The ability for individuals to constructively engage with one another across lines of difference is a critical feature of a healthy pluralistic society. This is also true in online discussion spaces like social media platforms. To date, much social media research has focused on preventing ills—like political polarization and the spread of misinformation. While this is important, enhancing the quality of online public discourse requires not just reducing ills, but also, promoting foundational human virtues. In this study, we focus on one particular virtue: “intellectual humility” (IH), or acknowledging the potential limitations in one’s own beliefs. Specifically, we explore the development of computational methods for measuring IH at scale. We manually curate and validate an IH codebook on 350 posts about religion drawn from subreddits and use them to develop LLM-based models for automating this measurement. Our best model achieves a Macro-F1 score of 0.64 across labels (and 0.70 when predicting IH/IA/Neutral at the coarse level), higher than an expected naive baseline of 0.51 (0.32 for IH/IA/Neutral) but lower than a human annotator-informed upper bound of 0.85 (0.83 for IH/IA/Neutral). Our results both highlight the challenging nature of detecting IH online—opening the door to new directions in NLP research—and also lay a foundation for computational social science researchers interested in analyzing and fostering more IH in online public discourse.

Word embeddings trained on large-scale historical corpora can illuminate human biases and stereotypes that perpetuate social inequalities. These embeddings are often trained in separate vector space models defined according to different attributes of interest. In this paper, we introduce a single, unified dynamic embedding model that learns attribute-specific word embeddings and apply it to a novel dataset—talk radio shows from around the US—to analyze perceptions about refugees. We validate our model on a benchmark dataset and apply it to two corpora of talk radio shows averaging 117 million words produced over one month across 83 stations and 64 cities. Our findings suggest that dynamic word embeddings are capable of identifying nuanced differences in public discourse about contentious topics, suggesting their usefulness as a tool for better understanding how the public perceives and engages with different issues across time, geography, and other dimensions.