 In the next few lectures, we're going to be focusing on the measurement of humility, be it intellectual humility or otherwise. You want answers, you can't handle the truth. Some of you know where that line came from. It was one of the most famous lines in movie lore uttered by Colonel Jessup, played by Jack Nicholson in the 1992 movie A Few Good Men. Now, the movie itself is now dated and the storyline as well as the portrayal of Jessup may be forgotten. But many who saw the movie may recollect that Jessup was anything but a paragon of humility, believing that he only was capable of handling the truth, combined with an unwillingness to acknowledge his own limitations as a military leader, nor able to admit his preoccupation with status. Jessup's lack of humility is easily noted by even the most novice observer of human behavior. However, not everyone's humility, or lack thereof, is so easily discerned. So, we are left with a fundamental question. How do we determine whether or not a person is humble, whether it be intellectual humility or otherwise? Now, of course, in everyday human relationships, we may carry around with us a rough notion of what humility is and how it may be manifested in people. And that may work just fine for most of us. But if we really want to understand humility, what it is? What are its effects on human relationships? What is its importance in providing leadership to others? To what extent does it influence how we treat others? Just a multitude of other questions. These questions, like this, will require systematic research effort. Such efforts have been slow in science, in part due to concerns about our ability to measure humility. But this is changing, and in the next few lectures, we will review some of the attempts to measure humility. The focus here is primarily on intellectual humility. However, we will spend some of our time talking about humility as a general construct, for this is what most of the research to date has focused upon. Before addressing the measurement question, however, I will first present a brief overview of what humility is and what it is not. Now, I know you've already heard a lot about humility, especially intellectual humility. And so some of what I will say is redundant with what you have already heard. However, I want to discuss humility from the perspective of researchers who had in mind the task of measuring the concept. After all, good measurement requires good conceptualization of the construct being measured. Now, in broad strokes, we can think of humility as a renunciation of self-serving thoughts and attitudes, with a corresponding increased respect and appreciation for the value of others. What some psychologists have referred to as a hypo-egoic mindset. As such, humble individuals lack an emotional egocentrism and maintain a low degree of self-centeredness. They are able to accurately acknowledge personal finiteness, including limitations or mistakes. This does not mean, however, that humility is characterized by such common misperceptions as timidity, weakness or incapability. You see, humility, properly understood, requires a sense of security and enduring personal worth, and therefore provides a foundation that has important psychological implications for self-acceptance, for proper recognition of strengths and limitations, for an ability to respond without preconceived biases to others' ideas and advice, even if it's contrary to one's own views, for a freedom from relying on social comparison processes motivated by a concern for social status. All of these implications require a strong, secure sense of self. In the words of psychologist Everett Worthington, humility is the quiet virtue. Humility as a virtue lurks in the background. It does not grab headlines. It does not require center stage. This may be one reason why humility has not received the attention of researchers. It flies below the radar screen. As an underlying disposition, humility is comprised of multiple dimensions and is not defined exclusively by just one characteristic. For example, the psychologist June Tagney wrote a seminal article in 2000, and it was later updated in 2009, where she identified six components of humility and noticed just how different her profile is from a common lay understanding. Here are her six components. The first is a willingness to see the self accurately. Second, an accurate perspective of one's place in the world. Third, an ability to acknowledge personal mistakes and limitations. Fourth, an openness to new understandings and experiences. Fifth, a low self-focus. And finally, an appreciation of the value of all things. So humility is multi-dimensional, and the measures that we will soon review reflect this reality. What is clear from theory and research is that humility is generally conceived as involving both intra-within-the-self and inter-personal components. Humility reflects dynamics that are going on within the self that also involve the capacity to relate to others in fruitful and constructive ways. One topic of interest to researchers is whether or not subdomains of humility, such as intellectual humility, but also other subdomains, such as spiritual humility, cultural humility, or even relational humility, are actually derived from a central character trait of humility. This question will likely be answered over time by the extent to which these different subdomains are associated. But to answer this question will require that we develop subdomain measures. So in our next lecture, we will zero in on the subdomain of intellectual humility. Truth be told, however, whether we are talking about humility as a general characteristic or in terms of any of these subdomains, empirical research is in its early stages, and we may find that we will have to adjust our conception of humility. Large parts of it have yet to be empirically tested. The empirical work to be done requires reliable and valid measures of humility.