Mowk,
Now that was poignant and profound to me ~ beautiful. It moved me. I had wondered if you had a lump in your throat and that is why you didn’t answer.
It was also an aspect of what, to me, real humility is ~ self awareness, appreciation and gratitude.
Without the capacity to be humble, we cannot feel remorse, truly “see” the beauty of this world, experience those “aha moments” and Know our place in this Universe.
Definitely.
As Carleas said about formality, humility too “is a form of costly signaling”. Anything that’s costly is honest - the principle of Zahavian Signalling.
I just remembered a quote from the film “The Libertine”, where Johnny Depp’s character John Rochester says “any experiment of interest in life will be carried out at your own expense.”
You are annoyed? because your expectations of what you want things to be like are not met? well that’s a very mature outlook you’ve got there.
Humility is not the main necessary trait for authority (or leadership)… appreciation and gratitude encompass humility, and fosters a more positive and productive outcome than humility alone.
Why do you crave humility in those in an authoritative position? this says more about you than it does about me or anyone else.
I think graciousness is a better-needed quality in a moderator than humility, in appreciating the cooperation of others… humility does not allow for that.
In fact… I watched a programme last night, about these humble Japanese charitable givers… their humility was a complete block to any interaction or dialogue with those they helped… they, as a charitable concept, died out.
I’ll intercede to give my perspective on silhouette and that who’s name should never be spoken:
Silhouette, you’re pedantic to a fault
That who’s name should never be spoken,
You are a walking ball of projection. To get out of projection is a lifelong process that very few participate in: I know that you’ve chosen this task for yourself, so I wish you the best in it
MagsJ,
I think that graciousness IS a good thing. I also think that firmness, impartiality and respect are needed qualities in a moderator. I also realize that being human that is not always an easy path to walk.
I just came upon this. I love wolves.
“The tiger and the lion may be more powerful but the wolf does not perform in the circus.”
Yes, regretably. Perhaps a flaw of my own for being worn down over the years.
You seem to be implying that wanting things to be better than they are is immature? Certainly it’s more common for young people to want things to be better and more common for old people to give up trying and just accept things as they are, but it’s quite another thing to imply that the good intentions behind wanting things to be more preferable are “immature”.
Now you’re trying to say that you do show humility as encompassed in other things you point out as important? Which is it? Last post you were saying “Humility is something that I don’t have to rely on or use…”
This is just getting dishonest now.
And no, I’m not saying humility is all you need - I said quite clearly “Of course gratitude and appreciation are valuable”, and a great many other things besides.
It is, however, humility that stands above others in that unique way that only the strong and competent can endure it and the weak cannot.
The implication here being, of course, that some people might “need” humility in others as a result of their own psychological flaws. Perhaps they want to feel more superior or less inferior or something like that, yes?
Wide of the point as expected, in your attempt to reduce a general point to a specific case. More dishonesty.
Humility is both something that the strong and competent feel the need to show, and that the weak and incompetent can’t stand to show - the fact that it makes respect for the humble come easier is just a bonus. It’s not a thing that I specifically need, it’s not even just that it’s better in general, it’s that it’s highly revealing in a key way whether you choose to adopt humility or not.
So humility is “not something you use”, it’s also “encompassed in the appreciation that you do use”, and now “humility doesn’t allow for appreciating the cooperation of others”!!!
Do you even think before you write? How contradictory can you get?
Of course humility allows for both graciousness and appreciation! I’ve explained how they’re not the same thing, but the very act of shifting focus away from yourself and praising another instead is humble - there’s an overlap here. But it’s where humility doesn’t overlap that makes it so key as an honest and costly expression of strength and competence, which is what is wanted for those with authority, no? Who wants the weak and incompetent in power? Which is more respectable and easier to accept in general, regardless of me in particular?
So a slippery slope fallacy now, is it?
Even water is bad for you if you consume to excess… too much oxygen will kill you etc.
Enough with all this lame, contradictory and fallacious denial. What is preventing you from communicating even the slightest consideration of humility as a merit?
Why in education is one encouraged to argue as many sides to the point as possible? It’s the futile deadlock of modern politics where everyone doubles down on opinion and demonises the other as wrong in the absolute.
Why not show some education here?
I’ll lead by example - I fully accept that too much humility can be counterproductive as the programme you watched rightly pointed out. It can be abused by others, it can be used as a mask for self-loathing and perhaps bottle up passive aggression - like all things it’s not an absolute good, I’m sure you can agree with me here? Perhaps this is in part why you’re so averse to it? My point of course is that when done rightly, it’s indispensible to the best leadership and authority, and when ignored will lead to poor leadership, being ineffectual and unfit for authority as we have recently witnessed.
I plead guilty.
Lol
Then we agree 
My favourite bit was your triple contradiction, which I had to bold 
And nobody learned a thing - classic ILP 
My laughing is not an agreement, no.
Being humble doesn’t make much of a difference (if any) to a situation, if someone’s intent is to disrupt and irk, so being smart… both emotionally and intellectually, is needed.
I have learned nothing from this exchange, apart from what you think how others/I should be. Humility has its place, and I’m smart enough to know if and when it’s necessary to be so… not on somebody else’s say-say.
You can argue with that all day long, but you will be arguing with yourself…
I’ve always been a lone wolf. Grasping the social intellectual hierarchy, like what these Moderators do, connecting with social circlets, and invoking wrath against evil doers seems just so alien and weird. I’ve always been interested in distributing ideas, but never laws.
When it comes to philosophy, the pen is always free. That’s something that we can all relate to, Moderators, and just regular customers.
I’m not really sure that I understand the nature of abuse. Moderators come in to set up walls and restrictions, but what about bridges? Perhaps disputes between Moderators and common folk build too many walls, and not enough bridges.
And then, if we look at people like Iambiguous, he/she is an “ILovePhilosophy Legend”! He’s been rewarded for giving people like me his/her opinion on everything!
Man, if there’s a guy/girl curious about a thousand different things, it’s him/her.
But MagsJ seems to give service with a smile on - she’s your happy meal toy of the day!
forbes.com/sites/jeffhyman/ … /humility/ - the leadership attributes outlined in this article, that are being called humbleness, are not new attributes, just because they are being associated with a word.
Those interpersonal attributes have been around and taught for eons… whether they fall under the banner of humility or not, they are not new traits. This reminds me of the new buzzword for planning-meeting or huddle… ‘scrum’… this is simply a matter of renaming a process to ensure the hiring of those that use the new label over those that don’t, so does that mean that they are the better candidate for that job?
I know
The MagsJ technique:
That way you can go through your whole life just believing what you want whether or not it’s actually true
“Smart” confirmed!
My argument:
let:
A = people with strength and competence
B = people who prefer to show humility
C = the set of those preferable for positions in power
P1: ∀A ≡ ∀B
P2: ∃(∀A∈C)
∴ ∃(∀B∈C)
i.e. all people who prefer to show humility are preferable for positions of power.
this also works with the weak and insecure as ¬A and people who avoid humility as ¬B:
P1: ∀(¬A) ≡ ∀(¬B)
P2: ¬∃(∀(¬A)∈C)
∴ ¬∃(∀(¬B)∈C)
i.e. for all people who avoid humility, there are none who are preferable for positions of power.
Though I guess first-order logic is just subjective and only how “I” in particular think others/you “should” accord :-"
While I write this, I even see you posted a study to prove yourself wrong
The underlined part should really hit home considering the opening quote of this post, but the whole passage is important.
The study wants to use “neohumility” to distinguish how I was referring to humility from how I explained humility can be inappropriate - that’s fine by me! Proof in case you forgot:
So both logic and psychological study back me up - I just provided the former and you just provided the latter.
What a team, eh?! 
The first paper you presented mentions nothing of humility btw, even in the link, but thanks for trying to help me do my work for me - I appreciate the effort.
So you were lying when you said your laughing was not an agreement with me as you’ve proven very eager to present that second paper that explicitly agrees with me - this would be consistent with your previous dishonesty:
Let the laughs continue!
edit: I’ve just noticed a 3rd article that you threw into your previous post to help me out even further…
Jesus, the urgency to prove yourself wrong is so strong, this is the easiest argument I’ve ever made 
thanks for your assistance, seriously.
Some quotes from the link you posted:
There’s more if you read the article.
So I assume you’ve now learned something from this exchange? You’ve been working so hard to provide proof that you’re wrong, so…?
The leadership traits in all those articles were never taught as humbleness, and as a Socialist… I’m sure you’d agree that Jeremy Corbyn is anything but humble… and neither are those under his direct leadership.
I still think the use of the word humility as a descriptor for those leadership traits is not the ideal word to use, as having utilised those methodologies throughout my life, describing them as humility is not the first word that springs to my mind… hence the disagreement here.
In an interview, I don’t get asked if I exercise my humility, but I am asked about my competencies, skills, and managerial and leadership skills etc.
When I’ve interviewed people… for both Media and Political positions, humility is not a prerequisite for the position, their competence is.
When most of the Managers in one of the biggest corporations in the world were recently arrested on sexual-harassment charges towards their workforce, where was their humility? When aid workers in Africa were recently arrested for giving aid in exchange for sexual-favours from the females there, where was their humility? etc. etc. etc. ad infinitum, probably.
…a nice buzzword to describe attributes that have always existed, but I see very little humility going on.
Here is an interesting tid bit on this topic :
Maybe we need both , some measure of humility with a pinch of narcissism.
Tapping into the power of humble narcissism
TED Guest Author
No, “humble narcissism” is not an oxymoron; it’s a combination of qualities that the best leaders and companies have. Organizational psychologist Adam Grant explains why.
Who would you rather work for: a narcissistic leader or a humble leader?
The answer is more complicated than you think.
In a Fortune 100 company, researchers studied whether customer service employees were more productive under narcissistic or humble leaders. The least effective bosses were narcissists — their employees were more likely to spend time surfing the Internet and taking long breaks. Employees with humble bosses were a bit more productive: they fielded more customer service calls and took fewer breaks. But the best leaders weren’t humble or narcissistic.
They were humble narcissists.
How can you be narcissistic and humble at the same time? The two qualities sound like opposites, but they can go hand in hand. Narcissists believe they’re special and superior; humble leaders know they’re fallible and flawed. Humble narcissists bring the best of both worlds: they have bold visions, but they’re also willing to acknowledge their weaknesses and learn from their mistakes.
Humble narcissists have grand ambitions, but they don’t feel entitled to them. They don’t deny their weaknesses; they work to overcome them.
Humble narcissists don’t just have more productive employees — they’re rated as more effective too. It’s not just true in the US: new research also shows that humble narcissists make the best leaders in China. They’re more charismatic, and their companies are more likely to innovate.
Narcissism gives you the confidence to believe you can achieve great things. It’s hard to imagine someone other than Steve Jobs having the grandiose vision of creating Apple. And we’re all drawn to that confidence — it’s why narcissists are more likely to rise up the ranks of the corporate elite and get elected to political office. But alone, narcissism is dangerous. Studies show that tech companies with narcissistic CEOs have more fluctuating, volatile performance. Narcissists tend to be overconfident. They’re prone to dismissing criticism and falling victim to flattery. They surround themselves with yes-men and take unnecessary risks. Also, narcissistic presidents are more likely to engage in unethical behavior and get impeached (hello, Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton).
Adding humility prevents capriciousness and complacency. It helps you remember that you’re human. Humble narcissists have grand ambitions, but they don’t feel entitled to them. They don’t deny their weaknesses; they work to overcome them.
As an organizational psychologist, I study leaders and teams, and I’ve been struck that there are three kinds of humility that matter.
We’ll actually seem more credible and trustworthy — and other people will see more potential in our ideas — if we have the humility to acknowledge the limitations.
The first kind of humility is humility about your ideas. Take Rufus Griscom (TED Talk, given with Alisa Volkman: Let’s talk parenting taboos). When he founded the parenting blog Babble, he did something I’ve never seen an entrepreneur do. He said, “Here are the three reasons you should not invest in my company” — and he walked away with $3.1 million in funding that year. Two years later, he went to pitch Babble to Disney, and he included a slide in his pitch deck that read, “Here are the five reasons you should not buy Babble.” Disney acquired it for $40 million.
By speaking candidly about the downsides of his idea, Rufus made his comments about the upsides more credible. Admitting the flaws outright also made it tougher for investors to come up with their own objections. The harder they had to work to identify what was wrong with the company, the more they thought was right with the company. The conversation changed: his investors proposed solutions to the problems.
If you ever took a debate class, you were taught to identify the weaknesses in your argument and address them out loud. But we forget to do this when we pitch our ideas: we worry that they’re fragile and we don’t want to shoot ourselves in the foot. We overlook the fact that we’ll actually seem more credible and trustworthy — and other people will see more potential in our ideas — if we have the humility to acknowledge their limitations.
Of course, it seems like there are times when this won’t work, like at a job interview. But actually, people are about 30 percent more interested in hiring candidates who answer the question about their greatest weakness honestly, instead of pulling a Michael Scott: “I have weaknesses. I work too hard, and I care too much.” But you might not want to go as far as George Costanza: “I’m unemployed and I live with my parents.”
Employees who seek negative feedback get better performance reviews. They signal that want to learn, and they put themselves in a stronger position to learn.
The second kind of humility is performance humility. It means admitting that we fall short of our goals, we make mistakes, sometimes we even fall flat on our faces. Scientist Melanie Stefan has pointed out that our bios and résumés only highlight only our accomplishments — we scrub out all the stumbles and struggles along the way. In response, a Princeton professor made a failure résumé: a list of all the degree programs that rejected him, all the journals that turned him down, and all the fellowships and awards that he didn’t win. (He has since lamented that it’s gotten more attention than all his academic work combined.)
You might not want to put your failures out there that openly. But every leader can take steps toward showing performance humility. At Facebook, marketing VP Carolyn Everson decided to take her own performance review from her boss and post it in an internal Facebook group for her team — 2,400 people — to read.
Carolyn wanted to signal to them that she isn’t perfect; she’s a work in progress. She figured that if she let people know where she was working to improve, they’d give her better feedback. What she didn’t expect is that her humility would be contagious: other managers started doing it, too, recognizing that it would help to strengthen a culture of learning and development.
That can be true across the hierarchy — not just in leadership, but at the entry level. The evidence is clear: employees who seek negative feedback get better performance reviews. They signal that want to learn, and they put themselves in a stronger position to learn.
The moment you get excited about a new background, skill set or base of experience is the moment you have to diversify again, and this requires real humility.
The third kind of humility is cultural humility. In many workplaces, there’s a strong focus on hiring people who fit the culture. In Silicon Valley, startups that prize culture fit are significantly less likely to fail and significantly more likely to go public. But post-IPO, they grow at slower rates than firms that hire on skills or potential.
Hiring on culture fit reflects a lack of humility. It suggests that culture is already perfect — all we need to do is bring in people who will perpetuate it. Sociologists find that when we prize culture fit, we end up hiring people who are similar to us. That weeds out diversity of thought and background, and it’s a surefire recipe for groupthink.
Cultural humility is about recognizing that your culture always has room for growth, just like we do. After Larry Page returned as the CEO of Google, he told me that he didn’t want it to become a cultural museum. Great cultures don’t stand still; they evolve.
At the innovative design firm IDEO, instead of cultural fit, they emphasize cultural contribution, a term coined by Diego Rodriguez. The goal isn’t to find and promote people who clone the culture; it’s having the humility to bring in people who will stretch and enrich the culture by adding elements that are absent. That’s something every organization needs to revisit every year, because what’s missing from the culture changes over time.
After IDEO designed the mouse for Apple, they started working on a wider range of projects — from bringing Sesame Street into the digital age to reimagining shopping carts for grocery stores. They realized that while they had great designers, they were short on people who were skilled at going into foreign environments and making sense of them. That’s what anthropologists do for a living, so they created a new job title: anthropologist.
As they saw the contributions from people in that role, it was tempting for them to just keep hiring anthropologists. But that would be the culture fit trap again. Cultural humility forces you to ask what else is missing. In IDEO’s case, they realized it was storytellers: people gifted in translating new insights back to designers and clients. So they started hiring screenwriters and journalists. The moment you get excited about a new background, a new skill set or a new base of experience is the moment you have to diversify again, and this requires real humility.
If you work with a narcissist, don’t try to lower their confidence. Just temper it with humility.
Even if you don’t start your career as a narcissist, success can go to your head. Maintaining humility requires you to surround yourself with people who keep you honest, who tell you the truth you may not want to hear but need to hear, and who hold you accountable if you don’t listen to them.
I think that’s what happened to Steve Jobs at Apple. He had the grand ambition to build a great company. But after the launch of the Mac was a flop in 1985, he refused to listen to his critics about what needed to change, and he was forced out of his own company.
I’ve heard from his close collaborators that the Steve Jobs who came back to Apple in 1997 was more humble. Reflecting on the revitalization of the company, he once said, “I’m pretty sure none of this would have happened if I hadn’t been fired from Apple. It was awful-tasting medicine, but I guess the patient needed it.”
That’s what a humble narcissist sounds like:. “I believe I can do extraordinary things, but I always have something to learn.”
So if you work with a narcissist, don’t try to lower their confidence. Just temper it with humility. Don’t tell them they’re not great. Instead, remind them that they’re human, they haven’t succeeded alone, and what sets the best apart is that they’re always striving to get better.
Find out more about humility by listening to WorkLife with AdamGrant, a new TED podcast. Episode 3 explores whether humility is a hidden ingredient in success, and it features author Michael Lewis, a “no-stats all-star,” and the great coach of an unusually humble college basketball team that keeps beating the odds.
I agree with you Mags, humility is a rare human trait. It would not be an example of humility to do anything for it’s sake. It’s more about what isn’t done with it, then what you do with however much of it you have. There are those charitable in spirit that ask nothing in return, they are as a result of their own humility the unknown contributor. They are fantastic leaders but you’ll never find them in a leadership class. You won’t find them at the top of a corporate ladder, they are the ones holding the ladder for others to climb. If you are looking to business for examples of humility they aren’t found there. If you’re looking for authors of books they aren’t found there. If you are looking for it in positions of power it won’t be found there either.
Were you can find it is on the streets and alleys and back ways in simple gestures. Humility is rarely a grand gesture, if it makes the news it’s not humble. It is the simplest of acts. No, you first. It’s holding a door for another to walk through and then walking through the door they hold for you with a wink and a nod.
…don’t worry, it’s weird to me too.
…and I’m interested in turning ideas into laws (that aid not hinder)… I do this in real life.
Sure…
…bridges can be burned.
…and yet many here don’t like him for it, and berate.
Hahaha, that’s cute 
Wait, you’re still arguing this?
You freely provide the research against you yourself both here:
and here:
and I provide the logic against you here:
And your response is that there are examples of those failing in positions of authority lacking humility, and you cite some personal anecdotes about your own experience, which is the whole thing that’s just been unequivocally proven to be based on flawed practice? To both of these: this is the whole point 
Like Mowk, I agree that we frequently find those “at the top” lacking the quality of humility to the detriment of all and being show up for it - as the evidence you provided and the logic I provided would suggest they would, and as you did on this forum.
And what is this interview nonsense? How does one reply to the question “are you humble?” or “tell me about some times you have exhibited humility in your previous roles?” without contradicting said humility?! Humility is not something you boast or sell by definition - it’s not an attribute that lends itself to explicit discussion. You demonstrate it implicitly and the competent interviewer will pick up on it. The fact that you don’t appear to be looking for it is testament only to your own incompetence in accordance with everything we’ve both just proven, which begs the question how you got into a position to interview others at all.
But that’s the thing - people who aren’t humble are the very ones who seek authority the most: hence so many examples of those who aren’t humble failing in authority. The weak work hardest to trick others into appearing strong, many fool their way up only to do a worse job than actually good leaders who are humble, and we see the pretentious fail all the time while the humble succeed and make everything better with no such spotlight on them - as is consistent with their humility.
We have all these papers you’re providing, the logic, as well as the anecdotes of yourself, Mowk and me too about those without humility fail in positions of power - and you’re trying to argue that it’s not the ideal word to use and it’s just a buzzword? Everything everyone’s saying points to it being highly significant, if not ideal.
This debate has just been opened and closed on all accounts at the hands of everyone here, even yourself. How is this so hard for you?
Yes Mowk, and this is because leadership IS the holding of the ladder for others to climb, or the door for another to walk through. You find the best leaders being humble right there, just as you find the best moderators of a forum right there.
At the “top of the corporate ladder” you sometimes find these actual leaders, but rarely - such is the flaw of so many institutions. But just because the pretentious need to take the credit for the humility of the best leaders, due to their own weakness and lack of humility, does that mean it’s them we should emulate? Does their limelight make them the best leaders? They can claim the title of leader all they like, and they will only continue to be the ones adding to all these examples of those in authority failing like MagsJ did.
Logic and opinion are the two premier modes of arguing for a stance on any position taken on almost anything.
What are the bridges which these turn on ? Usually emotional transformers , that are usually confirmed inversely, the projections if not verified after the fact, are usually accounted for by revised variables which fail originally to be modified by others coming in and fail to adhere to new specifications.
It is the tit for that of petty organization men, who end up paying the price.
I don’t think Carleas was looking for nominations, but perhaps you could send him a PM and volunteer.
On Moderation, and what makes a good moderator.
Objectivity, a clear understanding of the rules under which you moderate. The ability to take responsibility for your mistakes in the role and learn from them. And to practice the rules yourself.
A failure in each of these regards and a decision gets made. Carleas made the right decision.
I think you get the small portion of humility with which I was addressing. Like I said humility is a rare human trait. I admit you’ve got a lot to contribute. great thinkers and humility may go together but one does not necessarily stem from the other. Humility doesn’t appear to be a requirement for anything. It’s more about a grace in what you do and how you do it. So in part, you bring a lot to light.
Back to “On Moderation”, I think the tenor of the discussion was getting a bit off base, perhaps even never quite got on base. It’s not a pick on Mags thread, but that is what it seems you have turned it into, or by your involvement, let it get turned into with your desire to make your points. Water under the bridge. Lets talk about the bridge _Meno eludes to.
Flat out attacking a person, not quite in line with what Carleas suggested he was aiming for in many of his own examples of moderation.
Unfortunately I’m not particularly interested in moderation.
My ego is big enough without the status, don’t you think? 
Additionally, I don’t like the idea of mixing business and pleasure, because I find the former detracts from the latter - and the latter is why I’m here.
Carleas opened this thread with words including “I open this thread for any thoughts on this decision, or on moderation generally.” - so it suffices for me to be able to leave my thoughts here and leave it at that. I can’t force people such as MagsJ to admit their clear truth when her ego obstructs her, but that won’t stop me trying.
I think humility is something I have to continually work on, I don’t think it is something that comes naturally to me but I’m fine with that - things you have to work on force your conscious concentration, and that can make you even better at them than if you don’t have to think about them. Being better at humility 
The cracks in my methodology appear 
To add to these cracks, I know I have a good head on my shoulders and I enjoy showing it off - which yes, detracts from my grace. I can switch that up, but for my current peon status I find little motivation. It’s fun to exert a little savagery.
I’ve had one managerial role professionally, and my team of one entire single person(!) told me I was the best manager they ever had, but I didn’t enjoy the cognitive dissonance of being a mouthpiece for a business whose methods I didn’t always agree with - I felt like a bad actor. So I quit and changed my career path. I only enjoy leading people using any degree of criticism (or praise) if I fully support the cause (in both means and ends). Authenticity is something I place in very high regard. As such, whenever I lead it’s out of the limelight in an unofficial capacity, holding up the ladders and opening the doors so to speak - for better or worse. I try for better.
edit: having written all this, I hope it was me who you were addressing - otherwise that would be embarrassing :-"