Intellectual Humility Serves Our Society
Guest Columnist - Karim N. Hirani
In my last column, I spoke of Canadian Defence Lawyers (“CDL”) as a civil society institution. I also shared the role of CDL’s Standing Committee - the Public Policy Secretariat (“PPS”) - and the contributions CDL has made to the profession and society through the submissions prepared by the PPS and the PPS’s recommendations on interventions. At that time, I mentioned, amongst other things, CDL’s integrity in addressing the procedural issues leading up to the Civil Rules Review Project (Ontario) Phase 2 Report, and stated that the PPS were working hard in preparing a response to the Phase 2 Report. As many know, there has been a strong and overwhelming response throughout the profession to the Working Group’s Phase 2 Report.
The intervening period between my last column and now, has led me to ponder the interconnectedness between civil society institutions and intellectual humility.
I read the following in a speech:
Intellectual humility is not simply the exercise of general humility or open-mindedness. Rather, it is primarily related to knowledge and one’s limitations in knowledge. There are diverse approaches to defining and measuring intellectual humility. One common element is the meta-cognitive ability to recognize the limitation of one’s beliefs and knowledge. It involves the recognition that one has a gap in knowledge and one’s current beliefs may not be correct.
This is not to say that intellectual humility is an excuse for laziness. It is not permissible to say, I did not seek knowledge and, through intellectual humility, recognize my fallibility. Rather, knowledge and intellectual humility go hand-in-hand. It is an understanding that, as our knowledge increases, we learn how much we do not know. And this, I suggest, is one aspect of the interconnectedness between civil society institutions and intellectual humility.
Research suggests that one’s disinclination to exercise intellectual humility is attributable to a number of factors. For instance, a person may attempt to reason through an issue by placing extra effort on finding evidence that confirms one’s own perspective. In other situations, a person may tend to confidently overestimate one’s own knowledge about a particular issue. External factors such as fear of personal threat, cultural factors and the risk of compromising interpersonal relationships may also cause reluctance in exercising intellectual humility.
While intellectual humility is complicated and may come at personal sacrifice, society demands that it, nevertheless, be exercised. As “… aristocracies of class give way to aristocracies of talent,” we move towards meritocracy. And, thus, we progress towards solutions based on merit. As such, as we understand our limitations in knowledge and are open to the views of others, our knowledge increases, which results in better solutions. As I once read, “… there is no support more reliable than consultation.”
This, then, takes me to the Working Group’s Phase 2 Report. The concerns over the process, analysis and the proposal itself, are already well-documented and not something on which I wish to focus. Rather, I propose now is the time to pause and reflect before it is too late. In reviewing the Phase 2 Proposal and responses, there seems to be little, if any, doubt that there is consensus on the goal - change is required to better serve society.
In my last column, I spoke of CDL and the PPS being civil society institutions. The overwhelming response to the Working Group’s Phase 2 Report reveals the number of legal organizations that, in their own right, may also be categorized as civil society institutions. And we see in these responses, the wealth of knowledge and experience that has been presented in response to the Phase 2 Report. We also see responses by individual lawyers and non-legal organizations. All this also raises questions as to whether there are other perspectives to consider and to what extent a proactive approach has been considered rather than a reactionary one focused on the past and present. For instance, to what extent has expertise been sought to address the rapid change in how we practice law, so as to determine how technology may be leveraged to make more efficient use of our financial and human resources in procedural and administrative processes. Again, my point here is not to condemn or criticize the Phase 2 report. Rather, to say that this is an opportunity for a meritocratic solution.
We see unfolding before us, the strength of civil society institutions (and the impact of civil engagement by individuals). I respectfully suggest that, if we are to have a solution which meets our agreed-upon goal, intellectual humility is required. And it is my hope that such a solution is achieved given that society depends on it.
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and should not be taken as legal advice. Any errors, omissions or inaccuracies are the responsibility of the author(s). Content in Hearsay is edited for spelling, grammar and basic punctuation only.
The intervening period between my last column and now, has led me to ponder the interconnectedness between civil society institutions and intellectual humility.
I read the following in a speech:
In a world of rapid change, an agile and adaptable mind, a pragmatic and cooperative temperament, a strong ethical orientation – these are increasingly the keys to effective leadership. And I would add to this list a capacity for intellectual humility which keeps one’s mind constantly open to a variety of viewpoints and which welcomes pluralistic exchange.
Intellectual humility is not simply the exercise of general humility or open-mindedness. Rather, it is primarily related to knowledge and one’s limitations in knowledge. There are diverse approaches to defining and measuring intellectual humility. One common element is the meta-cognitive ability to recognize the limitation of one’s beliefs and knowledge. It involves the recognition that one has a gap in knowledge and one’s current beliefs may not be correct.
This is not to say that intellectual humility is an excuse for laziness. It is not permissible to say, I did not seek knowledge and, through intellectual humility, recognize my fallibility. Rather, knowledge and intellectual humility go hand-in-hand. It is an understanding that, as our knowledge increases, we learn how much we do not know. And this, I suggest, is one aspect of the interconnectedness between civil society institutions and intellectual humility.
Research suggests that one’s disinclination to exercise intellectual humility is attributable to a number of factors. For instance, a person may attempt to reason through an issue by placing extra effort on finding evidence that confirms one’s own perspective. In other situations, a person may tend to confidently overestimate one’s own knowledge about a particular issue. External factors such as fear of personal threat, cultural factors and the risk of compromising interpersonal relationships may also cause reluctance in exercising intellectual humility.
While intellectual humility is complicated and may come at personal sacrifice, society demands that it, nevertheless, be exercised. As “… aristocracies of class give way to aristocracies of talent,” we move towards meritocracy. And, thus, we progress towards solutions based on merit. As such, as we understand our limitations in knowledge and are open to the views of others, our knowledge increases, which results in better solutions. As I once read, “… there is no support more reliable than consultation.”
This, then, takes me to the Working Group’s Phase 2 Report. The concerns over the process, analysis and the proposal itself, are already well-documented and not something on which I wish to focus. Rather, I propose now is the time to pause and reflect before it is too late. In reviewing the Phase 2 Proposal and responses, there seems to be little, if any, doubt that there is consensus on the goal - change is required to better serve society.
In my last column, I spoke of CDL and the PPS being civil society institutions. The overwhelming response to the Working Group’s Phase 2 Report reveals the number of legal organizations that, in their own right, may also be categorized as civil society institutions. And we see in these responses, the wealth of knowledge and experience that has been presented in response to the Phase 2 Report. We also see responses by individual lawyers and non-legal organizations. All this also raises questions as to whether there are other perspectives to consider and to what extent a proactive approach has been considered rather than a reactionary one focused on the past and present. For instance, to what extent has expertise been sought to address the rapid change in how we practice law, so as to determine how technology may be leveraged to make more efficient use of our financial and human resources in procedural and administrative processes. Again, my point here is not to condemn or criticize the Phase 2 report. Rather, to say that this is an opportunity for a meritocratic solution.
We see unfolding before us, the strength of civil society institutions (and the impact of civil engagement by individuals). I respectfully suggest that, if we are to have a solution which meets our agreed-upon goal, intellectual humility is required. And it is my hope that such a solution is achieved given that society depends on it.
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and should not be taken as legal advice. Any errors, omissions or inaccuracies are the responsibility of the author(s). Content in Hearsay is edited for spelling, grammar and basic punctuation only.