Frank Rich writes:
<< A society reveals a lot about itself, heroic and not, when confronting a plague.
But we didn't need a plague to tell us that Trump places zero value on any life except his own, and it's no surprise that many of his zealots are willing to blindly follow his example. . . . >>>
https://nymag..com/intelligencer/2020/03/frank-rich-what-a-plague-reveals.html
 | nymag.com Most weeks, New York Magazine writer-at-large Frank Rich speaks with contributor Alex Carp about the biggest stories in politics and culture. Today, the argument, both from the White House and ... | |
Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2020 3:59 AM
To: Outlook Team <zoglul@hotmail.co.uk>; Post Card <abahar.canada@gmail.com>; zainul abedin <zainul321@yahoo.com>; pfc <pfc-friends@googlegroups.com>; Sameer Syed <amsmel@aol.com>; Dr. KMA Malik <kmamalik15@gmail.com>; Jalal Khan <jukhan@gmail.com>; Mohammad Gani <mgani69@gmail.com>; rashed Anam <rashedanam1971@gmail.com>; Sabria Chowdhury Balland <sabriacballand@gmail.com>; LA Discussion <la-discussion@googlegroups.com>
Subject: {PFC-Friends} Re: Intellectual humility: the importance of knowing you might be wrong
Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2020 8:06 AM
To: Post Card <abahar.canada@gmail.com>; zainul abedin <zainul321@yahoo.com>; pfc <pfc-friends@googlegroups.com>; RANU CHOWDHURY <ranu51@hotmail.com>; Sameer Syed <amsmel@aol.com>; Dr. KMA Malik <kmamalik15@gmail.com>; Jalal Khan <jukhan@gmail.com>; Mohammad Gani <mgani69@gmail.com>; rashed Anam <rashedanam1971@gmail.com>; Sabria Chowdhury Balland <sabriacballand@gmail.com>; LA Discussion <la-discussion@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Intellectual humility: the importance of knowing you might be wrong
"Intellectual humility can be understood as involving the owning of one's cognitive limitations, a healthy recognition of one's intellectual debts to others, and low concern for intellectual domination and certain kinds of social status. It is closely allied with traits such as open-mindedness, a sense of one's fallibility, and being responsive to reasons. Philosophers from Locke to Rawls have seen these traits as being crucial to the kind of meaningful public deliberation that we associate with democracy. Such deliberation is rational: it responds to reasons, not force or manipulation." For details, please see:
Sent: 28 March 2020 03:09
To: zainul abedin <zainul321@yahoo.com>; pfc <pfc-friends@googlegroups.com>; RANU CHOWDHURY <ranu51@hotmail.com>; Sameer Syed <amsmel@aol.com>; Dr. KMA Malik <kmamalik15@gmail.com>; Zoglul Husain <zoglul@hotmail.co.uk>; Jalal Khan <jukhan@gmail.com>; Mohammad Gani <mgani69@gmail.com>; rashed Anam <rashedanam1971@gmail.com>; Sabria Chowdhury Balland <sabriacballand@gmail.com>; LA Discussion <la-discussion@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Intellectual humility: the importance of knowing you might be wrong
Intellectual humility: the importance of knowing you might be wrong
Why it's so hard to see our own ignorance, and what to do about it.
Julia Rohrer wants to create a radical new culture for social scientists. A personality psychologist at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Rohrer is trying to get her peers to publicly, willingly admit it when they are wrong.
To do this, she, along with some colleagues, started up something called the Loss of Confidence Project. It's designed to be an academic safe space for researchers to declare for all to see that they no longer believe in the accuracy of one of their previous findings. The effort recently yielded a paper that includes six admissions of no confidence. And it's accepting submissions until January 31.
"I do think it's a cultural issue that people are not willing to admit mistakes," Rohrer says. "Our broader goal is to gently nudge the whole scientific system and psychology toward a different culture," where it's okay, normalized, and expected for researchers to admit past mistakes and not get penalized for it.
The project is timely because a large number of scientific findings have been disproven, or become more doubtful, in recent years. One high-profile effort to retest 100 psychological experiments found only 40 percent replicated with more rigorous methods. It's been a painful period for social scientists, who've had to deal with failed replications of classic studies and realize their research practices are often weak.
"NOT KNOWING THE SCOPE OF YOUR OWN IGNORANCE IS PART OF THE HUMAN CONDITION"
It's been fascinating to watch scientists struggle to make their institutions more humble. And I believe there's an important and underappreciated virtue embedded in this process.
For the past few months, I've been talking to many scholars about intellectual humility, the characteristic that allows for admission of wrongness.
I've come to appreciate what a crucial tool it is for learning, especially in an increasingly interconnected and complicated world. As technology makes it easier to lie and spread false information incredibly quickly, we need intellectually humble, curious people.
I've also realized how difficult it is to foster intellectual humility. In my reporting on this, I've learned there are three main challenges on the path to humility:
- In order for us to acquire more intellectual humility, we all, even the smartest among us, need to better appreciate our cognitive blind spots. Our minds are more imperfect and imprecise than we'd often like to admit. Our ignorance can be invisible.
- Even when we overcome that immense challenge and figure out our errors, we need to remember we won't necessarily be punished for saying, "I was wrong." And we need to be braver about saying it. We need a culture that celebrates those words.
- We'll never achieve perfect intellectual humility. So we need to choose our convictions thoughtfully.
This is all to say: Intellectual humility isn't easy. But damn, it's a virtue worth striving for, and failing for, in this new year.
Intellectual humility, explained
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/13655269/brain_column.gif)
Intellectual humility is simply "the recognition that the things you believe in might in fact be wrong," as Mark Leary, a social and personality psychologist at Duke University, tells me.
But don't confuse it with overall humility or bashfulness. It's not about being a pushover; it's not about lacking confidence, or self-esteem. The intellectually humble don't cave every time their thoughts are challenged.
Instead, it's a method of thinking. It's about entertaining the possibility that you may be wrong and being open to learning from the experience of others. Intellectual humility is about being actively curious about your blind spots. One illustration is in the ideal of the scientific method, where a scientist actively works against her own hypothesis, attempting to rule out any other alternative explanations for a phenomenon before settling on a conclusion. It's about asking: What am I missing here?
It doesn't require a high IQ or a particular skill set. It does, however, require making a habit of thinking about your limits, which can be painful.. "It's a process of monitoring your own confidence," Leary says.
WHEN I OPEN MYSELF UP TO THE VASTNESS OF MY OWN IGNORANCE, I CAN'T HELP BUT FEEL A SUDDEN SUFFOCATING FEELING
This idea is older than social psychology. Philosophers from the earliest days have grappled with the limits of human knowledge. Michel de Montaigne, the 16th-century French philosopher credited with inventing the essay, wrote that "the plague of man is boasting of his knowledge."
Social psychologists have learned that humility is associated with other valuable character traits: People who score higher on intellectual humility questionnaires are more open to hearing opposing views. They more readily seek out information that conflicts with their worldview. They pay more attention to evidence and have a stronger self-awareness when they answer a question incorrectly.
When you ask the intellectually arrogant if they've heard of bogus historical events like "Hamrick's Rebellion," they'll say, "Sure." The intellectually humble are less likely to do so. Studies have found that cognitive reflection — i.e., analytic thinking — is correlated with being better able to discern fake news stories from real ones. These studies haven't looked at intellectual humility per se, but it's plausible there's an overlap.
Most important of all, the intellectually humble are more likely to admit it when they are wrong. When we admit we're wrong, we can grow closer to the truth.
One reason I've been thinking about the virtue of humility recently is because our president, Donald Trump, is one of the least humble people on the planet.
It was Trump who said on the night of his nomination, "I alone can fix it," with the "it" being our entire political system. It was Trump who once said, "I have one of the great memories of all time." More recently, Trump told the Associated Press, "I have a natural instinct for science," in dodging a question on climate change.
A frustration I feel about Trump and the era of history he represents is that his pride and his success — he is among the most powerful people on earth — seem to be related. He exemplifies how our society rewards confidence and bluster, not truthfulness.
Yet we've also seen some very high-profile examples lately of how overconfident leadership can be ruinous for companies. Look at what happened to Theranos, a company that promised to change the way blood samples are drawn. It was all hype, all bluster, and it collapsed. Or consider Enron's overconfident executives, who were often hailed for their intellectual brilliance — they ran the company into the ground with risky, suspect financial decisions.
The problem with arrogance is that the truth always catches up. Trump may be president and confident in his denials of climate change, but the changes to our environment will still ruin so many things in the future.
Why it's so hard to see our blind spots: "Our ignorance is invisible to us"
As I've been reading the psychological research on intellectual humility and the character traits it correlates with, I can't help but fume: Why can't more people be like this?
We need more intellectual humility for two reasons. One is that our culture promotes and rewards overconfidence and arrogance (think Trump and Theranos, or the advice your career counselor gave you when going into job interviews). At the same time, when we are wrong — out of ignorance or error — and realize it, our culture doesn't make it easy to admit it. Humbling moments too easily can turn into moments of humiliation.
So how can we promote intellectual humility for both of these conditions?
In asking that question of researchers and scholars, I've learned to appreciate how hard a challenge it is to foster intellectual humility.
First off, I think it's helpful to remember how flawed the human brain can be and how prone we all are to intellectual blind spots. When you learn about how the brain actually works, how it actually perceives the world, it's hard not to be a bit horrified, and a bit humbled.
We often can't see — or even sense — what we don't know. It helps to realize that it's normal and human to be wrong.
It's rare that a viral meme also provides a surprisingly deep lesson on the imperfect nature of the human mind. But believe it or not, the great "Yanny or Laurel" debate of 2018 fits the bill.
For the very few of you who didn't catch it — I hope you're recovering nicely from that coma — here's what happened.
An audio clip (you can hear it below) says the name "Laurel" in a robotic voice. Or does it? Some people hear the clip and immediately hear "Yanny." And both sets of people — Team Yanny and Team Laurel — are indeed hearing the same thing.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PFC-Friends" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to pfc-friends+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pfc-friends/BY5PR10MB37469F379B42DFF2F5054A33C3CD0%40BY5PR10MB3746.namprd10.prod.outlook.com.
__._,_.___
