[FoJaR]

Originally Posted by stargroup100

The fun never ends.

So you do know what logical fallacies are right? I pointed out that your arguments and positions are just full of them and you don't seem to be aware. Let me help you here.


Cherry Picking
You agreed that in order to be arrogant, one must come across as insulting. You also said flat out that a high opinion of oneself "by definition" guarantees that it will come off as insulting.

You picked one example which is in fact insulting, and somehow you believe this proves your point that all high opinions of self are insulting.

so your cherry picking is okay, but mine isnt?

i'm not arguing that high opinions of self are insulting, i'm arguing that expressing a high opinion of self where you relate yourself to other people is always insulting, and that expressing a high opinion of yourself without using relative terms can be insulting depending on context.

when you say you are better than someone, that will almost always make them feel bad. is that general enough for you?

Unsupported assumption

which is no more unsupported than your counter claim.

Vague/meaningless terms
What is this "well defined" distribution?

sorry, i forget not everyone is used to dealing with statistics.

Hasty generalizations
Just because a small sample of people feel a certain way, it doesn't mean that's the case with the larger group. In fact, if opinions on arrogance was more influenced by local factors rather than wider cultural factors, your claim is both false and useless.

yeah, you were the one who used yourself as a sample... very representative...

Red herring
You asserted that culture pretty much determines how people view arrogance. I'm trying to argue that tying one's opinion of arrogance automatically to what a culture as a whole feels (if the culture even holds such a view) is ridiculous and is in no way relevant to the context of the situation. When someone does something possibly arrogant, only the opinions of the people interacting in that situation are relevant. You just went off on a tangent completely by stating something "obviously" true as if it proves your point.

yeah, that's true. i dont have statistics to lean on, but i would be willing to bet that i'm right. do a study, i'll make you a wager.

In any case, if that's your point, why is it then that having a high opinion of oneself automatically correlates to insulting someone? If group A thought the high opinion was insulting, but group B did not, and the context only involves people within group B, doesn't that negate your point that high opinion of oneself "by definition" is insulting?

i think part of the problem here is that i'm arguing statistics and you're arguing formalism. the truth is that formalism is mostly worthless, and that statistics are basically the only thing that matters.

you're arguing all or nothing, i'm arguing that the bulk of people who have a high opinion of themselves will insult the people around them. you'll have a few outliers who have a high opinion of themselves but arent annoying, but nothing statistically significant.

More red herrings
I tried to ask you about why you make a dichotomy between honesty and arrogance. Why can't a skilled person be honest and not arrogant? You were addressing my point by quoting me, and then you deflect the argument by saying you were talking to Arch. No you weren't.

because honesty is fine if you are asked. archowl says that he feels like being quiet is dishonesty by omission, even if he isnt asked. so i responded like i did. this is stuff from other conversations from TGB. you were not there, probably. there is background that you are missing.

Even if you were, you're not understanding what he's asking. He's asking what conditions could classify self opinion as arrogant, and you still haven't addressed your false dichotomy of honesty and arrogance.

again, this is really only relevant if you have the background, which you dont. you can go search TGB for it if you want, but you'll have to do it by browsing, because TGB doesnt have a search function.

So you're proving my point then? Or is this another cherry pick?
You either just agreed that one can be justified in having a high opinion of oneself without being arrogant, or you just gave another example where it is possible one could still be arrogant.

Again, I'm trying to address your point that a high opinion of oneself necessarily "by definition" is arrogance.

it seems to me like when i say "most of the time in the world" and you say "what about a job interview" you are the one that is cherry picking.

Still red herring
We are trying to discuss what makes one's expression of self opinion arrogant or not. We are not at the moment discussing what causes a person to act arrogantly or not. In other words, we are discussing how to classify and distinguish arrogance from non-arrogance, not what makes a person predisposed to coming off as arrogant.

yeah, arrogance is determined by the observer, not by the person being arrogant, by definition. you may be able to act arrogantly on purpose, but you can be arrogant without trying, because all that matters is the perception of your actions. this is what you are missing. this is why cultural norms matter. because extremely local determinations of arrogance are pointless. one data point is completely, completely useless. you need a large sample size for any kind of meaningful analysis.

More red herrings jesus (and technically also more cherry picking)
Your point was that there is no reason to make comparisons of your skill with other people. I gave you a reason. In order to improve one's skill at a competitive game, one must understand what kinds of strategies the opponent will make, and the only way to adapt to opponents is to study them, and this is the comparison.

yeah, and looking at players who are better than you and recognizing that they are better than you is the exact opposite of arrogance, so how does this have anything to do with what we are talking about? if you are recognizing that there are people better than you, you're not being arrogant.

What you said is indeed arrogant, but it is not the only way in which one compares oneself to others. Just because this particular behavior is arrogant and needless does not justify the notion that all comparisons with people are needless.

okay fine with me. looking up is fine, looking down is arrogant.

I don't even know
I'm clearly part of this conversation because I'm calling you out on how what you're saying has major flaws. It's irrelevant who is in the conversation because from an outside perspective anyone can point these out. All of my points are valid and do not need to call upon any information or opinions of Arch personally.

for a final time, if you want to be in on this part of the discussion, you need to go to TGB and find an old thread where we were talking about this. you are missing context.

Hasty generalizations
Again, one more time. My point is that you automatically link high opinion of self with insulting others, "by definition" of arrogance. But clearly, you already admitted that this may not always be the case, and there could exist exceptions. My point is that by asserting high opinion of self necessarily implies arrogance ignores these exceptions.

and my opinion is that deductive reasoning is a completely pointless circle jerk, and that to have a meaningful conversation about anything, you need statistics. my own perception of social norms gives me a pretty good back of the envelope answer to this. you can always come up with an exception to a rule. in a 400 square foot room filled with air, there is always a chance that there will be no particles in a one square foot cube at any given time. the chance is statistically very, very low, but non zero.

Like, with all due respect, I don't want to insult your intelligence by thinking you can't see the flaws in your argument when I've outlined them this clearly.

and i dont want to insult your common sense by thinking that you really cant see the forest for the trees.