Moderator note: This thread was originally titled "Intellectual Humility". This is an edited version (edited on 12 February 2021). One member, Q-reeus, wanted to use it to attack moderator James R rather than to discuss the topic. That member's posts, along with related material have mostly been deleted from this thread, to allow for discussion of the original topic. For those who would like to read the whole discussion prior to this edit, another version is available in the Site Feedback subforum. It is linked here: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/q-reeuss-feedback-original-title-intellectual-humility.164017/ Q-reeus has been excluded from posting to the current thread. ---- 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. Read more here: https://www.vox.com/science-and-hea...ual-humility-explained-psychology-replication Hmm, Dunning-Kruger effect in reverse? lol It seems that people who are willing to learn, or believe that they have something more to learn (about any given topic), are the most humble when it comes to what they lack in knowledge. Is winning an argument basically for the ego? Being wrong once in a while is good for one's growth. Many scientific discoveries were/are from trial and error - the ability for scientists to catch where they were wrong, and find solutions. Do you see yourself as intellectually humble? Do you mind being wrong? Do you personally know anyone who cringes at the thought of being wrong?