Abstract
Streib builds on the work of Waldenfels to provide a compelling account of how xenocentric (as opposed to xenophobic) responsiveness to members of out-groups can lead to wisdom. He further discusses how distinctive manifestations of characteristics such as perspective-taking and intellectual humility can facilitate the development of a xenocentric style. In this reflection, I discuss other characteristics that may play a role in facilitation style and offer some recommendations for studying manifestations of the xenocentric style in daily life. I question whether xenocentric responsiveness (a) has to always result in transformative change, and (b) be understood as a “type” rather than an individual difference. Finally, I point to one tension inherent in Streib’s argument—that embracing the xenocentric style can sometimes involve the “othering” of people who do not share one’s values.
Streib (2024) provides a compelling account of how xenocentric (as opposed to xenophobic) responsiveness to members of out-groups can lead to a distinctive form of transformative wisdom. In this commentary, I build on recent advances in both wisdom (Kristjánsson & Fowers, 2024) and moral personality research (Jayawickreme & Fleeson, 2017, 2022, 2023; Wright et al., 2020) to provide some reflections on how employing methods from personality science can help clarify which traits—including but also in addition to perspective-taking and intellectual humility—work together to produce manifestations of the xenocentric style. I also discuss how recent advances in personality dynamics can help clarify how the xenocentric style manifests in daily life. I question whether xenocentric responsiveness necessarily always has to result in transformative change, and caution against understanding the xenocentric style as a “type” rather than an individual difference. I conclude by pointing to one tension inherent in Streib’s argument—that embracing the xenocentric style can sometimes involve the “othering” of people who do not share one’s values.
How do different virtues work together to foster the xenocentric style?
My lab’s interest in wisdom has its origin in my line of research examining whether it constitutes an outcome of experiencing adversity (Jayawickreme et al., 2019a, 2021b). More recently, my work has focused on understanding how different intellectual virtues work together in “good thinkers”; that is, people possess both the abilities and desire to seek accurate information about the self and world (Jayawickreme & Fleeson, 2022; Ratchford et al., 2024). This work builds in part on the argument my colleagues and I have made that intellectual humility (IH)—one such virtue that is a critical characteristic of good thinkers—possesses both a self-regarding and other-regarding component of IH (Porter et al., 2022). While the person recognition of intellectual limitations—the self-regarding component—is necessary, the presence of the other-regarding component of IH highlights the importance of other interpersonally-oriented virtues in contributing to the successful manifestation of IH. Such virtues may include open-mindedness, curiosity, and respect for others (Jayawickreme & Fleeson, 2022). This dynamic relationship between virtues highlights how the successful deployment of “wise behavior” (Phan et al., 2021) is dependent on other virtues. In other words, the IH framework we identified attempts to understand how different constructs mutually reinforce each other to foster outcomes characteristic of wisdom, and by extension the xenocentric style (Porter et al., 2022).
The above raises the question of how different intellectual virtues work smoothly together to achieve the outcomes of possessing good intellectual character, that is, attain truth, understanding, or other epistemic goods. In particular, one fundamental question in defining what a good thinker therefore involves clarifying which intellectual features constitute the character of a good thinker. These core features may include the possession of specific meta-cognitive skills and abilities, an awareness of one’s ignorance and cognitive fallibility, an openness to admitting one’s faults and limitations of knowledge (i.e. an aversion to bias) while maintaining a sense of firmness about one’s current beliefs, an appreciation of the viewpoints of others, an open-minded attitude toward listening to and engaging with others’ beliefs, having questioning skills characteristic of virtuous inquisitiveness, and a courageous attitude toward improving one’s knowledge motivated by the love of truth (King, 2021; Ratchford et al., 2024; Roberts & Wood, 2007).
In our current research clarifying this question, we used an empirically guided approach, creating comprehensive list of intellectual traits that have validated psychological measures (see Ratchford et al., 2024 for a detailed discussion). Through an iterative interdisciplinary process involving both psychologists and philosophers, we identified 23 distinct intellectual virtues: cognitive flexibility, curiosity, discomfort with uncertainty, emotional intelligence, enjoyment of the novel, imagination, ingenuity, intellectual attentiveness, intellectual autonomy, intellectual carefulness, intellectual courage, intellectual honesty, intellectual humility, intellectual tenacity, intellectual tolerance, interest in aesthetics, love of learning, open-mindedness, need for cognition, perspective taking, rationality, self-awareness, and social curiosity (Ratchford et al., 2024).
In reflecting on these identified traits, it is clear that manifesting the xenocentric style will require some (or many) of the virtues that a good thinker would possess. For example, in addition to perspective-taking and intellectual humility (Porter et al., 2022), possessing the xenocentric style likely requires curiosity (to allow oneself to learn from the other), discomfort with uncertainty (which again would open oneself up to the other in the quest to resolve that uncertainty), enjoyment of the novel, imagination, intellectual attentiveness, intellectual autonomy (to break out of stereotypical beliefs about the other), intellectual courage, intellectual tenacity, intellectual tolerance, open-mindedness, and social curiosity. Indeed, it may be that having a clearer sense of the virtues necessary for possessing the xenocentric style is important for projects and interventions that seeks to promote it in society.
Of note, it is possible that different intellectual virtues may converge under some circumstances but not others, depending on the specific virtue-relevant goals afforded by a given context (e.g. the goal of being open to the other). Recent research has suggested that in many circumstances, manifestations of these virtues are interrelated and serve complementary functions (Phan et al., 2021). Indeed, when thinking how intellectual virtues work together in contexts relevant to xenocentric sensitivity, we can imagine virtues such as intellectual humility and open-mindedness being relevant. In such a situation (e.g. when engaging in a discussion with the “other” that challenges one’s worldview), one will likely encounter information that is incongruent with their worldview, leading them to doubt the accuracy/certainty of their own beliefs, that is, manifesting intellectual humility. However, as noted earlier, the response to this experience of doubt may differ depending on the presence (or lack) of other virtues. In the presence of open-mindedness, the individual willingly considers both positions, and evaluates the available evidence for the different perspectives with the goal of clarifying what is true (Baehr, 2011). Under such circumstances, open-mindedness and intellectual humility may be interrelated. In other words, while lacking the virtue of open-mindedness may lead to intellectual arrogance (when one rejects the opposing viewpoint), open-mindedness in this context would lead to the successful updating of one’s knowledge.
Examining the xenocentric style in daily life
It is also important to consider how best to examine the xenocentric style in daily life. There has been increasing dialogue among philosophers and psychologists regarding the nature of virtues (e.g. Fowers et al., 2024; Ratchford et al., 2024), and along with my colleague Will Fleeson, I have argued elsewhere that Whole Trait Theory (WTT; Fleeson & Jayawickreme, 2021) may provide a good basis for describing the psychological basis of virtues (Jayawickreme & Fleeson, 2017). WTT focuses on psychological processes underlying traits by identifying patterns of intraindividual variability across situations and time, through which traits manifest. These patterns reveal the mechanisms underlying the production of thoughts, feelings, and behaviors characteristic of the trait (Jayawickreme et al., 2021b).
WTT is distinctive in proposing an integrative model of traits in which there are two parts to traits: a descriptive part and an explanatory part (Jayawickreme et al., 2019b). The explanatory part of WTT consists of social-cognitive mechanisms (Jayawickreme et al., 2019b). From a WTT perspective, the manifestation of intellectual virtues will be influenced by psychologically active features of situations (e.g. the presence or absence of the “Other”), which will either promote or inhibit the manifestation of the relevant virtue.
For example, my lab found that the perceived morality of a person’s positively related to intellectual humility (IH) in the moment, while the disagreeableness of the interaction was negatively related to IH (Zachry et al., 2018). In other words, manifestations of IH varied within a person over the hours and days of everyday life, and it varies in systematically predictable ways with meaningful contexts (Jayawickreme & Fleeson, 2023). We tested how specific situational contingencies influences the manifestation of IH and found that the perceived morality of the person positively predicted manifestation of IH, while the disagreeableness of the interaction negatively predicted manifestation of IH. This means that intellectual traits such IH involved behavior that varies within a person over the hours and days of everyday life, and it varies in systematically predictable ways with meaningful contexts (Zachry et al., 2018).
Additionally, the manifestation of intellectual traits is also impacted by the daily life goals that people aim to achieve. For example, McCabe and Fleeson (2016) have found that people use the Big Five traits of extraversion and conscientiousness as “tools” to achieve specific goals. WTT incorporates goals and other socio-cognitive mechanisms as mechanisms (TraitEXP) that explain the manifestations of specific virtues (TraitDES; Zachry et al., 2018). That is, WTT would propose that the core mechanisms underlying manifestations of intellectual virtues characteristic of the xenocentric style combines multiple attributes functioning as TraitEXP. These different mechanisms determine how frequently one acts in a specific manner. For example, having a courageous attitude to seeking out the truth may lead a person to manifest open-mindedness more frequently. When considering the xenocentric style, if the goal of arriving at a better understanding of the other increases one’s state IH, WTT would suggest that manifestations of IH is driven by the goal of better understanding the “other.” Conversely, if the goal of demonstrating one’s identification with an in-group decreases one’s state intellectual humility when interacting with the “other,” it suggests that IH is hindered by a desire to identify with one’s ingroup.
In my view, future research examining the xenocentric style should utilizing intensive longitudinal assessment strategies (such as experience sampling) to sample manifestations of the xenocentric style in daily life, examine the dynamic manifestations of specific daily goals underlying manifestations of different intellectual virtues characteristic of the xenocentric study, and the situational contingencies associated with such manifestations (i.e. when engaging with the “other”). Such studies would be greatly helpful in clarifying (a) which situations promote or inhibit the manifestation of thoughts, feelings, and behaviors characteristic of the xenocentric style, (b) which goals promote or inhibit the manifestation of those thoughts, feelings, and behaviors, and (c) the degree to which people differ both from each other and themselves (from context to context) in manifestations relevant to the xenocentric style.
Three final points
In conclusion, I would like to make three final comments on Streib’s thought-provoking proposal regarding cultivating a xenocentric style. First, I wonder whether it is necessary to hold the view that experiencing the “other” necessarily needs result in transformative change. As the philosopher Michael Brady and I have argued, which the view that experiencing significant life events (such as adversity) should lead to transformative change is commonly held (e.g. Tedeschi et al., 2018), there is limited evidence supporting this assumption and also neglects the (more likely) possibility that change in response to experiencing the other may be more gradual and incremental (Brady & Jayawickreme, 2023). To me, the question of whether one can successfully enact the xenocentric style incrementally or in a transformative manner is an empirical question.
Second, and relatedly, I strongly urge Strieb to think of the xenocentric style in terms of a continuous variable (such that that people can possess different levels of this “style”), rather than a type. While intuitively appealing, the idea of thinking of categorical “types” has limited acceptance in psychological science, because thinking about people’s trait level on a continuum allows researchers to examine with precision people’s standing on a trait relative to others (i.e. the extent to which some people manifest the xenocentric style to a greater degree compared to others; Jayawickreme & Fleeson, 2017). Additionally, there is the additional challenge with the “type” approach of defining a “cut-off” for when someone possesses or fails to possess the xenocentric style (see Haslam et al., 2012 for a relevant discussion).
Finally, I would like to draw Streib’s attention to one tension inherent in his argument. Toward the end of his argument, Streib notes that that embracing the xenocentric style can sometimes involve the negative “othering” of people who do not share one’s values (p. 170). This strikes me as a failure to manifest both the xenocentric style more generally, as well of specific intellectual virtues such as intellectual humility, open-mindedness, and curiosity. While it is of course important to be clear about one’s moral stances (e.g. against fascism and totalitarianism), it seems to me that it is nevertheless important to understand why others may possible moral beliefs one finds intolerable, and that at least from an epistemic perspective, possessing a xenocentric style in such situations is important (see Van Tongeren, 2024, for a similar argument regarding the value of intellectual humility). As I have discussed in past work, people who possess appropriate intellectual virtues characteristic of possessing the xenocentric style should see others as offering points of view, knowledge, and syntheses unavailable to oneself. These views will be useful for improving one’s own apprehension of the world (Porter et al., 2022), even if one strongly disagrees with them (De Keersmaecker et al., 2021; Jayawickreme & Fleeson, 2023; Van Tongeren, 2024). In my view, such an ability to understand why people possess such views is an important step in fostering understanding given the ubiquity of prejudice and other societal challenges in today’s world.
Footnotes
Author’s note
Some of the ideas discussed here were first presented in Ratchford et al. (2024), 
, and Jayawickreme and Fleeson (2023).
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This publication was made possible through the support of grant #62669 from the John Templeton Foundation awarded to Eranda Jayawickreme. The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the John Templeton Foundation.