Discussing ideas, not people

How do you define intelligent humility?

Intelligent humility I would define as humility with awareness of what is most practically necessary to be open-minded about, or to be aware enough to know (or learn) what you don't know, as opposed to just having humility blindly for the sake of coming off socially virtuous and being a pushover of psychological manipulation.

So how do we come to consensus on what is "most practically necessary to be open minded about"?

To my understanding, this seems like something determined individually and case by case.

Proteus wrote: To my understanding, this seems like something determined individually and case by case.

Like most things, eh?

But, I think you hit the nail on the head. Have the ability to admit, at least to oneself, that you are not a god, and thus aren't the be all and end all, the all knowing omnipotent being. Discuss the idea, even if you don't agree with it, with the person, rather than discussing against the person, because oftentimes that devolves into discussing the person, rather than the idea.

Proteus wrote: To my understanding, this seems like something determined individually and case by case.

Hmm, so if it's completely subjective and subject to disagreement without a means of resolution, how is the suggestion constructive at all?

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

Proteus wrote: To my understanding, this seems like something determined individually and case by case.

Hmm, so if it's completely subjective and subject to disagreement without a means of resolution, how is the suggestion constructive at all?

Not all things can be resolved through mere social exchanges. Many of those said things are often seeds planted that later grow on their own when the time comes that makes an understanding or realization happen.

elizabeth wrote: Dont worry Ob1, I will always tell you when your being a jerk
You can always return it too

We all need somebody to shove

Proteus wrote: With religion comes beliefs.
With belifs comes convictions.
With convictions comes attachment to ideas.
With attachment to ideas comes feeling personally attacked when an idea you are attached to is criticized.

So it is tricky to be religious (or even philosophical on many things) and know how to manage your ego identity apart from ideas that come with it, to be able to talk about things with those with a different view without eventually feeling offended or attacked. But I think this is the point of practicing intelligent humility. ("Intelligent" is the keyword in that term here).

Do you think people primarily discuss how such and such broke the rules because of their unhealthy attachments to the rules? Yet are they not breaking the rules (about discussing ideas not people) in doing so?

Is it a sign of malice or mental illness? Or something else.