This is why it is very likely to result in significant warming by the end of this century. In fact it is frequently virtually indistinguishable from trolling. It is not always better to say something than to say nothing. Wait for a more opportune moment to contribute something of interest. You seemed to berate tony b for saying that a part of the warming observed since has been a natural recovery from a well-documented previous colder period, called the Little Ice Age.
Why Truth, Humility, And Patience Are Every Leader's Most Powerful Weapons
A natural recovery implies that natural forcing factors are at play, even if the mechanisms for all these factors may not yet be fully known. You are right when you say that climate forcing from human GHG emissions are only one factor among others. Good examples. Talk to the old timers in the valley. Patrick Moore the renowned British astronomer played the xylof…the zylof….
Always thought it would be a blast to play in a jugband—Moore maybe got close. I had a misfire there — Reagan was Bon z o. But we do also have Truman of piano fame! Yes, I think it highly likely that humans are warming the Earth system but I am always open to other possibilities, and in fact, as a skeptic, actively seek out other plausible explanations. Curiosity is the underlying force behind scientific advancement, and once someone believes they know the answer to a question and must communicate that answer to non-scientists , they can tend to stop being curious about it, and fall into the storytelling and even confirmation bias traps.
At that point the science ends and the chance for true advancement. Hi Gates Hope you had a good Xmas. Hope you had a great holiday as well. Is is the death of all life on Earth? Is it simply the disruption of the primary functions of human civilization? Hansen or other extremists, i. The term gets thrown around so much that sometimes I think some might assume it means the Hansen run-away GH exclusively, without regard to other positions.
This is true only if there is not a set of true reasons for alarmism. As a grandfather, he is concerned for future generations and the world we leave him. I had Mann and Santer primarily in mind, though there is no shortage of others such a description would apply to. Hansen certainly gives the impression of being sincere, getting arrested etc. But pursuing a simplistic magic bullet co2 in such a complex system can only end in disappointment and even runs a risk of turning out to be the very opposite of what he might at first have expected.
I can agree with your point to a point, but I must look also at other success stories where scientists became advocates and it was a good thing they did. This fixation might have caused them to become less effective at discovering other things, but perhaps that is the price that scientists might have to pay if they end up discovering something that could potentially be very harmful or beneficial?
Their careers become defined by this discovery and they may, willingly or unwillingly be sucked into advocacy roles based on this discovery. Always loved the irony of that. I am surprised to learn that epistemology is now about how much humility a scientist should have? What is offered seems like a Goldilocks version, or just enough to fight for the truth but not enough to miss the truth, or some such.
This is arguably not useful. I suggest that when it comes to science humility in the face of nature is very different from humility in the face of other people. These are two very different processes. Can scientific greatness be measured, aside from the selection of a few geniuses in incommensurable fields astronomy, microbiology? The Dunning—Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than average.
This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their mistakes…. This pattern was seen in studies of skills as diverse as reading comprehension, operating a motor vehicle, and playing chess or tennis. I would suggest the same applies to science. This applies to pretty much anyone — from the researcher sure that their model is sufficient to make predictions, down to the random internet commenter claiming that IR from the atmosphere to the the ground violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
Of course, the very lack of metacognition that leads to the Dunning-Kruger Effect means that those suffering from it are not likely to realize they might be suffering from it! Rather than put words in your mouth, I am trying to understand your words.
Certainly they are Laws, why would they not be? Like all laws, you have to apply them in the region where they apply. How did that lead him wrong? Hi Willis. A heuristic formula give results which approximate to observation, but which are not in themselves compounded of terms which relate in any idetic way to the underlying reality.
More Books by Jess C Scott
Newton himself knew that his equations of motion only apply well to hard, elastic point like bodies. These qualities do not characterise the highly mobile, plasticly deformng plasma in the surface layers of the Sun. Nonetheless Leif insist on applying them there as a way of discounting the possibilty of planet-Sun interaction. Consequently, he has failed to appreciate the insights of those others who are humbly approaching the study of planet-Sun interactions with an open mind and a better suited toolkit.
His bombastic dismissal of other peoples research puts me in mind of another person with similar traits. Anyhow, I wish you well with that, and the only thing I might advise are regular visits to the optometrist, just to be on the safe side. Gee, is skeptic-land running short of rational discourse , maybe? Let me get this straight. He attacked me. Man, your chutzpah is only matched by your lack of politeness and your inappropriate behavior.
Fan, tallbloke attacked me without provocation when I had not said a single word to him. Or maybe you have pulled your head out since then, but it all still seems blindingly bright out here to you after all that darkness. In any case, piss off. Go away. You are neither wanted, needed, or welcome in my conversation with Roger. Go figure. Humility of the consensus climate scientists is inversely proportional to global temperature anomaly indices. The fact that she finds that trait disproportionately among those who disagree with her scientific analysis is coincidental, of course.
If her topic is about some undesirable phenomenon: arrogance, lack of humility, exaggeration, over-certainty, appeal to authority, hyperbole, intolerance, inappropriate activism, politicization of science, etc. Good guys vs. Anything negative is only seen amongst the bad guys. Reminds me of the comic books I read as a kid. True it is that the teeth of the uncertainty monster can cut both ways, yet at least Judith is willing to speak about it and the importance of its existence in terms of policy.
A comparison of the partisanship of Judy and of Joshua is useful and instructive.
- Why Truth, Humility, And Patience Are Every Leader's Most Powerful Weapons!
- Don't fall for the misinterpretations of what true humility is all about..
- Veränderung der Verkehrsinfrastruktur für Elektromobilität in Frankfurt am Main: Wer macht was, wo und wie? (German Edition).
- Spiral (Virtue : Humility).
Could be. The unconscious mind is a tricky thing…. I will never criticize Judith for exploring the boundaries of uncertainty. It is fundamental to valid reasoning, IMO. Kudos to Judith. This goes back to the difference between motivation and motivated reasoning. The evidence, IMO, is the selectivity of her criticisms, her willingness to assert conclusions without validated supporting data, her willingness to disproportionately assign very human attributes — that very obviously affect us all — to those who disagree with her about the science, etc.
If she had just stuck to pure science, the number of commenters and comments would be just a fraction of what she currently enjoys. An attempt to take a scientific approach to examining these issues is certainly worthwhile. But I think there is a problem when the science of the approach is superficial.
He is Mr. Guess what, you get to be narrow and pedestrian in your evaluation of Judith. She too has a right to her selectivity. It happens to be more interesting to see someone inside the science community take her peers to task than it is to see those outside the community take them to task. Put another way, gavin criticising Judith is way more interesting than you criticizing her. Just as Willis criticizing skeptics would be way more interesting than me criticizing skeptics.
Housecleaning is way more interesting than throwing rocks at other peoples windows. Actually, Mosher, what first attracted me to Climate Etc. Judith is a playa. But the true measure of a playa is the quality of her game. Admit it — as soon as I saw the title of her post, could you have not predicted the gist of her editorial comment? That Climate Etc. So long as he keeps it professional, Judith should appreciate the services that Joshua and others provide. It would have been useful if the IPCC had such a feedback process. I agree with R Gates that Joshua and others have a legitimate role to play in keeping commenters on their toes.
I would prefer, however, that only key points need to be clarified and that many minor errors of logic should just go through to the keeper. Peter — how should I evaluate the significance of errors?. Keep in mind, that the criterion used, ideally, should be consistent on both sides and applied evenly within reason i. As one example, should i distinguish one under-evaluation of uncertainty from another? Joshua, the issue of uncertainty is to my mind an important one and worthy of our attention. I am not sure how to answer that question except to say that I just recognise them to be of no importance when I see them.
Let me suggest that many commenters here should learn to keep their posts succinct, certainly less frequent, never repetitive and strictly to the point of the head post. IMO there are too many commenters here that over expose themselves and their views and as a result fill this blog with too much puffery. I leave to each reader to reflect whether the foregoing paragraph applies to them or not because I will never cast the first stone by naming names and in view of the fact that I too, would have been guilty of some of the misdemeanors that have been mentioned above. Willard I must confess that I am easily distracted and indeed find some of the exchanges fun to watch.
I perhaps could have mentioned another trait that I dislike in blogging: that of butting into ongoing exchanges. I find this to be rude. Sadly you engage in the same behavior at keith kloors and at rogers. So, I would not want to deny them that benefit. However, you are a bore. Shallow ,with a limited range. If you were clever and incisive like willard, that would be one thing.
But you are whiny and bitchy, a kibitzing nag. Tell me your relatives havent mentioned this. If that is how you feel, then why do you respond to my posts so often? And in particular, why the constant focus on my personal attributes animosity? Not even remotely true. Yet another example of misplaced confidence in a flawed analysis. The point is, steven, your judgement about me personally matters not a whit to me.
I post what I post because I choose to do so. Your attacks have no limiting effect. More amusing than anything else.
- More titles to consider.
- Intellectual Humility.
- A Selection of Old-Time Recipes for Fudge.
- The Melody Man: Joe Davis and the New York Music Scene, 1916-1978 (American Made Music Series).
So tell me, why do you bother? I decipher any logical reason. Very curious. I respond to your posts because I hold out hope that you might correct your ways. I respond to your posts because you are wrong, the same way i respond to jim cripwell, and manaker, and springer. I focus on your personal failings because unlike other people here who A try to understand the science B stay on topic C say interesting things,. Once or twice and we get it. Dear jesus your as predictable as the iron sun guy. I disagree with your perspective.
You think that repeating that argument to me, along with insulting me as you have done consistently and from the very start , is the way to convince me of something? You are wrong. And your approach is highly illogical. I engage her with arguments about her reasoning, and usually with respect to her reasoning about issues not directly related to the science. As was the case in this post. Her logic about a topic basically unrelated to the science, IMO, was weak.
It is not a personal attack on her. It never has been. There have been times with her, as with Keith, and as with Roger, where I have expressed agreement with or applauded her personally. I have never attacked any of them personally. You have never met me. For you to offer an opinion about me personally is meaningless, and only an expression that like our friend Peter Lang, your opinion of your own importance is inflated. You have taken an approach to insulting me personally from when I first appeared in these pages.
I have seen you do that over and over. This thread is a good example. It is a curious phenomenon. Sorry you are being given a hard time. You seem to be an endless source of fascination to Mosh. Have a happy new year tonyb. Thanks for the sentiment. Admirable is a way, I guess, even if it manifests illogically and ineffectively. In my opinion, you should stop asking the same questions over and over again. Your observation basis is wide enough for you to start declaring and describing.
And please stop responding to personal commentaries. Strategically speaking, a good rule of thumb is that if the last word does not compromise your position, you keep the upper hand by remaining silent. As Mosh already observed, it sometimes takes courage to refrain from doing something. Judith post an article about humility and puts her spin on it.
You have many choices. Ignore the spin and address the article 2. Address the article and weave in a discussion of the spin. Whine about Judiths spin and hypocrisy etc etc etc. But when you do 3 exclusively we view you as a thread jacking hobby horse riding troll. So, we will do to you what you try to do to do to judith. We will troll on your trolling. When you respond to our attacks your secure yourself the role of troll. Tell us what you think about humility then rip judith a new one. Of course she sees herself as spin free. In my own comments, I try to pull people out of their comfort zone to promote thinking and discussion.
This is excellent advice, not only for Joshua but for every commenter. We certainly see it as a trait widely exploited by capitalists of all stripes — quite lucratively. We see it well-represented in any number of professions. Is there anything resembling a logical argument in her selective attribution? Has she stated any sort of objective criteria by which she establishes her attribution? Has she even bothered to conceptualize one? But not content to merely make that facile argument — she goes further. Is it not true of other members of those segments of society who happen to agree with her scientific analysis?
Should we assume it merely coincidence that Judith just happens to associate these nefarious attributes in a way that directly correlates with her stance on scientific issues? Are those who disagree with her on the science monolithic in the way that she suggests? Are those who disagree with her monolithic as suggested by the selectivity of her argument not finding those attributes in those whose analysis she agrees with? Perhaps so. Perhaps Judith has such an outstanding character that she can make such assertions without the need of validating evidence, without the need to identify uncertainties, without the need to discuss exceptions of caveats.
Even more curious is that they seem to all agree with her scientific analysis. If i want to see flash in SF, I dont go to the capitalist parts of town the marina and pacific heights there I see no style, homonegnized white bread crap. If i want some flash I hit the parts of town where flash is valued over substance.
Certainly, the elaborate aesthetic of Pacific Heights is considered by many to be style. The residents of that area spend a great deal of money to create that style. Consider the expensive yachts in the Marina, the fancy houses with a view of the bay, the elaborate costumes of the roller-bladers, or the flash of the kite-surfers and their equipment.
Any particular part of town you choose the Mission? Balboa Park? Bernal Heights? Cole Valley? The Haight? The Castro? Telegraph Hill? Now you might think any of those neighborhoods to represent substance over style, so then how do we reconcile this difference of views? You are learning. Josh, Your words have been irrelevant since your first post and continue to be as the post at Joshua December 28, at am shows. Judith has not presented anything resembling a logical argument in her selective attribution: She has not stated any sort of objective criteria by which she establishes her attribution.
She has not even bothered to conceptualize one. Thank you for adding your highly relevant opinion to note how you find my opinions to be irrelevant. Where would we be without such logic? But please think in terms of conversations. Science by force of personality produces pseudo-science more often than knowledge. Global warming. I wish to apologize publicly to all those who were offended by texts that were previously posted at this address. I made claims and comparisons that were completely inappropriate, which I deeply regret. I would also like to thank all those who took the time and trouble to share their thoughts in emails.
I see James Hansen and the Professor as cut from the same cloth. Hence I fully expect to one day see James to take down his rants, and humbly apologize to all. The proof is in his following paragraph when he stands upon his tenure in Amesty International. And what if they never were good research scientists in the first place, but rather exceptional opportunists?
When particles become waves and waves become particles, you have to suspend conventional wisdom. Like what happened to climate in can only be explained by quantum thermodynamics. We scientists have to follow these bitter trails to the very end, all the time hoping that there is an end. I am not sure that being humble helps much in this pursuit of knowledge. There are times to be humble and times to be assertive: that is the question.
I suspect that nature has some surprises in store for us. Which may have the not unwelcome side effect of bringing some humility to the current crop of low-hanging fruit picking glitterati. As a scientist, you live on the expectation that nature does have surprises in store— else why bother? But again, in certain fields, sometimes you discover or think you do something that could have a big impact on society. At that point, do you cash in your objectivity and take an advocacy role, or do you maintain your neutral skeptical position?
The future will determine if Hansen acted properly or not as it is way too early to tell just yet. It would take some intellectual humility indeed for an indoctrinated Warmer to admit that their entire worldview hinges on the way a line squiggles. If the line squggles down there is no Global Warming. That means you Warmers have to find something else to do all day other than devote yourselves to promoting Warmerism in blog comments. I think that would be a significant change for you. There are so many parameters to looking at the total energy content of the Earth system, that one single line is hardly adequate.
Near surface tropospheric temperature anomalies averaged over the whole planet over short-term time frames have very little value in telling us much about planetary energy imbalance. Nicely put, and certainly well done science requires a combination of humility, insight, intuition, determination, hard work, preparation, and a bit of luck— oddly, just like every other human endeavor worthy of pursuit.
Humility is not thinking less of yourself, it is thinking of yourself less. It is a spirit of self-examination; a hermeneutic of suspicion toward yourself and charity toward people you disagree with. The courage of the heart necessary to undertake tasks which are difficult, tedious or unglamorous, and to graciously accept the sacrifices involved.
Reverence for those who have wisdom and those who selflessly teach in love. Being faithful to promises, no matter how big or small they may be. Refraining from despair and the ability to confront fear and uncertainty, or intimidation. This lack of humility and belief of making break-through findings every day of the week is so obvious and painful when one follows blogs like this [and perhaps even more starkly: WUWT].
This one is completely off the mark as if the mind is just a receptacle for a flood of hare-brained input. PV, That you draw pretty graphics with no units on the axis makes it impossible for anyone to take you seriously. From my own experience of working in biochemistry for 25 years, I would say that humility before nature has to be learned.
Today, I am more surprised when they do work out as I envisioned. I find that this experience has been the single most valuable and transformative one in all of my education, and it has changed not only my approach to science but my outlook in general. For the sake of this experience alone, everyone who has the chance would do well spend some time in experimental science, even if they really mean to do something else altogether in their lives.
One simply will not learn humility before nature by engaging in theoretical science only, and it is my impression that intellectual humility is indeed more common among experimentalists than theoreticians.
Join Kobo & start eReading today
In this context, it is pertinent to note that climate science is full of people with training in computation but little experience in experimentation and observation. Honesty is I think more necessary. This will lead scientists to question even their own cherished theories and look in places noone has looked before for the truth. Honesty also will lead one to realize ones own limitations and strengths. The concept of epigenetics, like the thing we call climate science, is a fairly young field of study.
As a study of science, they have probably existed for about the same length of time. In epigenetics, they also use models to make predictions and figure things out. But, unlike climate science, the models are not presented as absolute proof of a correct hypotheses without outside independent validation by observation. Observation trumps models. Either the epigenetic mechanics are confirmed, or not. Or the results look promising but the hypothesis is not confirmed because there are still too many unknowns, and the genetics scientists have no problem admitting where the unknowns make confirming any kind of certainty impossible.
The scientists also seem to be quite laid back and friendly. But then, they are only concerned with how traits are altered from one generation to the next without the genes actually changing, whereas climate science and climate scientists must bare the weight of the world on their shoulders.
There also seems to be quite a few women exploring the epigenetics field… at least there are a lot noted for exemplary work in this book. Jest when yer think yr getting a handle on humility before nature, humility versus complaisancy, hypotheses tentative and provisional, uh huh … yer think, Copernicus! Asking bold questions is humility before nature, which is the opposite of humility before other people. It means believing that everyone else is either wrong or ignorant.
Mind you this seldom works and should only be done with caution unless the new idea forces itself upon you. Ideas have a life of their own. Most scientific activity is not revolutionary, nor could it be, so it is very much a team sport. Finding the gold and digging it out are two different occupations and so it is with science. BTW Einstein did not re-examine physics. He re-examined first length then geometry, finding in both cases that the universal belief was wrong. Length is not a property of objects but of object-observer systems. Euclidean geometry is not the sole geometry of our world, rather we have a complex of mostly non-Euclidean geometries depending on how much mass is around.
Which created the gobbledegook of his relativity — that a person rushing around the kitchen preparing a meal for his partner will get to tomorrow later than his partner sitting at the table patiently waiting to be served.. Beth, I see those three names and I also think of Galileo…and his fate. I like Brecht, so maybe that, as much as the history itself, shapes how I see Galileo. Regardless his fate, his contributions survived. That looks like a chicken or egg trap to me; lots of room for interpretation.
I suspect that even in science the victor writes the history—here thinking of the how and why—pretty much applies. It seems almost inevitable. Hansen, for example. After first falling into the trap of making a prediction that was proven exaggerated by a factor of two in his time, he now concentrates on longer-term predictions of doom. He objects to the glorification, nay reification, by narrative of the shadows on the wall. Thank you Jeez, for fulfilling Climate Etc prophecy! Who will be the next Climate Etc poster to fulfill prophecy?
The world wonders! Why do we tend to forget the fundamental pillars for good scientific processes? This really does not have anything at all to do with Carl Sagan. These are the fundamental principles about science we was taught at the start of our scientific education — at least where I come from. To have proper communication about science we really need to adhere to some guidelines about how to communicate, and guidelines about the processes which are required to arrive at solid scientific theories. I have always thought that all scientific educations also include scientific theory about the fundamental principles for science?
It would be nice to know if anybody know about scientific educations which do not include lessons on scientific theory?
The Virtue of Humility
Could climate warmists get it more wrong? Pingback: Can we avoid fooling ourselves? Climate Etc. Instead of filling a gap by guesswork, genuine science prefers to put up with it; and this, not so much from conscientious scruples about telling lies, as from the consideration that, however irksome the gap may be, its obliteration by a fake removes the urge to seek after a tenable answer. So efficiently may attention be diverted that the answer is missed even when, by good luck, it comes close at hand. Judith Curry; How might intellectual humility lead to scientific insight?
The kind of intellectual humility is needed especially to accept a proper cross-disciplinary approach to solve multidisciplinary problems like the cause of climate warming. Otherwise it can be only coincidental to reach a working solution to problem. A proper cross-disciplinary approach helps you to understand what essential you have to do when trying to find dominating causes or a cause of the problem. That demands a sufficiently proper cross-disciplinary approach of the complicate climate problem in order to find sufficiently understandable explanation concerning the essential reasons.
For instance, when the CO2 content in the atmosphere is ppm, the manmade share of it is only about 16 ppm at the most; in the reports of IPCC the human share of recent CO2 content in atmosphere is assessed to be about ppm without any proper evidence. The faux humbleness attributed to Jesus and set up as the great virtue of true Christian spirituality has done much damage to his message, he who said we were gods.. What was Jesus actually saying in his admonition to turn the other cheek when struck across the face?
The bully strikes to show his superiority and his disdain with a backhand slap and by his victim turning the other cheek this becomes impossible to repeat. And as has already been mentioned, the Jewish sense of humour. The scene: a subjugated nation under Roman occupation under laws which permitted a soldier to commandeer any native to carry his gear, his load, precisely one roman mile and no further, and punishment would be meted out to a soldier who flouted the law because a subjugated nation was kept subjugated by such pretences to rights. Extrapolate from this. Or, as they said said on StarTrek, to boldly go where no man [or woman] has gone before.
In most scientific fields, we can easily separate the wheat from the chaff. When results can be repeated by others under carefully controlled conditions in the laboratory, the truth emerges relatively quickly. Experimental variability is large and systematic errors may be larger. It took roughly a century for the consensus to recognize the economic theories of Karl Marx were bogus. A scary thought. Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.
Sign me up! Skip to content. Home About Blog Rules Patreon donations. Posted on December 26, by curryja Comments. Like this: Like Loading This entry was posted in Ethics. Bookmark the permalink. And Isaac Newton was a self-promoting, arrogant, conceited, arse-hole, by all accounts. Willis Eschenbach December 26, at pm. Tom December 26, at pm. HAS December 27, at am. Which comes back to the theories of climate. AJ December 27, at am. The Skeptical Warmist December 27, at pm. Do tidal effects Flap wings of magnetosphere?
Zarzuela Duet. Hi Kim …. Michael December 26, at pm. However, just because humility is old-fashioned does not mean that it is no longer important. This page explains more about the meaning of humility, and how it is an important part of developing self-esteem, self-worth, and assertiveness, without aggression or anger. These definitions make humility sound like a very negative quality. But humility, as practised by the great religious leaders, was not negative. Their opinions of themselves were low only in the sense that they understood that they were not more important than others.
They also understood that they were not less important than others , either. Jesus, for example, was not afraid to fight for his right to speak out for others, especially those who were poor and struggling, and he spoke to those in authority in exactly the same way as he spoke to everyone else. Instead, it is an understanding that every human is equally valuable: a recognition that you are worth no more or less than anyone else.
One of the reasons why humility seems old-fashioned is that we are often made to feel that we need to look out for ourselves, because nobody else will do so. This point of view suggests that you need to be aggressive to get what you need in life, which, along with pride, is perhaps the very opposite of humility. Our pages on Assertiveness , however, argue that it is more appropriate to be assertive: to be able to stand up for yourself and others, putting your point of view calmly. Assertiveness is very definitely compatible with humility: it recognises that everyone has an equal right to be heard, and enables everyone to put their point across.
Indeed, it is quite possible to argue that not only is assertiveness compatible with humility, but humility is absolutely essential for developing assertiveness. In other words, without a recognition that you are no more or less important than others, it is impossible to recognise that everyone has an equal right to be heard or, indeed, to listen to others openly. Self-esteem is how you feel about yourself. Being humble, however, does not mean having a poor opinion of yourself, but rather accepting yourself and your many good qualities, as well as your limitations , recognising that others also have good qualities and are equally valuable.
For many of us, humility is one of the hardest traits to develop, because it has to start from a recognition that you are not always right, and that you do not have all the answers. In the hands of a capable leader, these virtues can be powerful weapons. Truth is a funny thing. We often think of it as a reflection of our best selves, embracing it only when we are right and someone else is wrong. Truth, however, is not the same as virtue. Truth simply is. You may be able to survive for a while, but eventually it will catch up with you. Lying about a mistake is the cardinal sin of leadership.
It always makes things worse and sends you down a dangerous path where new lies must be concocted to support old lies. That sort of spiral can be draining, both physically and mentally. Instead, good leaders must live in the truth. They must breathe it in and make it part of their very being. The truth provides a freedom and a confidence that leads to nothing other than strength. People line up to oppose them because of this false and harmful mindset, and their lives are an unending chain of conflict.
Humility, however, robs others of their ability to attack you. Humble leaders are surrounded by people who want to help them up when they fall.