Quote:
Originally Posted by Arch0wl
For the purposes of this thread I am chiefly concerned with whether this constitutes arrogance even if it's true, or if arrogance can be defined in some other way, and whether it's still wrong to believe you're superior if you have external evidence of this.
|
If we're gonna talk about the word "arrogance" in itself, you probably have to look at it in context, as I'm sure different people use the word differently, at least pertaining to the slightly different definitions we're presenting in this thread.
But independent of how the word is actually used, there are (I think) pretty easy and clear ways of defining the different definition cases we have for the word. (god that was awkward to say, w/e)
Rubix and I (as well as others here and there) already touched upon when it's wrong to believe you're superior. It matter less about whether or not you ACTUALLY are superior, it's whether or not you have a valid reason to communicate this, and your intentions. Obviously, if you really are better at something then it's not "wrong" (subjective morals, but I still think it's pretty clear) to believe what you are. It's about implications, whether or not this belief influences you to be a kind, open-minded person. Pretty much everything you've been talking about so far, most of the issues are answered by this general point, so I'm beginning to believe you could be overthinking the issue.
I don't necessarily blame people for over- or underestimating themselves at something, however. It's kind of a meta problem: How would you determine/describe how good you are at something? You'd have to potentially compare yourself with something better and something worse, and it's difficult to do so if you don't understand this something in the first place. This is basically a description of Dunning-Kruger effect. In addition, there's the issue of search space. Even if you are good or bad at something, it doesn't necessarily make it any easier to determine your skill when approached from different angles or similar related things. It's kind of like predicting the future; it's difficult for any system to describe the range of the system itself. (If you could predict the future, you could then avoid it and it wouldn't be the future anymore.)