buybuydandavis comments on The Proper Use of Humility - Less Wrong

73 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 01 December 2006 07:55PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (42)

Sort By: Old

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: buybuydandavis 27 November 2011 06:59:13AM 4 points [-]

To be humble is to take specific actions in anticipation of your own errors. To confess your fallibility and then do nothing about it is not humble; it is boasting of your modesty.

I don't know why EY was taking grief for this. It's a good distinction, well phrased.

On the other side of the pancake, I'd say that intellectual arrogance is often similarly misconstrued.

People often take open disagreement as a sign of intellectual arrogance, while it is a display of respect and humility; showing respect with the honest acknowledgment of your disagreement, and showing humility in affording the other person a chance to defend themselves and prove you wrong. To say nothing is to treat that person's beliefs dismissively, as if they don't matter, and then assume that discussion was futile because they're incapable of understanding the truth, and of course, couldn't possible have anything to teach you.

Comment author: [deleted] 19 May 2012 03:24:17PM 0 points [-]

If someone could convince people at large that this is true it would make intelligent dicussion much easier. Trying to convince people to abandon the treasured perks of high status might prove difficult however.

Comment author: glorius_lasagne 07 December 2015 06:38:27AM 0 points [-]

A majority of people openly disagreeing with others are doing so out of pride, not a desire to learn. The exact flavour of pride varies. Some feel that they are righteously doing their duty to defend their opinion and remain true to themselves and/or their tribe, some want to feel like they are doing a favour to humanity by enlightening others, some disagree to humiliate a person with a contradictory opinion because they dislike the person, some disagree to challenge a person's social status rather than challenging his opinion, some because they take pride in being edgy or non-conformist, some just want to flaunt their opinion and superior knowledge. The fact that people interpret open disagreement as arrogance is quite a reasonable assumption since the probability of a person openly disagreeing with them not out of pride is negligibly low, at least outside the rationalist community. (Even within the rationalist community, it is still relatively unlikely that a person disagree for an opportunity to refine their model of the universe. Even rationalists regularly fall prey to emotions such as pride.)