[espeed]

Humility is the key to understanding, but hubris often prevents people from growing because they believe their understanding is right from the beginning.

For a while I have understood that people see the world in fundamentally different ways, but about two years ago I had an epiphany that really crystallized it for me. Now I see people existing in either one of two camps:

  1. Those who believe the world is the way they see it.
  2. Those who realize how limited their perspective is.

Alan Kay (http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/alan_kay_shares_a_powerful...) has a developed a similar view. He often quotes the Talmud saying, "We see things not as they are, but as we are.” And he often says, "We can't learn to see until we admit we are blind".

When Jim Collins was doing his research for "How the Mighty Fall", he identified hubris as being the first stage of decline for great enterprises (http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/10565). This is the concept of "pride goes before the fall," and I believe one of the reasons for this is because we stop asking questions and begin to "lean on our own understanding."

We become complacent with our picture of the world and continue on whatever trajectory we were on when we stopped recalibrating. Unless we were right from the start (which almost never happens in a dynamically changing world), we'll veer farther off course.

A better way to go is to constantly be asking questions -- continually adding to your perspective, refining it, and recalibrating your path based on what you learn. As the saying goes, "you don't know what you don't know".

This seems so simple, but admitting you don't know everything and continually asking questions requires humility.

[itmag]

Some things that hammered home this understanding for me (in order of reputability): LessWrong.com, Myers-Briggs Type Indicators, Neuro-Linguistic Programming, PUA.

These days, I mostly understand that there are always many perspectives and try to see wisdom as the art of picking between perspectives. But sometimes I get stuck in my old ways and search in vain for the "right" opinion/perspective/paradigm/whatever. This no-one-true-perspective meta-perspective means that life experience and hard-earned wisdom become much more important factors for the good life.

[vectorpush]

But sometimes I get stuck in my old ways and search in vain for the "right" opinion/perspective/paradigm/whatever.

Then again, those who are convinced their way is the "right" way are often the ones who have the biggest impact on the world (for better or worse).

[olliesaunders]

One of the things I’ve noticed in Einstein’s writings is that he had a remarkable self-confidence and sense of certainty. Compare this with Darwin who, when he initially conceived of natural selection, annotated the note describing it with “I think” and proceeded to spend years gathering evidence before mentioning it to anyone. Perhaps the comparison isn’t fair because Darwin knew his idea would be highly controversial but, if it is, I think this might suggest that there is no single correct stance on confidence versus humility.

I’ve noticed in my programming that when I make errors that prevent me from reaching a solution or lead to a cumbersome design my natural tendency is to become more conservative with my ideas, thinking that it might have been arrogance that caused the error. But, if I feel like I understand the error well, I force myself to remain bold in the knowledge that my continued boldness will be manifest in a completely different way with my new knowledge and I will be successful much sooner than had I become timid. I don’t know who said this, but it is a quote I like: the solution to bad decisions is not to stop making decisions; it’s to make better decisions.

[itmag]

Yes, exactly: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3583136

I think the optimum thing would be to have utter Certainty in localized settings, whilst retaining a good check on sanity on the global level. While trying to woo a lady, you don't want to have constant thoughts of doubt. In this situation, it is more beneficial to be "irrationally self-confident". But you don't necessarily want this delusion to seep into everyday life, as it would cause you to become a... well, a general douchebag :)

[JesseAldridge]

I remember having a similar realization.

When most people say that something is true, they don't mean, "I think that's an accurate reflection of reality." -- what they really mean is, "It is in my interest to accept that as true."

A lot of things made sense after that.

[jamesrcole]

1. Those who believe the world is the way they see it.

2. Those who realize how limited their perspective is.

That's a good point. I suspect that the first one isn't so much a lack of humility, though.

Naively, it seems that you're just perceiving how the world is, as if your eyes are just windows into the world, and that your judgments (e.g. such and such is being a jerk) are simply reflecting the objective nature of how things are.

It takes time, learning and effort to really become aware of your perception of things as something in itself, that it is a process which takes in limited information and makes judgments on the basis of various assumptions, and that it is something which can be turned in on itself in a critical fashion.

[yariang]

I couldn't help but notice a resemblance between what you are describing and a lot of machine learning algorithms.

It seems like the most successful ML algorithms are self-correcting ones, rather than ones that attempt to calculate the exact correct answer in one go.

Coincidence?

[radagaisus]

Hubris actually works great for me. It makes me say yes to projects way beyond my league and I have to learn and work much harder.

[soonisnow]

Humility about oneself and the path and process to being better, at anything, I think, is core to the constant asking of questions. As the @tmac721 touches on: ask to challenge one oneself (and others), ask to listen (truly listen!), and ask because being better always matters more than being good.

[vacri]

The humility thing is a bigger one for laypeople than a lot of people realise. That it's okay to admit you don't know, and it's okay to admit you need to ask questions. And that it's okay that there is no readily available answer, as long as you make a genuine attempt to understand.

One of the problems that atheism faces as a movement is that it considers answers to some traditional questions as 'there is no answer to that (and that's okay)', which doesn't sit well with a lot of people. The 'god of the gaps' argument exploits these areas.