This seems to assume that the only possible purpose of humility is as a means to improve one’s status. That seems, to put it mildly, not obviously correct. For example, you might attempt to be humble because …
… you think humble people are nicer to be around, and you want to make other people’s lives nicer.
… you think most people overestimate their own merits, see no reason why you should be an exception, and want to correct for this.
… you belong to a religion that commands (or at least commends) it.
… you have psychological hangups that make you feel bad when others regard you “too” positively.
There are arguments to be made against each of those, but none of them looks much like “you probably think that being humble will make others think better of you, but actually it likely won’t”.
(Side note: I get from Viliam’s comment the same impression as I do from some of Robin Hanson’s posts: a wilful refusal to consider any but the most cynical interpretation of something, where of course everyone is simply acting (or attempting to act) in their own selfish interests, where anything that looks like kindness or generosity is really a self-regarding status manoeuvre, etc., and where all this cynicism is too obvious to merit any kind of justification, but simply assumed as if everyone worth paying attention to will already agree. My instinctive reaction to this kind of stuff is to see it as a self-regarding status manoeuvre in its own right (“see how independent-minded and fearless I am!”) and move the author’s credibility down a notch or two. That’s probably not a fair reaction, but I suspect I’m not alone in having it.)
(One other pedantic note. It seems clear that “humility” here is being used to mean something like “self-deprecation”. I have seen the word used in other ways—e.g., to denote an attempt to have the exact same attitude to one’s own merits and demerits as to those of other people. Perhaps some other term might be less ambiguous.)
It seems clear that “humility” here is being used to mean something like “self-deprecation”. I have seen the word used in other ways
Yeah. I would like to have some textbook on social skills, where one chapter would be e.g. about humility: many possible interpretations of the word; which ones are helpful, and which ones are harmful, and how it depends on context. Specific, specific, specific.
EDIT: What I mean by this is that people sometimes give you an advice that “it is better to be humble”, but without the details about how specifically to be humble (and how specifically not to be humble), such advice can be even harmful. Also, the advice from other people usually comes with its own bias, namely that people are more likely to correct you on behavior that somehow harms or annoys them, but will be quiet about behavior that only harms you.
This seems to assume that the only possible purpose of humility is as a means to improve one’s status. That seems, to put it mildly, not obviously correct. For example, you might attempt to be humble because …
… you think humble people are nicer to be around, and you want to make other people’s lives nicer.
… you think most people overestimate their own merits, see no reason why you should be an exception, and want to correct for this.
… you belong to a religion that commands (or at least commends) it.
… you have psychological hangups that make you feel bad when others regard you “too” positively.
There are arguments to be made against each of those, but none of them looks much like “you probably think that being humble will make others think better of you, but actually it likely won’t”.
(Side note: I get from Viliam’s comment the same impression as I do from some of Robin Hanson’s posts: a wilful refusal to consider any but the most cynical interpretation of something, where of course everyone is simply acting (or attempting to act) in their own selfish interests, where anything that looks like kindness or generosity is really a self-regarding status manoeuvre, etc., and where all this cynicism is too obvious to merit any kind of justification, but simply assumed as if everyone worth paying attention to will already agree. My instinctive reaction to this kind of stuff is to see it as a self-regarding status manoeuvre in its own right (“see how independent-minded and fearless I am!”) and move the author’s credibility down a notch or two. That’s probably not a fair reaction, but I suspect I’m not alone in having it.)
(One other pedantic note. It seems clear that “humility” here is being used to mean something like “self-deprecation”. I have seen the word used in other ways—e.g., to denote an attempt to have the exact same attitude to one’s own merits and demerits as to those of other people. Perhaps some other term might be less ambiguous.)
Yeah. I would like to have some textbook on social skills, where one chapter would be e.g. about humility: many possible interpretations of the word; which ones are helpful, and which ones are harmful, and how it depends on context. Specific, specific, specific.
EDIT: What I mean by this is that people sometimes give you an advice that “it is better to be humble”, but without the details about how specifically to be humble (and how specifically not to be humble), such advice can be even harmful. Also, the advice from other people usually comes with its own bias, namely that people are more likely to correct you on behavior that somehow harms or annoys them, but will be quiet about behavior that only harms you.