I am not an expert. That claim or utterance should not be assumed within the contents of my writings. So, then, what gives someone the right to talk about a topic with no formal credentials? Citing most claims with relevant research to back up any such utterances protects the utterer from claiming any expertise. If there is no citation, it should be assumed that it may be an opinion or view regardless of the current literature.
Well, why me when experts already exist?
There is incredible utility in the art of writing—the art of conceptualizing, organizing, and articulating the conscious flow of thoughts. Externalizing a given set of material, whether it be read, through a conversation, or lectured to, the act of writing assists in that individual’s comprehension of said material (Graham & Herbert, 2011). Comprehension does not come automatically; it is a skill. It must become a hard, earned callus that the individual must wield from practice and discipline. Think of it as interactive listening, like in a conversation. The process then looks much more doable. This is to say that writing – for personal comprehension’s sake – implies summarizing and providing a brief ‘gist’ of the main points and foundational concepts, or presenting any questions that would elicit further information to articulate the material (Kerka, 2002; Palmer et al., 1999). At a higher level of analysis, this art form helps orient oneself within the confines of the world around them; it helps alleviate the vast complexities of waking life by grasping often enigmatic phenomena into digestible and applicable concepts.
Nevertheless, still why me? Why do I get to justify intentional writing about topics that occur out of my reach? In beginning to understand yourself or appreciate the understanding of what others know, there needs to be a process of realistic self-awareness; acknowledging and peering into the deficits of a specific lacking area – intrapsychically speaking. An act of intellectual humility must occur to set the stage for the acquisition of future knowledge (Porter & Schumann, 2018). This perspective is real; admitting humility implies a metaphysical construct that smashes the subjective and objective worlds of mind and body together. Meaning that there is a collision between what you thought you knew and what is currently being presented. This is the most real; that which you do not know becomes known. That which you do not know is highlighted and made vividly aware; made more real. A metaphorical log has been ripped out from under your feet; there has been a burst in your previously undisturbed idea of what your reality represented or what you thought it represented. You no longer know how to think, what to think, or where to begin. Thus starts the process. No, this is not dramatic, nor an overestimation of the power of admittance of humility; this is real—the most real. The more you admit you do not know, the more apparent reality becomes.
Well, what makes a set of beliefs more real than another? What makes reality solely based on a set of beliefs? Are there no escaping beliefs; if not, what does it mean to have an altered set that does not represent any collective understanding of ‘real’? What makes that collective understanding the appropriate manner of undertaking such a task? These are questions that I do not wish to attempt to answer in this writing. However, please reach out if you are aware of these answers or know of others who have attempted; I cannot sleep because of it.
What does it mean to suggest an act of intellectual humility?
The implication of humility quantifies in an individual’s character. This is to say that an ounce of humility is equivalent to the good of their personality and behavioral intentions. Outside the philosophical debate of what makes one thing good over another evil, humility is modesty (Samuelson et al., 2012); an act of humility is being realistic with one’s own capabilities. Without overestimating or ‘lying’ to yourself, you are then able to accurately measure your current epistemic capacities in opposition to your imagined epistemic capacities (Gregg & Mahadevan, 2014). This can be done as simply – but not so easily enacted – by admitting your perspective may be flawed due to its unrealistic nature to understand everything everywhere. Again, this is the real versus unreal dilemma of what properties, physical or metaphysical, constitute a certain realness of a given circumstance. That sounds vague; let us take the properties of religion: mainly metaphysical in nature, but acted out through physical manifestations of certain rituals, chants or hymns, or other behavioral intents used to symbolize the religion and its set of beliefs. In this sense, we can view beliefs, outside of a religious context, as dogmatic intrapsychic manifestations of certain behaviors acted out in their full physical nuance as a representation of unseen and seemingly unknown factors.
What makes this system of thought so difficult?
If we live our lives under the notion that our belief system shapes our reality, then this might be the culprit of our inability to readily admit our dis-beliefs in the face of opposition. Let’s say a raft represents our set of beliefs. This raft is made up of independent pieces that come together in unison for a specific purpose; to keep yourself safely afloat en route to a location. We build our raft on a shore and set sail whenever another island is desired. Our raft consists of a sheet sail, twine holding our logs together, some protective walls from waves toppling over, and maybe a paddle in case there is no wind. If this analogy does not resonate with you, by all means, let me attempt to not mansplain its significance.
Well, why say our beliefs represent a raft?
Our personal rafts are individually based due to the notion that we are metaphysically alone in this world – in reference to our personal responsibility. We cannot rely on another’s imposition of beliefs; a belief cannot be handed over, cannot be given to, must be earned, must be worked towards; thus, we must begin building our rafts. Well, a raft, due to the vastness, occasionally aggressive, and metaphorically relevant nature of the sea and the sheer unknown it contains. This is to say that our raft – set of beliefs – is the protective agent against nature. However, I realize now that I have gone thus far and not defined belief; to my understanding, a belief is a forgoing of worry; the opposite of uncertainty, not particularly certainty, but its close relative – an assurance or the simplification of complexity. Therefore, to shed the fear of the unknown, we build our rafts to protect us from drowning in nature’s ambiguous, aggressive and malicious tendencies.
The realness and seriousness of having a solid, securely bound raft before setting sail cannot be understated. If not, you risk getting lost, tiring yourself too quickly, or worse – drowning. Therefore, an inability to admit fault or wrongness from a particular belief makes its return; once an admittance and acknowledgment of said fault have occurred, a piece of twine comes loose, your sail tears, or your walls crumble in the face of the opposing waves. This is a severe disturbance in your present perspective of reality. You are momentarily frozen with an overwhelming feeling of doom and damnation. You are presently, metaphorically lost. You must rebuild, but how? You will not be able to gather supplies until you return to land. You must alter your previous notion of reality to fit your current one. Therefore, lying to oneself will not suffice; lying to oneself to protect what you thought you had – security, will not help. You no longer are secure; you must adapt, improvise, and survive in the face of a serious burst of your bubble. You must reformulate yourself by acknowledging and altering any faulty belief to better reconcile reality.
What now?
I would be lying if I said I knew.
References
- Graham, S., Hebert, M. (2011). Writing to Read: A Meta-Analysis of the Impact of Writing and Writing Instruction on Reading. Harvard Educational Review, 81(4), 710-744.
- Gregg, A. P., & Mahadevan, N. (2014). Intellectual arrogance and intellectual humility: An evolutionary-epistemological account. Journal of Psychology & Theology, 42, 7–18.
- Kerka, S., & ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, C. and V. E. C. O. (2002). Journal Writing as an Adult Learning Tool. Practice Application Brief No. 22.
- Palmer, B. C., Cozean Alexander, M. M., & Olson-Dinges, C. (1999). Journal Writing: an Effective, Heuristic Method for Literacy Acquisition. (Cover story). Adult Basic Education, 9(2), 71
- Porter, T., & Schumann, K. (2018). Intellectual humility and openness to the opposing view. Self and Identity, 17(2), 139-162.
- Samuelson, P. L., Church, I. M., Jarvinen, M., & Paulus, T. (2012). The science of intellectual humility: White paper.