Post
Conversation
![David Watson 🥑](data:image/svg+xml,<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="96" height="96"><rect fill-opacity="0"/></svg>)
Post your reply
The researchers were interested in understanding how people's perceptions of scientists' intellectual humility (IH) affect their trust in scientists and their research. IH refers to the awareness that one's knowledge and beliefs might be limited or wrong.
Study 1 found that
Show more
I consider this the true measure of expertise. Drawing a clear line of what is unknown or uncertain.
Most scientists cannot admit such humility because they think they *do* know.
A psychologist who has been convinced linear regression on human behavior is “science” will believe they’re doing science.
Economists thought they were being scientific until physicists laughed at the
Show more
This works in copywriting too. Admit a fault, or something a product cannot do, and your credibility goes up in the eyes of the reader
Yes, Adam when are you going to admit that all your work is verbose bullshit?
Not buying this. How many seasons did House run? For how many fans was the arrogance a marker for expertise?
The meat of the studies are locked behind paywalls. All most people see is the showy-off bit in the abstract.
The incentives don’t encourage humility.
Quote
John Stephenson
@JSargent88
Why academia has a strong incentive to confuse:
“If you say something I can’t understand, I might think you have an ability to think about a topic in ways I can’t, which is a whole different species of admiration.”
~ @morganhousel
Show more
Marketing has become more important than merit. It doesn’t matter if someone can’t do it as long as they can convince you they can.
That cuts both ways. The tendency to acknowledge the unknown is often exploited by bad faith actors to discredit entire sciences.
I wonder which plays a bigger role: the intellectual humility of scientists or that of laypeople?
Also, when scientists are intellectually humble, how quickly do people accept the evidence when it goes against personal beliefs?
I’m pretty sure ignoramus people would ignore humble scientists too
just sayin’…
I am deeply concerned about how political populism has eroded trust in anyone who doesn’t express the same bias politically and therefore almost all scientific evidence is dismissed through political lenses. What does this mean for the future of our society?.We see this with the
Show more
Very much the case.
Knowing boundaries and what is deep vs. shallow water is rough with unchecked egos.
Accounting for/negating all the variables in mu, while claiming a relationship exists in n, is not easy. What something is not is much easier to say than what something is
IMHO
Trust isn’t built by demanding it—it’s earned through kindness and humility every single day.” 
A reminder for all of us in our relationships, families, and friendships.
Leadership rooted in humility paves a path of respect and trust. Walk the humble path today and every day!
A reminder for all of us in our relationships, families, and friendships.
Leadership rooted in humility paves a path of respect and trust. Walk the humble path today and every day!
Arrogant douche canoes are a pain in the ass, however if they are less credible it shouldn‘t concern them. It should concern the audience if they favor feelings for data and reasoning. As well scientific discourse works only on the common grounds of real interest in reality.
Humility transforms expertise into influence. When leaders and experts admit what they don’t know, they don’t lose credibility—they gain trust. It’s a reminder that learning never stops, no matter how much you know.
You're totally looking at the wrong profession. A scientist isn't here to be humble he is here to find evidence with the tools he knows how to manipulate. You're looking for a communication expert. The public domain shouldn't have to deal with scientists, only their proxies
This book shaped me! When I sort to rethinking again, I’ve made improvements in how I see and approach life. Thanks Adam for this gift. 
I think the operative is *perceived* arrogance. These are all self-report. The public also personalizes opinions such that they believe attacks on ideas as always on person (they try to train this out of us, at least). But it means some perceptions cannot be helped.
What comes across as arrogance is often just frustration at having to counter, over and over and over, flatly laughably false claims like vaccines cause autism
How is this a paper? The information deficit model of communication has been known NOT to work for decades. It's on Wikipedia!!!
You've probably noticed textbooks are an essay that expands to what-i-know..... AI can help filter them.
But what if they are mostly only 1-2 sd above average and taught by dark character professors to see themselves as superior and therefore believe they are infallible bc everyone said so at Harvard?
That’s simply wrong. During the pandemic, scientists regularly updated their advice. This was taken by some as proof that they didn’t know what they were talking about. Some prefer the “authorities” whose quack advice – Ivermectin, etc – never changes one iota.
Except during plandemics, then arrogance with a large helping of propaganda can get people to believe dangerous gene therapies are safe and effective.
That’s called being insightful and probably the most important drive to true progress.
, acknowledging ignorance can indeed foster trust, allowing for more open dialogue. Humility often invites collaboration and deeper understanding in any field.
Having read all you’re books Adam, and enjoying them, I would argue you are going the wrong direction in terms of arrogance. I say this to help not hurt you but could see it being taken in the opposite vein. Best wishes.
Did you participate in the crime against the peoples of the United States by inciting lockdown till vaccine and break the law by helping government impose your religion on all people? Do you have a basic notion of right and wrong?
Adam - While I agree with this wholeheartedly, but in Corporate America organizations, one is expected to assert authority without direct influence. Humility is potentially seen as a trait that may make us less ‘leader-like’. Thoughts?
Here we go the latest fake behaviors to manipulate people into trusting fake junk pseudo science.
The more useful comparison is to compare what the expert knows about any given subject vs what you know. Pointing out that experts don't know everything there is to know in the world is like saying the grass is green.
seems correct but: terrible graphic: 'i know i know' seems to be a subset of 'i do not know'. science haters like that.
Credible to whom? I've seen anecdotal evidence that an expert admitting they were wrong just makes the masses trusting.
I don't presume I know better than this data, but does it matter whom the listener is?
I’ve used your circles diagram here a couple of times already with different groups. It really sticks with them.
It's your responsibility to cut through any arrogance and extract what might be of use to you. If you refuse to listen to a scientist because they project arrogance and lack of humility then you are reinforcing your own ignorance.
what i don't know. how to get people to consider the truth of what we don't know, while we push to tear apart time () particles (all exists within time) and make AI that emerges.
I think humility is essential in science, it helps build trust and credibility.
“Experts” told me it’s not morally justifiable to kill CEOs. Boy were they wrong!
The Pratfall Effect:
The tendency for interpersonal appeal to change after an individual makes a mistake, depending on the individual's perceived competence.
Too bad people “doing their own research” on YouTube aren’t held to the same standard of knowledge.
In Think Again you introduced us to the concept of logic bullying. Is not this arrogance a not so distant cousin?
Interestingly, the truth value and importance of what scientists study and uncover is not made less by your feelings about them. Scientists know that.
Humility builds trust, while arrogance pushes people away. Experts who acknowledge their limitations, are open to learning, and adapt their views are the ones we should listen to. Trust is rooted in honesty, not just authority.
Can you think of a scenario where showing humility could have dramatically altered the public's response to a scientific discovery or policy?
Socrates said he knew nothing.
Einstein said our brains are not powerful enough to know what we want to know - whether there’s a god.
Shakespeare seems to have had no opinions.
Montaigne wrote essays to get to know himself.
Only the ignorant think they must be right.
That's the exact nature of science. People who don't understand science muddy all the waters. If you tell a scientist to take care of something, they will do their best. They will use available evidence to reach conclusions and collect more evidence as time allows.
Specific example is who advocated #zerocovid based on initial covid mortality models of 3-10% and never corrected his models or why they were so inflated.
Instead he blocked me.
Yeah, so arrogant in their ratty old flannels, and cheap apartments. Unlike the snake oil peddlers, liars, and grifters in their Italian shoes!
Give me a break!
Spot on. True expertise shines through humility—admitting mistakes, embracing growth, and engaging others builds trust and drives real progress. Arrogance may demand attention, but humility earns lasting respect.
Lmao. Except you are the company they work for or give them grants. you ignoring them is worthless.
Consider this paper when you think about your take on the TED talk interview with Mark Rober on astrology.
Specifically the point you made on the moon landing, 9/11, and vaccines
There's a lot of mystery and unknown in those 3 things for you to be so sure bud
People who recite their credentials when challenged actively undermine both their own argument and their credentials.
It’s why Nick Lane is the greatest. Because he would never ever ever say it that way.
Exactly. Confidence is important, but nothing builds trust quite like humility. When experts own their uncertainty, it shows they value discovery over being “right.” It’s a reminder that expertise isn’t about having all the answers, it’s about being open to learning and evolving.
Show more
Exactly, this is routed in the foundational value of seeking truth.
It ensures an endless transcendence of ideas.
Arrogance shuts minds.
Humility opens them.
The irony is, the more certain someone acts, the less believable they become.
Admitting “I don’t know” doesn’t weaken credibility—it strengthens it.
People don’t trust perfect answers.
They trust honest ones.
The moment you stop
Show more
People resent experts based on how indispensable they are to their personal needs. E.g., Lawyers are hated more than doctors because doctors are indispensable for people. Politicians are hated more than carpenters or plumbers or electricians because the latter are indispensable.
If you think this is some indictment against scientists, you got it wrong. No one minds a ceo or politician who is arrogant and never admits they made mistakes. So, it has less to do with scientists and more on ppls perception of scientists, which is a learned thing on ppl part
Great to see this.
Likewise, I think it is the mark of an expert to be humble when they don't have all the answers.
Too much conviction too often should raise eyebrows in my opinion.
Contrary to your shoals of wisdom, this is a let down. You know true scientists are never certain, never arrogant and don’t give a hoot whether they are accepted or not. They pursue knowledge not acceptance
Being humble about knowledge actually makes experts more trustworthy and relatable.
Trust is grown from respect. If an "expert" is more concerned about pride, power, or tradition than seeking truth, they deserve zero trust. The initial response to germ theory is a great example of status>truth. Admitting error is an act of respect and shows good character...
So, the moral of the story is, if you're going to be an expert, might as well come with a disclaimer that you're also human, and occasionally, delightfully wrong. Trust in science, but also in the scientists who remember they're not infallible. #ScienceHumility #ExpertWithAHeart
What's super fascinating is how this connects to classroom credibility. Teachers who maintain an air of infallibility actually damage their relationships with students and parents. I’ve found that those who can say 'I'm not sure, let's figure this out' or 'I made a mistake in how
Show more
So true—humility builds trust far more than unchecked confidence ever could. 
2nd image shows a great black and I would admit, that my black circle as scientist is much much larger compared to the brighter circles ;-)
Arrogance or humility in the teacher and student must be matched. A humble teacher and an arrogant student won't like each other either.
Lay people often push scientists to be more authoritative, then skewer them for it.