Epistemic Humility vs. Intellectual Instability

I semi-chided a friend about him not having enough epistemic humility. I was directed to the Stand to Reason's blog-post which compared this virtue to the vice of 'intellectual instability'.

I responded that there’s an important (though maybe not-so-obvious) difference:

• epistemic humility isn’t primarily about always changing one’s views but about sincerely listening to another person
• epistemic humility involves accepting the possibility that one hasn’t studied enough or can learn more (hence, the willingness to explore what someone else is saying)
• epistemic humility is about loving the other person as a thinker and therefore being open to ‘integrating’ one’s view with theirs (if possible)
• epistemic humility is about realizing that maybe God has more to say than we think

Whereas:

• intellectual instability is when one is lazy or poorly read, and so is tossed up and down by the wind
• intellectual instability is when one is AFRAID to make a stand and so relies on what others say to feel secured
• intellectual instability doesn’t love thinking or love people; it’s just greedy (or indulgent) for more perspectives
• intellectual instability refuses to accept what God has said

So, hmm, which better fits the church's modus operandi?

I also wrote that it's a moot point, because I didn't see how the strength of our convictions had anything to do with our willingness to listen and explore perspectives.