What is arrogance/humility, what is bragging, is it bad, and why?

[stargroup100]

I can't tell if you're serious but because this is Critical Thinking I'll assume so.

Originally Posted by FoJaR

high opinion period. michael jordan in his prime, best player in the game. anyone can say it but him. everyone should have said it. if he says it, it's arrogance.

I have a personal objection to defining arrogance as simply the "high opinion of oneself". Not only is this not what the dictionary definition says, I have yet to ever come across in real life a situation where the word was used in this context. There is already a pretty universal negative connotation to this word, so what would be the point of defining arrogance in such a way?

Originally Posted by FoJaR

well first i'd like to see a map of where it's taboo vs where it's acceptable, and then i'll start conjecturing.

The question is about what fundamentally accepted ideas for different groups of people or cultures could cause a different perspective on the quality of arrogance. The quote does use the word "place" but it is not referring to a literal place.

Even if it did, it really doesn't hold much significance. The only roots you can draw from are explanations from large-scale cultural values, which don't necessarily lead any opinion of arrogance, and you don't need a map for these either.

Originally Posted by FoJaR

only if you are actually being dishonest. if you're really good at something, chances are that it's either really easy to be really good at that thing, which means that you're not special, or that you probably dont know enough or arent self aware enough to know where your shortcomings are.

This. I'm willing to bet you didn't spend much time thinking through this one.

The point of your statement is to explain why someone can be good at something and still be truthfully humble. What you're saying here is that if something isn't easy, then most likely the reason for being skilled and humble is that they're not good enough to know how skilled they are. Does this mean that in order to be honest, someone that is only somewhat skilled can be humble, and someone that is extremely skilled and self-aware can't?

On top of that, this implies the extremely skilled person is now left in a position where they have no choice but to either be dishonest or arrogant. Again, how are these definitions practical?

Originally Posted by FoJaR

spending time comparing yourself to the people around you is pointless anyways.

In the context of comparing skill levels of other people, of course this is not pointless. By comparing your own skill with others, you can assess what other people are doing that's better than you or worse than you, and as a result improve yourself by emulating the better. In most situations, you can even learn something from people worse than you, because you become aware of the possible choices and outcomes you didn't consider before, and you can utilize that.

Comparing who is generally better or worse is probably only useful in setting approximate benchmarks for yourself to track your goal progress, and this is still far from useless.

[Arch0wl]

In the context of comparing skill levels of other people, of course this is not pointless. By comparing your own skill with others, you can assess what other people are doing that's better than you or worse than you, and as a result improve yourself by emulating the better. In most situations, you can even learn something from people worse than you, because you become aware of the possible choices and outcomes you didn't consider before, and you can utilize that.

adding to this:

If people didn't self-compare, no progress in exercise science would happen.

(Okay, it would, but it would happen at a turtle pace.)

I also can't think of how you could possibly improve much as a writer without doing this. In every writing course I've taken, you learn how other writers write so that you know how to, among other things, distinguish yourself.

[FoJaR]

Originally Posted by stargroup100

I can't tell if you're serious but because this is Critical Thinking I'll assume so.


I have a personal objection to defining arrogance as simply the "high opinion of oneself". Not only is this not what the dictionary definition says, I have yet to ever come across in real life a situation where the word was used in this context. There is already a pretty universal negative connotation to this word, so what would be the point of defining arrogance in such a way?

from merriam webster:

: an insulting way of thinking or behaving that comes from believing that you are better, smarter, or more important than other people

it's more about how you interact with other people, and really has nothing to do with whether or not that behavior has any basis in fact. you can be the best in the world, but if you go around saying it, you're being a dick. an arrogant dick. by definition. really the only way to determine if you are being arrogant is to take a poll of the people around you, because arrogance is more about whether or not you are rubbing people around you the wrong way than whether or not you are justified in saying the things that you are saying.

The question is about what fundamentally accepted ideas for different groups of people or cultures could cause a different perspective on the quality of arrogance. The quote does use the word "place" but it is not referring to a literal place.

Even if it did, it really doesn't hold much significance. The only roots you can draw from are explanations from large-scale cultural values, which don't necessarily lead any opinion of arrogance, and you don't need a map for these either.

actually what is culturally acceptable is really all that matters, because you're only being arrogant if you're insulting the people around you. if it's normal to talk about how great you are in your culture, it's not going to insult the people around you, so it's not arrogance.

This. I'm willing to bet you didn't spend much time thinking through this one.

The point of your statement is to explain why someone can be good at something and still be truthfully humble. What you're saying here is that if something isn't easy, then most likely the reason for being skilled and humble is that they're not good enough to know how skilled they are. Does this mean that in order to be honest, someone that is only somewhat skilled can be humble, and someone that is extremely skilled and self-aware can't?

On top of that, this implies the extremely skilled person is now left in a position where they have no choice but to either be dishonest or arrogant. Again, how are these definitions practical?

i'm saying that first of all, most of the people who think they're the best arent, by a long shot, and those few that are the best are only the best so far, or even at the moment, and only at one thing. and they're probably pretty shitty at a ton of other things, and probably really shitty at a lot of other things.

the point is, overall you still dont have any reason to brag.

In the context of comparing skill levels of other people, of course this is not pointless. By comparing your own skill with others, you can assess what other people are doing that's better than you or worse than you, and as a result improve yourself by emulating the better. In most situations, you can even learn something from people worse than you, because you become aware of the possible choices and outcomes you didn't consider before, and you can utilize that.

Comparing who is generally better or worse is probably only useful in setting approximate benchmarks for yourself to track your goal progress, and this is still far from useless.

maybe if you have these people right in front of you and can ask them about that stuff, but you can track your own progress without comparing yourself to the people around you.

[FoJaR]

Originally Posted by Arch0wl

adding to this:

If people didn't self-compare, no progress in exercise science would happen.

(Okay, it would, but it would happen at a turtle pace.)

I also can't think of how you could possibly improve much as a writer without doing this. In every writing course I've taken, you learn how other writers write so that you know how to, among other things, distinguish yourself.

if you think that learning how other writers write so that you can compare yourself to them on a scale of good to bad, you're missing the point.

[FoJaR]

Originally Posted by FoJaR

i'm saying that first of all, most of the people who think they're the best arent, by a long shot, and those few that are the best are only the best so far, or even at the moment, and only at one thing. and they're probably pretty shitty at a ton of other things, and probably really shitty at a lot of other things.

the point is, overall you still dont have any reason to brag.

like if you're gonna go around saying "i'm the best at X, and it would be dishonest for me to keep quiet about it" you should probably also mention all your shortcomings, all the things you are average at, etc. because if omission is dishonesty, you had better not omit anything.

unless it's just an ego thing, and honesty is just your way of rationalizing your behavior.

[SC_coolguy44]

1) Arrogance can be a false opinion of yourself unless you have some stuff to back up that you have achieved something the way you did. It is a high opinion of yourself where you give little to no credit to others helping you along the way and only want to make your ego look bigger. If you are legitimately the best at something and you boast about something, that would be considered arrogance.
2) People get offended by arrogance/bragging because they find it to be too self-absorbent of the person who is doing said bragging. Bragging can be good if it is very minor and doesn't continue for days on end or if the person who bested something doesn't say anything to belittle everyone else.
3) No it isn't dishonest because it shows you are good at something but at the same time you have a good attitude about it which also makes one a good person. From this explanation, this doesn't paint an inaccurate picture of oneself.

[stargroup100]

Ho boy this is gonna be fun.

Originally Posted by FoJaR

from merriam webster:
arrogance - an insulting way of thinking or behaving that comes from believing that you are better, smarter, or more important than other people

Okay, so are we gonna go by this definition? We agree then?

Originally Posted by FoJaR

it's more about how you interact with other people, and really has nothing to do with whether or not that behavior has any basis in fact.

Okay cool, we do agree. So that's a correction of your previous statement right?

Originally Posted by FoJaR

you can be the best in the world, but if you go around saying it, you're being a dick. an arrogant dick. by definition.

...what

See, this lines up with your last post:

Originally Posted by FoJaR

high opinion period. michael jordan in his prime, best player in the game. anyone can say it but him. everyone should have said it. if he says it, it's arrogance.

Assuming you believe both of these, then you are directly implying "saying 'I am the best'" will "by definition" rub people the wrong way.

I am living counterexample of your point. If someone is truly the best at something and expresses it when it is relevant, I will absolutely not see it as arrogance.

Originally Posted by FoJaR

really the only way to determine if you are being arrogant is to take a poll of the people around you

Why does it have to be a poll? Who gets to cast a vote? How are votes cast? What is the criteria that needs to be met? How are you going to go poll everyone involved anytime you need to need to determine the arrogance of an individual? Are you so certain there's no other way to determine this?

Originally Posted by FoJaR

actually what is culturally acceptable is really all that matters, because you're only being arrogant if you're insulting the people around you. if it's normal to talk about how great you are in your culture, it's not going to insult the people around you, so it's not arrogance.

You are assuming that
1. All cultures have an accepted perspective to what counts as arrogance.
2. For any given context, all persons of a given culture have the same feelings about what is considered arrogance.

What I consider arrogance may be totally different from what my brother considers arrogance, and we share a near identical culture.

You even said that to be considered arrogant, we should take a poll. What happens if you mix populations from two or more cultures (who, let's just hypothetically say, all share the same opinion on arrogance within their culture)? Does what culture they belong to automatically dictate their position of arrogance? I find this notion absolutely absurd.

Originally Posted by FoJaR

i'm saying that first of all, most of the people who think they're the best arent, by a long shot, and those few that are the best are only the best so far, or even at the moment, and only at one thing. and they're probably pretty shitty at a ton of other things, and probably really shitty at a lot of other things.

So what you're saying is, only under a particular context is this person considered the best. What if his statement of his own skill explains and demonstrates understanding of this context? Then he is still being honest, regardless of how good or bad the person is at anything else. Are you still going to make a strict dichotomy between honesty and arrogance? How are you so certain this is still going to rub everyone the wrong way?

Originally Posted by FoJaR

the point is, overall you still dont have any reason to brag.

Suppose I'm going into an interview for a job. Everyone else has been shown to be qualified, but I know I'm better than everyone else at the job and deserve it. Should I undercut myself or express my honest opinion of myself? Is this not considered bragging? Either way, it's a high opinion of myself so it's arrogant according to your definition. How would this be insulting?

Originally Posted by FoJaR

maybe if you have these people right in front of you and can ask them about that stuff, but you can track your own progress without comparing yourself to the people around you.

Except this statement is not true for most all skills. You may be able to name a handful of things that don't necessitate comparison with others, but there are activities in which comparison to other people is absolutely unavoidable. Any competitive game with interacting strategies between two or more players is an example of this.

Originally Posted by FoJaR

like if you're gonna go around saying "i'm the best at X, and it would be dishonest for me to keep quiet about it" you should probably also mention all your shortcomings, all the things you are average at, etc. because if omission is dishonesty, you had better not omit anything.

Okay, so now we're also going to equate omission and dishonesty? If I don't tell you I had steak for dinner last night but I told you I had potatoes, am I being dishonest? How are you even going to realistically make someone assess everything else that exists? Do I need to pull up a comprehensive list of every sport, game, academic field and sub-field, skill, etc. and give you my personal opinion of my proficiency in everything there? This is absolutely not realistic and is irrelevant in the first place.



Summary
You have tons of fallacies in your arguments, all under the general presumption that any kind of expression of self in high regard is most definitely unnecessary and insulting to most everyone else. This basic presumption is unsupported, and leads to a bunch of poor arguments with holes in them.

All of these fallacies can be patched if you go back to the drawing board and realize that under certain circumstances, high opinion of self is not only not insulting but the right thing to do, and comparison of self and others is a critically fundamental method in which all people use to improve their own lives and interpret the reality around them.

[FoJaR]

Originally Posted by stargroup100

I am living counterexample of your point. If someone is truly the best at something and expresses it when it is relevant, I will absolutely not see it as arrogance.

how about someone who is better than you, maybe better than everyone in the room, objectively, at something delcaring that they are better? is that okay? if i beat you at counter strike repeatedly, and i say to your face that i am better than you, how is that not a dickish thing to do? it may be true, it may be relevant to the topic at hand, but it's still an arrogant thing to do.

Why does it have to be a poll? Who gets to cast a vote? How are votes cast? What is the criteria that needs to be met? How are you going to go poll everyone involved anytime you need to need to determine the arrogance of an individual? Are you so certain there's no other way to determine this?

jesus christ.

You are assuming that
1. All cultures have an accepted perspective to what counts as arrogance.
2. For any given context, all persons of a given culture have the same feelings about what is considered arrogance.

i am assuming that all cultures have a baseline perspective on what counts as arrogance, and that a solid majority of persons in a culture have the same feelings about what is considered arrogance, yes. there's gonna be a distribution, but it's going to be a well defined one.

What I consider arrogance may be totally different from what my brother considers arrogance, and we share a near identical culture.

yeah, but if you were to take a survey of your entire family and neighbors etc, you would have a pretty solid idea of what your culture as a whole thinks, and generally it would agree.

You even said that to be considered arrogant, we should take a poll. What happens if you mix populations from two or more cultures (who, let's just hypothetically say, all share the same opinion on arrogance within their culture)? Does what culture they belong to automatically dictate their position of arrogance? I find this notion absolutely absurd.

too bad?

i mean this isnt totally uncommon. when you mix two groups, a lot of the time actions that go without notice in one group are a big deal for the other group. one group of people might not consider something arrogant while the other does, and guess what? that's okay. i mean, sometimes it causes problems, but there's nothing to stop two groups of people from seeing things differently.

So what you're saying is, only under a particular context is this person considered the best. What if his statement of his own skill explains and demonstrates understanding of this context? Then he is still being honest, regardless of how good or bad the person is at anything else. Are you still going to make a strict dichotomy between honesty and arrogance? How are you so certain this is still going to rub everyone the wrong way?

well first of all, the honesty comment is directed toward archowl who has in the past used his need to be honest as rationalization for arrogance etc.

Suppose I'm going into an interview for a job. Everyone else has been shown to be qualified, but I know I'm better than everyone else at the job and deserve it. Should I undercut myself or express my honest opinion of myself? Is this not considered bragging? Either way, it's a high opinion of myself so it's arrogant according to your definition. How would this be insulting?

well, this is a tough situation. in job interviews, it's expected that you will try to sell yourself. you could say that the culture of job interviews is more lenient when it comes to high self opinion. how you say what you say may very well come off as arrogant even in a job interview though, so it's something to be careful of.

again, arrogance is all about how people perceive the way you talk about yourself. because of cultural norms, most people generally have a good idea of where the line is in a given situation. some people cross the line because they are oblivious or lack social grace, some cross it because they have disorders, and some cross it because they're assholes or because they like feeling better than the people around them.

Except this statement is not true for most all skills. You may be able to name a handful of things that don't necessitate comparison with others, but there are activities in which comparison to other people is absolutely unavoidable. Any competitive game with interacting strategies between two or more players is an example of this.

and good taste dictates that when the game is over you are polite to the person that you beat. going over to the person you just beat and saying "i beat you because i'm better than you" may be true, but it's also pretty arrogant and rude.

Okay, so now we're also going to equate omission and dishonesty? If I don't tell you I had steak for dinner last night but I told you I had potatoes, am I being dishonest? How are you even going to realistically make someone assess everything else that exists? Do I need to pull up a comprehensive list of every sport, game, academic field and sub-field, skill, etc. and give you my personal opinion of my proficiency in everything there? This is absolutely not realistic and is irrelevant in the first place.

again, this is to archowl, not you. this is in reference to his need to talk about how he's better than people and how he feels that not doing so is dishonest. you arent part of this conversation.

Summary
You have tons of fallacies in your arguments, all under the general presumption that any kind of expression of self in high regard is most definitely unnecessary and insulting to most everyone else. This basic presumption is unsupported, and leads to a bunch of poor arguments with holes in them.

All of these fallacies can be patched if you go back to the drawing board and realize that under certain circumstances, high opinion of self is not only not insulting but the right thing to do, and comparison of self and others is a critically fundamental method in which all people use to improve their own lives and interpret the reality around them.

like it or not, in western culture most of the time when someone tells the people around them that they are better than them, that person is being arrogant, according to the definition. it is generally perceived as being in bad taste.

[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.

Originally Posted by FoJaR

how about someone who is better than you, maybe better than everyone in the room, objectively, at something delcaring that they are better? is that okay? if i beat you at counter strike repeatedly, and i say to your face that i am better than you, how is that not a dickish thing to do? it may be true, it may be relevant to the topic at hand, but it's still an arrogant thing to do.

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.

Originally Posted by FoJaR

i am assuming that all cultures have a baseline perspective on what counts as arrogance,

Unsupported assumption

Originally Posted by FoJaR

and that a solid majority of persons in a culture have the same feelings about what is considered arrogance, yes. there's gonna be a distribution, but it's going to be a well defined one.

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

Originally Posted by FoJaR

yeah, but if you were to take a survey of your entire family and neighbors etc, you would have a pretty solid idea of what your culture as a whole thinks, and generally it would agree.

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.

Originally Posted by FoJaR

too bad?

i mean this isnt totally uncommon. when you mix two groups, a lot of the time actions that go without notice in one group are a big deal for the other group. one group of people might not consider something arrogant while the other does, and guess what? that's okay. i mean, sometimes it causes problems, but there's nothing to stop two groups of people from seeing things differently.

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.

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?

Originally Posted by FoJaR

well first of all, the honesty comment is directed toward archowl who has in the past used his need to be honest as rationalization for arrogance etc.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by FoJaR

well, this is a tough situation. in job interviews, it's expected that you will try to sell yourself. you could say that the culture of job interviews is more lenient when it comes to high self opinion. how you say what you say may very well come off as arrogant even in a job interview though, so it's something to be careful of.

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.

Originally Posted by FoJaR

again, arrogance is all about how people perceive the way you talk about yourself. because of cultural norms, most people generally have a good idea of where the line is in a given situation. some people cross the line because they are oblivious or lack social grace, some cross it because they have disorders, and some cross it because they're assholes or because they like feeling better than the people around them.

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.

Originally Posted by FoJaR

and good taste dictates that when the game is over you are polite to the person that you beat. going over to the person you just beat and saying "i beat you because i'm better than you" may be true, but it's also pretty arrogant and rude.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by FoJaR

again, this is to archowl, not you. this is in reference to his need to talk about how he's better than people and how he feels that not doing so is dishonest. you arent part of this conversation.

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.

Originally Posted by FoJaR

like it or not, in western culture most of the time when someone tells the people around them that they are better than them, that person is being arrogant, according to the definition. it is generally perceived as being in bad taste.

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.


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.

[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.

[awein999]

I don't claim to be an expert on this topic but regardless I might have rare insight that could be interesting:

Arrogance is when someone oversells their own abilities and makes him/herself seem superior. There are different ways to conduct arrogance however. A unskilled arrogant person is probably less self-aware and more likely to be interpreted as an insufferable worthless asshole douchebag -- the ones in which most of us probably think of when we think "arrogant".
It gets really interesting when actual arrogant behavior is interpreted as a possession of skills/traits of the person that are in actuality not there. It means this person is a "smart arrogant manipulator" capable of deceiving people into convincing them their skills are awesome and worthy of self and praise. It ends up coming full circle to partly the skill (ironic isn't it :P) of the person conducting the arrogant behavior/whether they are self-aware of what they are doing, however, the biggest factor is sheer willingness to be cutthroat -- it takes a certain mindset/personality. My own personal opinion is that smart arrogant manipulators are some of the worst people for our society because the people that take on this tactic are usually only in it for personal gain and often become huge societal influences. These people are truly the magicians of the world.

Humility is generally about underselling your own abilities. In the American culture I'm exposed to it's probably more expected not to brag about accomplishments to everybody because that can often imply that you require validation. At the same time it's probably good to at least show people what you can do though. It's kinda a double standard. I think it stems from people being jealous of what others can do and purposely trying to bring achievers down. Personally I think there is nothing wrong with bragging about accomplishments. It helps get yourself out there and helps people understand who you are better. Showing people what you can do is not arrogance. Just make sure not to cross the fine line between neediness and getting yourself out there. It would be more needy if you post your relatively small accomplishments everywhere all the time.

[FoJaR]

basically because arrogance is defined in terms of human perception, it becomes statistical. pure deductive reasoning will not work. period.

without real data, all we can do is guess at probable median values (cultural norms) and argue about what things are going to narrow or spread the distribution (cultural subgroups, people with disorders, etc).

[stargroup100]

Originally Posted by FoJaR

so your cherry picking is okay, but mine isnt?

Originally Posted by FoJaR

which is no more unsupported than your counter claim.

Originally Posted by FoJaR

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.

Burden of proof
I'm gonna cover all of these with this blanket because I'm not the one making any arguments. I came into the thread to talk about why your reasoning is flawed. I don't need to justify claims, only to counter yours.

Originally Posted by FoJaR

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?

You're clearly not understanding what I'm saying because the whole point of everything I'm saying is to debunk this claim.

If you make the claim that this is "always" the case, and I point out an exception, your statement is no longer true. And then right below it, you explain yourself why you agree with me even though you fail to admit this. The fact that you used "almost" should mean that you understand why the above bolded statement is false.

If I say playing basketball always results in injury, all I need is one example of basketball not resulting in injury to demonstrate this statement is false.

Originally Posted by FoJaR

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

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.

I know my math, I've taken statistics. A "well-defined distribution" doesn't mean anything here because you haven't given the parameters in which statistics are taken.

It's like me saying that I have a graph that disproves that cultures have a stance on arrogance. The concept of a graph here is useless unless I explain what this graph represents.

The problem isn't "formalism" (whatever the fuck that is). It's that you cannot form coherently logical arguments. Which is the point of this board.

Originally Posted by FoJaR

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.

Red herring
Once again, we're talking about how to classify arrogance and non-arrogance. Your claim is generalization. Even if I accept it as true, it offers nothing to the current topic and only demonstrates your initial claims were poorly thought out. This is why your statements are malformed and incorrect.

Originally Posted by FoJaR

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.

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.

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.

If the conversation has nothing to do with anyone else, don't post it here, go to private messages.

But that still doesn't change the fact that there are fundamental flaws with what you said, even without needing context. I don't need context to tell someone who claims 2+2=5 that he's wrong.

Originally Posted by FoJaR

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.

Stop with the red herrings, please
I was addressing your following claim:

Originally Posted by FoJaR

spending time comparing yourself to the people around you is pointless anyways.

I did not ever assert any relationship between comparisons of self and others with arrogance. You made a claim. I demonstrated why your claim is wrong.

As for the claim itself, you seem to be misunderstanding what it means to compare oneself to someone else. Not only did you misinterpret my example, but my example is indeed a "comparison". You seem to define your comparison as some kind of mockery of other people that doesn't provide any gain, so of course you would make the claim that it is useless and provides no benefit. But that's not what your words are saying, and this is not honest intellectual discourse.

If I say "God exists." and I define God to be the universe (which is something that exists), my claim is meaningless and not intellectually honest.

[stargroup100]

By the way, deductive reasoning is not "a completely pointless circle jerk" because in order to interpret and understand a statement (that may require statistics and data to demonstrate) you need to use deductive reasoning to understand it. We do not in any way use "pure deductive reasoning", and since you think that, you clearly don't know what it really means. (But it doesn't matter anyways because that's not what we're doing)

If I say "Most ravens are black." you need to use deductive reasoning in order to understand what each of those words mean, and what they mean when put together, and THEN you can make a judgment as to whether or not it's true.

This isn't even a topic of statistics. This is a topic of psychology and sociology (or something I dunno, but it's definitely not statistics). Just because it involves the human perception does not make this issue necessarily statistical. Why would you even suggest statistics as the end all evidence required to demonstrate a concept that is not related to statistics? It doesn't make sense.

[FoJaR]

Originally Posted by stargroup100

You're clearly not understanding what I'm saying because the whole point of everything I'm saying is to debunk this claim.

If you make the claim that this is "always" the case, and I point out an exception, your statement is no longer true. And then right below it, you explain yourself why you agree with me even though you fail to admit this. The fact that you used "almost" should mean that you understand why the above bolded statement is false.

and i'm saying that if something is true 99% of the time, that's good enough. it's behavior is well defined. corner cases are unimportant if statistically they make up a very small portion of the data. they might be important if you are going to a job interview and you want to make sure that you dont come off as arrogant, but again, you dont really control that anyways.

If I say playing basketball always results in injury, all I need is one example of basketball not resulting in injury to demonstrate this statement is false.

nice red herring. try comparing my claim to something that is true most of the time and then we can talk.

I know my math, I've taken statistics. A "well-defined distribution" doesn't mean anything here because you haven't given the parameters in which statistics are taken.

It's like me saying that I have a graph that disproves that cultures have a stance on arrogance. The concept of a graph here is useless unless I explain what this graph represents.

how about the thing we are talking about? whether or not someone saying "i am better than you" is insulting.

The problem isn't "formalism" (whatever the fuck that is). It's that you cannot form coherently logical arguments. Which is the point of this board.

no, the problem is that you are too hung up on the rules of logic to listen to a simple argument.

Red herring
Once again, we're talking about how to classify arrogance and non-arrogance. Your claim is generalization. Even if I accept it as true, it offers nothing to the current topic and only demonstrates your initial claims were poorly thought out. This is why your statements are malformed and incorrect.

i think one main difference here is that i feel like i have a baseline feel for what societal norms are when it comes to arrogance. do you?

If the conversation has nothing to do with anyone else, don't post it here, go to private messages.

it has to do with the topic at hand, it just doesnt have anything to do with you. i'm sorry if that hurts your feelings, i guess.

But that still doesn't change the fact that there are fundamental flaws with what you said, even without needing context. I don't need context to tell someone who claims 2+2=5 that he's wrong.

but what if you're missing the context that the two people are only concerned with order of magnitude? or what if you're missing the context that the two numbers were added in bash (which only stores ints) and the twos were automatically rounded down from 2.49999999 before being added?

Stop with the red herrings, please
I was addressing your following claim:

I did not ever assert any relationship between comparisons of self and others with arrogance. You made a claim. I demonstrated why your claim is wrong.

you must have missed the part where i agreed with you:

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

As for the claim itself, you seem to be misunderstanding what it means to compare oneself to someone else. Not only did you misinterpret my example, but my example is indeed a "comparison". You seem to define your comparison as some kind of mockery of other people that doesn't provide any gain, so of course you would make the claim that it is useless and provides no benefit. But that's not what your words are saying, and this is not honest intellectual discourse.

If I say "God exists." and I define God to be the universe (which is something that exists), my claim is meaningless and not intellectually honest.

no, i'm saying that comparing yourself with someone below you is never useful. i would like to see you come up with an example of why i am wrong. because i'm pretty sure you cant.

[FoJaR]

Originally Posted by stargroup100

By the way, deductive reasoning is not "a completely pointless circle jerk" because in order to interpret and understand a statement (that may require statistics and data to demonstrate) you need to use deductive reasoning to understand it. We do not in any way use "pure deductive reasoning", and since you think that, you clearly don't know what it really means. (But it doesn't matter anyways because that's not what we're doing)

If I say "Most ravens are black." you need to use deductive reasoning in order to understand what each of those words mean, and what they mean when put together, and THEN you can make a judgment as to whether or not it's true.

This isn't even a topic of statistics. This is a topic of psychology and sociology (or something I dunno, but it's definitely not statistics). Just because it involves the human perception does not make this issue necessarily statistical. Why would you even suggest statistics as the end all evidence required to demonstrate a concept that is not related to statistics? It doesn't make sense.

simple. it relates to human perception, and humans and their perception of things are not purely logical, so the only way to find a real answer is to sample.

[stargroup100]

Originally Posted by FoJaR

and i'm saying that if something is true 99% of the time, that's good enough. it's behavior is well defined. corner cases are unimportant if statistically they make up a very small portion of the data. they might be important if you are going to a job interview and you want to make sure that you dont come off as arrogant, but again, you dont really control that anyways.

Again, this is not the point. We are not generalizing about what is usually arrogant, we are trying to come up with a method to distinguish arrogance from non-arrogance.

Suppose you've been falsely accused of a crime and you have to go to court. Because 99% of the people who are accused are guilty, we say "by definition" you are guilty and sentence you. This is not fair, and this is not how we distinguish the guilty from the innocent.

Originally Posted by FoJaR

no, the problem is that you are too hung up on the rules of logic to listen to a simple argument.

You clearly don't belong in this board if you think we don't need logical rules to form coherent arguments.

Originally Posted by FoJaR

i think one main difference here is that i feel like i have a baseline feel for what societal norms are when it comes to arrogance. do you?

Again, if you think that I don't it means you're grossly misinterpreting the discussion.

Originally Posted by FoJaR

it has to do with the topic at hand, it just doesnt have anything to do with you. i'm sorry if that hurts your feelings, i guess.

My feelings aren't hurt. If anything, I revel in this kind of discussion, and you're an easy target.

Originally Posted by FoJaR

but what if you're missing the context that the two people are only concerned with order of magnitude? or what if you're missing the context that the two numbers were added in bash (which only stores ints) and the twos were automatically rounded down from 2.49999999 before being added?

If the context is not a part of the argument then adding context to make it right is still intellectually dishonest. You don't get to just throw in context to your fundamentally flawed argument right.

Cashier: Sir, you bought this for $2 and that for $2 as well. You owe me $5, not $4.

You can't just attach context to this because the cashier is just flat out wrong.

Originally Posted by FoJaR

you must have missed the part where i agreed with you:

Except I don't agree with you. Looking up can be obnoxious, looking down is not necessarily arrogant.

Originally Posted by FoJaR

no, i'm saying that comparing yourself with someone below you is never useful. i would like to see you come up with an example of why i am wrong. because i'm pretty sure you cant.

I gave you an example. Competitive games. I literally explained an example to you. If the player you can beat in skill uses a strategy you haven't considered, you can learn from the experience and anticipate it for future games.

Are you not satisfied with this example?


Your arguments are one-dimensional, incoherent, and flat out wrong. I've understood all of your points, and they're either off-topic, "obvious" or wrong.
- We already understand that arrogance is based on perception.
- We already understand that this is not a "purely logical" issue, no one is arguing using "pure logic".
- You refuse to be intellectually honest by redefining terms and applying fallacy after fallacy.
- When I try to address your claims and explain why you're wrong, you deliberately redirect the topic or shift the burden of proof.
- You don't even think logic is important for a rational discussion so you clearly don't belong here.

[FoJaR]

Originally Posted by stargroup100

Again, this is not the point. We are not generalizing about what is usually arrogant, we are trying to come up with a method to distinguish arrogance from non-arrogance.

okay, let me be very very clear... arrogance is determined by the biases of the observer. any one action may be arrogant or not arrogant, depending on who it is that sees the action. there is no way to distinguish arrogance from non arrogance without talking about the perspectives of the people who view actions. in any one situation a given action may be deemed arrogant or non arrogant, depending on the opinion of the person who views that action. what is viewed as arrogant is, to a large part, dependent on what is considered arrogant by the culture overall.

Suppose you've been falsely accused of a crime and you have to go to court. Because 99% of the people who are accused are guilty, we say "by definition" you are guilty and sentence you. This is not fair, and this is not how we distinguish the guilty from the innocent.

except that laws are absolute, and arrogance is dependent on opinion. this is where you are getting confused.

You clearly don't belong in this board if you think we don't need logical rules to form coherent arguments.

way to be an asshole. congratulations, you are an asshole.

Again, if you think that I don't it means you're grossly misinterpreting the discussion.

read the definition of arrogance. read it twice. read it three times. read it until you understand it. it clearly might take a while.

My feelings aren't hurt. If anything, I revel in this kind of discussion, and you're an easy target.

this is why you are missing everything. you cant see the forest for the trees. do you know what that means? i suspect you dont.

If the context is not a part of the argument then adding context to make it right is still intellectually dishonest. You don't get to just throw in context to your fundamentally flawed argument right.

you dont understand my argument, clearly.

Cashier: Sir, you bought this for $2 and that for $2 as well. You owe me $5, not $4.

You can't just attach context to this because the cashier is just flat out wrong.

i think this is what you would call a red herring. i'm at work talking to my boss and i say 2+2=5. he understands my point, and nods, meanwhile you jump in and call me an idiot, because 2+2 is obviously 4.

[b]Except I don't agree with you. Looking up can be obnoxious, looking down is not necessarily arrogant.

give me an example of the latter. you havent done that yet.

I gave you an example. Competitive games. I literally explained an example to you. If the player you can beat in skill uses a strategy you haven't considered, you can learn from the experience and anticipate it for future games.

you can look at his strategy and appreciate it without comparing. try again.

Are you not satisfied with this example?

nope! you havent demonstrated that a comparison is necessary, or even relevant. looking at a good strategy that you havent employed is, in a way, looking at someone better than you at something. all you get by comparing is which is better.

Your arguments are one-dimensional, incoherent, and flat out wrong. I've understood all of your points, and they're either off-topic, "obvious" or wrong.
- We already understand that arrogance is based on perception.
- We already understand that this is not a "purely logical" issue, no one is arguing using "pure logic".
- You refuse to be intellectually honest by redefining terms and applying fallacy after fallacy.
- When I try to address your claims and explain why you're wrong, you deliberately redirect the topic or shift the burden of proof.
- You don't even think logic is important for a rational discussion so you clearly don't belong here.

really? because if what you're saying is true, you're aruging semantics and being an asshole, so maybe you dont belong here...

[stargroup100]

Originally Posted by FoJaR

except that laws are absolute, and arrogance is dependent on opinion. this is where you are getting confused.

You still need to explain what this has to do with anything. And either way this does not change the fact that we are discussing how to distinguish something, not generalizing.

Example: If I say "Most apples are red." this has nothing to do with how we determine whether or not an apple is red. We distinguish a red apple with a non-red apple by using our eyes, but this has no bearing on the statement "Most apples are red."

Example: Saying that most people don't have cancer does not help you in any way determine whether or not someone has cancer. If a patient comes in for a cancer test, you don't just say "Most people don't have cancer, so you definitely don't have cancer." We are discussing the test of arrogance, not generalizing statements about arrogance.

Originally Posted by FoJaR

way to be an asshole. congratulations, you are an asshole.

That depends on your perception. Just because I insult doesn't mean I'm an asshole, you'd have to take a poll of the people in this thread and get some probable mean values, find a distribution. Unless you do that, you can't prove I'm an asshole.

Originally Posted by FoJaR

read the definition of arrogance. read it twice. read it three times. read it until you understand it. it clearly might take a while.

Read my arguments. Read them twice. Read them three times. Read them until you understand them. It clearly might take a while.

Originally Posted by FoJaR

this is why you are missing everything. you cant see the forest for the trees. do you know what that means? i suspect you dont.

The idiot fruit doesn't fall too far from the idiot tree. Do you know what that means? I suspect you don't.

Originally Posted by FoJaR

you dont understand my argument, clearly.

I do. It's malformed and wrong.

Originally Posted by FoJaR

i think this is what you would call a red herring. i'm at work talking to my boss and i say 2+2=5. he understands my point, and nods, meanwhile you jump in and call me an idiot, because 2+2 is obviously 4.

This is one example of where I MIGHT be missing context. Our conversation is not one of those. But even if I was missing context, it's still difficult to justify 2+2 being 5.

Originally Posted by FoJaR

give me an example of the latter. you havent done that yet.

I play a game of chess with my friend. He crushes me and says he's better than me, rubbing it in my face and taunting me. I'm not insulted in the slightest. Is this arrogance?

If it is, you just contradicted your own position that it's based on perception. If it is not, then you just contradicted your own position that expressed high opinion of self is necessarily arrogance.

Both ways you're wrong.

Originally Posted by FoJaR

you can look at his strategy and appreciate it without comparing. try again.

nope! you havent demonstrated that a comparison is necessary, or even relevant. looking at a good strategy that you havent employed is, in a way, looking at someone better than you at something. all you get by comparing is which is better.

Go read up a definition of comparison. Read it once. Read it twice. Read it three times. Read it until you understand it. It clearly might take a while.

Originally Posted by FoJaR

really? because if what you're saying is true, you're aruging semantics and being an asshole, so maybe you dont belong here...

Really? If what you're saying is true, you're not having a rational discussion and being an idiot, so maybe you don't belong here...


This is why I'm trying to rationally address all of your fallacies. Because if I wanted to play the same game you're playing we don't get anywhere. You need to use logic and reason in order to make your arguments coherent so that the content of the arguments themselves can be examined. Instead, you resort to fallacy after fallacy and refuse to understand basic rational discourse.

[stargroup100]

Originally Posted by stargroup100

I play a game of chess with my friend. He crushes me and says he's better than me, rubbing it in my face and taunting me. I'm not insulted in the slightest. Is this arrogance?

If it is, you just contradicted your own position that it's based on perception. If it is not, then you just contradicted your own position that expressed high opinion of self is necessarily arrogance.

Both ways you're wrong.

I'm gonna double post this point I made for you because it is a contradiction that demonstrates there's something very very wrong with your premises.