He is a fool: Shun him.
He who knows not and knows that he knows not,
He is simple: Teach him.
He who knows and knows not that he knows,
He is asleep: Wake him.
He who knows and knows that he knows,
He is wise: Follow him."
That's listed in my "Treasury of the Familiar" as an Arab Proverb. It may be from the hadith, I would like if it were.
People can't see their own blind spots. That inability to see it pretty much defines a blind spot, so that is okay. Still...
Too much pussy-footing. Why is it that really, really painfully dumb people think that they are smart? Is there a mechanism for that? Probably something as simple as that people who are insecure about their abilities and intelligence keep learning and the people that are so sure either stop or simply cherry pick for things that confirm their own beliefs... which we all do to some extent.
Also, the strength of an opinion is almost inversely proportional to the strength of its basis. I see this commonly in politics where things that we will not even understand for two generations or more, and decisions that were made with information that the opiners could not have are condemned or praised with religious zeal. Speaking of religion... maybe it is just my extended circle of friends, but has anyone who has ever had direct contact with a (what's the noun I want here? God? Great Spirit? Satori? Deep religious experience?) ever felt the need to kill the people who disagreed? That seems the job of the ones who haven't. Maybe. Counter examples welcome.
A friend challenges opinions with a simple formula: "First, tell me what you know. Then tell me what you don't know. Only then tell me what you think." I'd attribute it, but he stole it from somebody else.
If we're honest, we'll probably never get past the list of 'don't knows' even on a relatively simple subject. Which is cool, because if you love the subject that is a list of research possibilities and new learning. Unless you already think you know it all. Ahem.
A tactical plan has a list of critical information: threats, hostages, weapons, history, dynamics, resources... it's a damn big list. A lot of those will have UNK written beside them, sometimes right up until the situation is resolved. You contingency plan a lot of it: If one hostage versus two; if hostages together versus hostages separate. But a potential killer is to put something down as 'known' which is untrue. UNK frees you to improvise. Finding an error of fact from your briefing in the middle of the operation makes everything you thought you knew suspect. It could be a trap. It feels like betrayal. Morale, decisiveness, team cohesion can all collapse in a second. It will only be recovered by esprit and decisive leadership.
What are your 'don't knows'? Especially in the things that you value most, the things that you consider yourself an expert in. I guarantee you the list is long. We are all 'simple' and can be taught. If the list isn't long or (especially) if you fail the jikkyoshado rule and defend your views against direct experience (especially your own!!!) re-think it, baby. That way is the easy path to bar-stool experts and arm-chair generals.