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

[stargroup100]

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

Assuming we're going a bit off-topic, talking about superiority like you described and not necessarily about arrogance anymore:

There are some things in this world that are so general and vague that I don't think you can analyze them, but interestingly can still say something meaningful. This is because while you may not be able to compare two things that are close to each other, you can still see large differences. (Example: You may not always be able to tell if something is a fruit, but if you were given something obvious like a piano or a hammer you can still confidently say it's not a fruit.)


But that's just one way of looking at it. An even more important point, I think, is the fact that "general superiority" is a meaningless concept in itself, as it is not demonstrable or indicative of anything.

"So what if he's superior to me? Does that mean he's better than me at something? Do more people like him?"

If you can even answer the "so what?" question, then you've just explained the context in which he is superior, as well as the particular "subjective hierarchy" you just mentioned. This is no longer "general superiority" in the general sense you're thinking of, as everyone who is now being compared to that person will be compared with that particular hierarchy that was just explained.


There are also different contexts for the two statements "duh some people are obviously better" and "no one is better than anyone else".
"Duh some people are obviously better" is talking about how everyone approaches things in their own way, and since everyone's approaches are unique, then they cannot be totally equivalent in terms of being better than another approach.
"No one is better than anyone else" is more talking about a human's moral worth. This is no longer talking about skills or intelligence or anything of that kind, but a more ideal representation of how people should treat and think of each other.
These are two completely different things. One has to do with more social issues, while the other is in fact demonstrable and inherently true in many ways.


ps this puts you in tier 3 XD

[Arch0wl]

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

I can't believe you brought up your tier system in this thread. If you want to start a discussion about that, you can keep it to your thread, but bringing this up in another thread invites criticism of your system across multiple threads.

[Arch0wl]

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

Okay, the first part of this reply is a really necessary kind of reply, even though it's a boring one

There are also different contexts for the two statements "duh some people are obviously better" and "no one is better than anyone else".
"Duh some people are obviously better" is talking about how everyone approaches things in their own way, and since everyone's approaches are unique, then they cannot be totally equivalent in terms of being better than another approach.
"No one is better than anyone else" is more talking about a human's moral worth. This is no longer talking about skills or intelligence or anything of that kind, but a more ideal representation of how people should treat and think of each other.
These are two completely different things. One has to do with more social issues, while the other is in fact demonstrable and inherently true in many ways.

You can't make these inferences from these sentences. Since I have the suspicion that when I say this kind of thing it's not established what I mean, I'll elaborate: If you had tried to make this kind of inference on any reading test, it would be considered invalid, because the words as written don't support this kind of conclusion, and if you're trying to say that anything implies anything it needs to follow from what's written; even if you had said "how I read this is correct given the subtext", this would only be true if a subtext through repeated use of the phrasing such that it's established ("nice house, would be a shame if something happened to it"); since this is not the case with the words as written, you can't just take your own interpretation as a subtext.

A great deal of what makes an argument justified or not is dependent on whether you accurately paraphrase what you're trying to say, so not only is correctly interpreting/reading/rephrasing these things not trivial/"arguing semantics"/whatever, it's perhaps the most important thing if you're going to have a true conclusion.

If you're unclear on why this is necessary to bring up, it's because if you read a sentence like "duh some people are obviously better" (which in the original context should read as "duh some people obviously have general superiority over others") and take this to mean "some people obviously approach things in their own way", you're gathering meaning from nowhere and your argument is effectively speculation because you haven't actually addressed the argument in the first place, you're responding to something imaginary. Someone who says "duh some people obviously have general superiority" doesn't actually have to be right, first of all, they could think that people are generally superior to others based on some kind of intrinsic superiority in a eugenics sense or whatever, so saying "they think everyone approaches things in their own way" is out of nowhere given the meaning of the sentence. "No one is better than anyone else" absolutely does not have to connote morality -- someone who believes their race is superior to others based on traits like hair color, eye color, physicality and so on wouldn't invoke morality, and someone who says "no, you're wrong, no one is better than anyone else" would just be presenting a negation of the racial supremacist's view.

I don't know how you process these things, but in the event that you read the above paragraphs as antagonistic, know that I'm not trying to be; it may come off that way because the language is deliberately negating, but language that may read this way is also the clearest and simultaneously most neutral way to identify perceived errors in the above quote, which is ultimately a more important concern.

"So what if he's superior to me? Does that mean he's better than me at something? Do more people like him?"

If you can even answer the "so what?" question, then you've just explained the context in which he is superior, as well as the particular "subjective hierarchy" you just mentioned. This is no longer "general superiority" in the general sense you're thinking of, as everyone who is now being compared to that person will be compared with that particular hierarchy that was just explained.

What I think you're trying to say here is that since every claim to superiority can be narrowed to a specific domain, general superiority could not exist. I don't think I disagree, but it misunderstands the kind of arguments people make in favor of general superiority (even if they don't call it that.)

Someone who believes that they're actually able to be "better than other people" probably thinks that some hierarchies are more valued than others -- to give an extremely obvious example, men will dump far more money into penis enlargement than improving their FFR scores. So someone who believes in this idea might say that a finite number of hierarchies (domains you can be better than someone at) represent a majority or the bulk of valued traits by other people, and being better at those things determines general superiority. To elaborate further: being better at football is probably worth more, in the sense of hierarchy-to-hierarchy comparison, than being better at Starcraft; some SC players probably make more than people who are good but not great at football, but the 99th percentile of football players will absolutely make more money from this ability than the 99th percentile of Starcraft players. This of course ties superiority in some domain to value, monetary or not.

However, I'm not sure how strong this argument is, since tying this to value carries a strong if not complete dollar connotation. I know that a lot of people wouldn't date, say, this guy, and I know a lot of people who know people like this guy; this kind of person isn't even limited to bankers, and in fact exists in a variety of fields. Yet, he's objectively quite more valuable than other people in terms of dollar value. It's worth asking: how many people would tolerate him if he were a billionaire, as opposed to just a millionaire? I have no idea how many different ways of modeling value exist, so it could be also that a model of value exists that explains how someone can be quite wealthy but still regarded as undesirable.

I think someone who thinks something like "[trait] makes me better than you as a whole" either thinks that whatever trait this is supersedes all other traits in the sense that it's more valuable, or that the trait pyramids down to other traits. I know some people view intelligence this way, in the sense that they think by having sufficiently powerful intelligence someone will a priori come to all or most correct conclusions about the world. This is not true for a variety of reasons, but I think it identifies the nature of the error in terms of a specific pattern of reasoning, rather than just "this conclusion is unacceptable on grounds of outrage" or whatever.

[stargroup100]

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

Ah, sorry about that last comment, I wanted to lighten the mood and poke fun a bit. If it was inappropriate I apologize.

You can't make these inferences from these sentences.

Here's what you wrote:

I've never heard anyone actually consider this question ("what would a general superiority even be / what would it mean to be superior to someone else anyway?") beyond a very shallow examination of it ("duh some people are obviously better" / "no one is better than anyone else"), so if you have any thoughts on it I'd like to hear them.

Looking back I guess I didn't clarify enough. Basically I was responding to the fact that you said how those two sentences could be interpreted as shallow examinations. I'm trying to argue that those two sentences offer two possible answers, neither of which is complete, and that this is a demonstration of why the question "What is general superiority?" is meaningless.

If you're unclear on why this is necessary to bring up, it's because if you read a sentence like "duh some people are obviously better" (which in the original context should read as "duh some people obviously have general superiority over others") and take this to mean "some people obviously approach things in their own way", you're gathering meaning from nowhere and your argument is effectively speculation because you haven't actually addressed the argument in the first place, you're responding to something imaginary.

I wasn't saying "duh some people are obviously better" implies "some people obviously approach things in their own way", but rather the second statement offers an explanation of why under a certain context the first statement is obviously true. I phrased it the way I did because people can have radically different ideas that are both valid regarding a particular issue, and I wanted to acknowledge that.

I'm pretty sure the misunderstanding comes from my poor explanation though. I could have probably just said that it is impossible for everyone to be equally skilled at a particular thing, which is far more direct.

Someone who says "duh some people obviously have general superiority" doesn't actually have to be right, first of all, they could think that people are generally superior to others based on some kind of intrinsic superiority in a eugenics sense or whatever...

What I think you're trying to say here is that since every claim to superiority can be narrowed to a specific domain, general superiority could not exist. I don't think I disagree, but it misunderstands the kind of arguments people make in favor of general superiority (even if they don't call it that.)

I think I misunderstood the main point of your question this whole time. If I'm correct this time, you're asking about what causes someone to have different perceptions of general superiority, not what general superiority actually constitutes.

So far I have only really addressed the fact that the notion of general superiority in the absolute sense is meaningless, what you already seem to agree with (or at least don't disagree). I have not mentioned much about how people perceive general superiority, which I think is probably a much more open-ended question. My bad.

[Arch0wl]

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

Thanks, your post makes more sense following your clarifications.

[Xtreme2252]

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

I personally think it's good to be proud of your accomplishments. To me, arrogance is when you disregard other people's skills and accomplishments and disparage them and make excuses as to why others are lesser than yourself even though they've shown themselves to be equal or greater in a particular skill and have been humble about it.

For example, one of my friends is incredibly arrogant about League of Legends. He is Silver III with 600+ ranked games played in S4, and I'm Gold V with 300+ games played, yet he is jealous of me and blames his being stuck in Silver III on bad teammates and not himself, and he plays very selfishly, afk farming when he could group with his team and costing many matches he should be winning if he could be less self-centered.

[klimtkiller]

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

to me, arrogance is showing how much better you are at something than someone else purposely.

[V-Ormix]

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

arrogance to me seems like your inconsiderate of the reality you live in and forget how extensive everything that goes around you is that "your best" is the best if you cant comprehend better than your best cause how could some one be "better" than you?

Kind of like thinking you are the best cause no one in your "opinion" does what you do like you do so it cant be as good to "you". I'm better cause I said so, not out of taking the time to imagine every possible scenario of how some one could be better than me leading to a more reasonable conclusion.

Traits of what I refer to as one of the roots of evil: selfishness x)

[_Zenith_]

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

For example, one of my friends is incredibly arrogant about League of Legends. He is Silver III with 600+ ranked games played in S4, and I'm Gold V with 300+ games played, yet he is jealous of me and blames his being stuck in Silver III on bad teammates and not himself, and he plays very selfishly, afk farming when he could group with his team and costing many matches he should be winning if he could be less self-centered.

Thread name, meet best explanation of thread name words.

[FoJaR]

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

Questions for discussion:

- What do you think arrogance is, first of all -- is it a false opinion of yourself? Is it a high opinion of yourself period? If you are legitimately one of the best at something as confirmed by rankings or whatever, and say you are, is this arrogance?

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.

- Why do you think arrogance/bragging is taboo in some places but not others?

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.

- Let's put the question in reverse: if you're one of the best at something and act humble, e.g. your behavior doesn't reflect how good you are, is this dishonest? Are you painting an inaccurate picture of yourself?

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.

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

[stargroup100]

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

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

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?

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.

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?

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]

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

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]

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

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]

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

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]

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

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.