 How do we know who is intellectually humble? Any scientific study of a phenomenon will require that it can be measured. If the desire is simply to discover the existence of a phenomenon, some kind of measure is required. If we want to know the relative strength of a phenomenon, a measure is needed. If we want to assess the occurrence of a phenomenon in one case, and compare it to an occurrence in another case, we need a standard of comparison, a measure. If we want to devise an intervention that will increase the presence of the desired phenomenon, we need a measure to know if the intervention worked, if an increase can be detected. And so it is with intellectual humility. In order to discover it in people, assess its relative strength, compare one person to another in it, and help promote and increase it in people, we need good measures. Measurement is a natural place for philosophy and science to meet. When psychologists are trying to operationalize a concept by devising test items that can measure any given construct, they have some theory in mind. Items or procedure for the measure are generated on the basis of a theory of the construct. In the case of intellectual humility, if you hold it as a doxxastic account, items or procedures that measure the accuracy of tracking positive epistemic status would be the focus. If you take the Robertson Woods account, measuring ego investment in epistemic beliefs would be the focus. Again, there's no requirement to pick one philosophical perspective in general in generating content validity. Folk theories of intellectual humility may also inform the content, as well as theories from cognitive science and other realms. In fact, most researchers sample broadly across theories, especially when attempting to devise a general or global measure of intellectual humility. We take the stance that intellectual humility is a complex psychological process involving both within-person and between-person dynamics. For this reason, measuring it should be approached through multiple methods, which might include self-report, but also reports of observers and some behavioral indicators. To have real-world validity, it should also reflect the three dimensions found in the folk conception of intellectual humility, that is, the epistemic, interpersonal, and intrapersonal dimensions. When looking at specific measures, it's good to keep in mind a folk proverb. The devil is in the details. In order to understand how a researcher is operationalizing a concept, it's good to look at the specific items generated to cover that concept. When trying to understand the convergent and discriminant validity of a concept, it's good to look at the specific measures against which the new measure is being compared and what the specific correlations are. If the researcher has done an analysis that shows what value the measure might add in measuring a certain concept, that is, what the measure might explain about the concept over and above existing measures, which is called incremental validity, this is also good to know. What I'm encouraging here is intellectual humility, assessing the conclusion of a study by really understanding how intellectual humility was measured and then holding or valuing these conclusions with proper firmness, depending on the validity of the measure. So in this brief introduction, it's my hope that you at least have the outlines of the psychological dimensions of intellectual humility and have a vision of how it might be studied through scientific means. We now dive into these dimensions in more detail.