A cross-cultural assessment of the semantic dimensions of intellectual humility

Intellectual humility can be broadly construed as being conscious of the limits of one’s existing knowledge and capable of acquiring more knowledge, which makes it a key virtue of the information age. However, the claim “I am (intellectually) humble” seems paradoxical in that someone who has the disposition in question would not typically volunteer it. Therefore, measuring intellectual humility via self-report may be methodologically unsound. As a consequence, we suggest analyzing intellectual humility semantically, using a psycholexical approach that focuses on both synonyms and antonyms of ‘intellectual humility’. We present a thesaurus-based methodology to map the semantic space of intellectual humility and the vices it opposes as a heuristic to support analysis and diagnosis of this disposition. We performed the mapping both in English and German in order to test for possible cultural differences in the understanding of intellectual humility. In both languages, we find basically the same three semantic dimensions of intellectual humility (sensibility, unpretentiousness, and knowledge dimensions) as well as three dimensions of its related vices (self-overrating, other-underrating and dogmatism dimensions). The resulting semantic clusters were validated in an empirical study with English (n = 276) and German (n = 406) participants. We find medium-to-high correlations (0.54–0.72) between thesaurus similarity and perceived similarity, and we can validate the three dimensions identified in the study. But we also find limitations of the thesaurus methodology in terms of cluster plausibility. We conclude by discussing the importance of these findings for constructing psychometric measures of intellectual humility via self-report vs. computer models.

[1]  Mark Alfano,et al.  Current controversies in virtue theory , 2015 .

[2]  F. Nietzsche On the Genealogy of Morals , 2010, Princeton Readings in Political Thought.

[3]  W. Quine The two dogmas of empiricism , 1951 .

[4]  Markus Christen,et al.  The Semantic Space of Intellectual Humility , 2014, ECSI.

[5]  Gabriele Taylor,et al.  Pride, shame, and guilt , 1985 .

[6]  Mark Alfano,et al.  Moral Psychology: An Introduction , 2016 .

[7]  D. Lewis How to Define Theoretical Terms , 1970 .

[8]  G. Āllport,et al.  Trait-names: A psycho-lexical study. , 1936 .

[9]  J. Trier Der deutsche Wortschatz im Sinnbezirk des Verstandes : von den Anfängen bis zum Beginn des 13. Jahrhunderts , 1973 .

[10]  D. Lewis Psychophysical and theoretical identifications , 1972 .

[11]  Markus Christen,et al.  Ethical Issues of Morality Mining: When the moral identity of individuals becomes a focus of data mining , 2013 .

[12]  L. Toledo-Pereyra Humility , 2007, Journal of investigative surgery : the official journal of the Academy of Surgical Research.

[13]  Werner Hüllen A History of Roget's Thesaurus , 2003 .

[14]  Lada A. Adamic,et al.  Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook , 2015, Science.

[15]  M. Kosinski,et al.  Computer-based personality judgments are more accurate than those made by humans , 2015, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[16]  A. Rudd Intellectual Virtues: an Essay in Regulative Epistemology , 2009 .

[17]  Sandra Jane Fairbanks,et al.  Environmental Goodness and the Challenge of American Culture , 2010 .

[18]  Roy Harris Synonymy and linguistic analysis , 1973 .

[19]  C. Boehm,et al.  Fieldwork in Familiar Places: Morality, Culture, and Philosophy. , 1999 .

[20]  L. R. Goldberg,et al.  Some determinants of factor structures from personality-trait descriptors. , 1989, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[21]  Michael Clyne,et al.  Cultural differences in the organization of academic texts: English and German , 1987 .

[22]  Брайан Фрэнсис Муни Measurement of characteristics of the object , 2005 .

[23]  E. Higgins Knowledge activation: Accessibility, applicability, and salience. , 1996 .

[24]  James S. Spiegel Open-mindedness and intellectual humility , 2012 .

[25]  Bill Tomlinson,et al.  Who are the crowdworkers?: shifting demographics in mechanical turk , 2010, CHI Extended Abstracts.

[26]  David Lewis,et al.  An Argument for the Identity Theory , 1966 .

[27]  G Saucier,et al.  Effects of Variable Selection on the Factor Structure of Person Descriptors toward Optimal Variable Sampling in Personality Psychology , 2022 .

[28]  H. Sidgwick The Methods of Ethics: A SUPPLEMENT TO THE FIRST EDITION OF THE METHODS OF ETHICS , 1874 .

[29]  D. B. Wong Natural Moralities: A Defense of Pluralistic Relativism , 2006 .

[30]  W. Quine Main trends in recent philosophy: two dogmas of empiricism. , 1951 .

[31]  Markus Christen,et al.  Generating low-dimensional denoised representations of nonlinear data with superparamagnetic agents , 2014 .

[32]  Dale Jamieson,et al.  When Utilitarians Should Be Virtue Theorists , 2007, Utilitas.

[33]  Richard A. Shweder,et al.  Relativism and Universalism , 2012 .

[34]  M. Fricker FORUM: Miranda FRICKER's Epistemic Injustice. Power and the Ethics of Knowing , 2008, THEORIA.

[35]  Mark Alfano Ramsifying Virtue Theory , 2015 .

[36]  Johnny R. J. Fontaine,et al.  Are Individual-Level and Country-Level Value Structures Different? Testing Hofstede’s Legacy With the Schwartz Value Survey , 2010 .

[37]  Thomas E. Hill,et al.  Ideals of human excellence and preserving natural environments , 1983 .

[38]  Willi-Hans Steeb,et al.  Sequential clustering: tracking down the most natural clusters , 2005 .

[39]  Marco Perugini,et al.  A six-factor structure of personality-descriptive adjectives: solutions from psycholexical studies in seven languages. , 2004, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[40]  J. S. Wiggins,et al.  Personality and Prediction: Principles of Personality Assessment , 1973 .

[41]  F. Ostendorf,et al.  Sprache und Persönlichkeitsstruktur: zur Validität des Fünf-Faktoren-Modells der Persönlichkeit , 1990 .

[42]  Willard Van Orman Quine,et al.  Word and Object , 1960 .