspectives.
I am open to others’ ideas.
I actively seek feedback on my ideas, even if it’s critical.
In-group criticism
It’s especially important to me that members of my group avoid errors in their reasoning.
I go out of my way to turn a critical eye on my own group’s beliefs.
I think it is important to dissent when my own group is reasoning badly.
I’m especially concerned to offer corrections to false beliefs held by members of my group.
To avoid group-think, it’s important to be extra critical of your own group’s ideas.
Sense of Intellectual Superiority
I don’t care if my group holds beliefs that are inaccurate.
I am not very interested in understanding things.
It’s not important for me to question my own group’s beliefs.
It’s more important to have a stable worldview than to be open-minded.
I don’t really enjoy gaining knowledge.
Intellectual Arrogance
My ideas are usually better than other people’s ideas.
My group is better at reasoning than other groups are.
People who belong to my group are smarter than other people.
People who don’t belong to my group tend to be ignorant and stupid.
Logical thinking is something that characterizes my group more than other groups.
Intellectual Defensiveness
When I notice a flaw in my own reasoning it makes me uncomfortable.
When I know that I have an intellectual weakness in one area, I tend to doubt my intellectual abilities in other areas as well.
I feel small when others disagree with me on topics that are close to my heart.
When someone contradicts my most important beliefs, it feels like a personal attack.
I feel uncomfortable when someone points out one of my intellectual shortcomings.
The researchers found it beneficial to study intellectual humility within the context of intergroup conflict. The disposition to criticize oneself and the disposition to criticize one’s in-group are distinct. The in-group criticism facet correlated positively with open-mindedness and negatively with arrogance and political ideology. Also, in-group criticism and intellectual arrogance— while not being highly correlated with each other— were especially important both to the formation of warranted beliefs and to revising beliefs in light of social evidence of what others believe.
Politically, conservatives were consistently more intellectually arrogant and displayed more of a sense of intellectual superiority than liberals and moderates. They were also less open-minded and less inclined to engage in in-group criticism, setting them up to arrogantly jump to conclusions and not revise in light of counterevidence.
As the researchers point out, “the naive assumption that both sides should always be willing to conciliate to the same extent, is not well supported. Instead, the presumption should be that conservatives ought to conciliate (more) while liberals needn’t (as much).”
The researchers also found that people who score high in open-mindedness and in-group criticism did especially well over time on tasks measuring acceptance/rejection of warranted/unwarranted conspiracy theories, fake news, and medical misinformation. They also displayed higher levels of cognitive reflection and numeracy. Ironically, those scoring higher on a sense of intellectual superiority tended to do worse on these tasks.
What do you think? Are the researchers missing any crucial aspect of intellectual humility? Let me know in the comments below!
" Politically, conservatives were consistently more intellectually arrogant and displayed more of a sense of intellectual superiority than liberals and moderates. They were also less open-minded and less inclined to engage in in-group criticism, setting them up to arrogantly jump to conclusions and not revise in light of counterevidence. "
This is so contrary to experience I assume it must be a typo?
I seek to understand other’s perspectives VS I will stand behind my beliefs and defend them
I am driven by a desire to understand why VS as long as I know what I need to do my task, there’s no reason to dig deeper
I think there can be more than one right answer VS there is one superior answer
I appreciate that others arrive at different solutions based on their life experiences and I think those differences are valuable VS there is one superior answer that supersedes lived experiences