English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

We respond to Ballantyne’s feature article on intellectual humility from the viewpoint of being interventionists in psychology (Worthington) and political science (Garrett). Philosophers differ from interventionists in discipline, method, and goals. While, philosophers usually seek to describe what is  true  as uncovered by the methods of analytic (or existential) philosophy, interventionists seek to help diverse people solve problems, cope with unsolvable problems, or build virtue or character. Consequently, philosophers and interventionists often conceive of IH differently. In this article, we argue that interventionists benefit from mixed definitions of IH and would be constricted by a definition like the one favored by Ballantyne, which localizes the experience of IH within the individual as a pursuit of truth. We offer three examples that illustrate how a mixed definition of IH that recognizes the social nature of IH better equips interventionists to help the wide range of clients they serve.

Intellectual humility as a target for psychological, educational, and political intervention