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

[Arch0wl]

Originally Posted by FoJaR

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"

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.

By one definition. Definitions attempt to describe words as they use, not dictate meaning.

But anyway, if you're the best in the world and go around saying it you're also stating something true. If you pretend you're not the best in the world, or in some other way downplay you're abilities, you're trying to come off like you're not what you are.

I want to make a clarification of what this isn't, since you said two blatantly untrue things here:

1. "archowl says that he feels like being quiet is dishonesty by omission"

2. "archowl who has in the past used his need to be honest as rationalization for arrogance etc."

#1

The quote in #1 is incorrect paraphrase. Paraphrasing correctly matters a lot, because "being quiet is honesty by omission" is a proposition I disagree with, while "pretending to not be better than someone else in some way is dishonest when you actually are" is something I agree with, and your difference in wording makes a crucial difference for whether you're actually responding to what really I said or what you have a foggy memory of me saying. Either you didn't understand me, or you didn't go back and check what I actually said, or for one reason or another you tried to use your memory to paraphrase me and simply forgot what I said with precision enough to adequately paraphrase me, but regardless of cause, you didn't get it right.

I know for a fact this isn't just a slip-up, because you got it wrong not once, but twice, when you said this earlier:

"[if you believe] "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."

Here is what I argued: that if you are better than someone at something, attempting to appear otherwise is dishonest.

Here is what I did not argue: that if you are better than someone at something, keeping quiet about it is dishonest.

There are crucial differences between the two phrasings and I don't know if you're simply not capable or not practiced enough in precise argumentation to understand the difference, but the former would entail that you are attempting to create a false impression while the latter would simply entail you were silent.

Scenario entailing from what I actually said:

A: "Are you good at FFR?" (when B is top 100 or higher)
B (dishonest): "Yeah, I'm decent." ('decent' would be average or slightly above average)
B (honest): "Yeah, I'm top 100."

Scenario entailing from how you incorrectly paraphrased me:

A: "Do you want to get pizza?"
B: "Yes. Did you know I'm top 100 in FFR?"

There are numerous situations where you aren't mentioning every detail on your mind, but when your skill is relevant to the conversation and may in fact come up, attempting to appear only moderately skilled is dishonest. This also applies to things that aren't necessarily skills, such as abilities/aptitudes (IQ), traits (penis size), efforts (how good your outfit looks) or anything along these lines.

#2

"archowl who has in the past used his need to be honest as rationalization for arrogance etc."

This is motivational analysis, and has nothing to do with whether the things I say are true. Motives almost never have any basis in argumentation about the truth of things external to you, like what arrogance is or whether it's justified. This is a question that is independent of your motivation, and the truth is independent of your motivation as well. I could be completely using this as a rationalization, or not, and either way it would not make anything I say less true or more true. To say it does is to make an ad hominem circumstantial fallacy (aka 'motive fallacy' or 'appeal to motive') -- google this if you need more clarification.

Beyond its erroneousness, this claim also regresses into this type of discussion:

A: "You have motive X"
B: "No, I don't."
A: "Yes you do [insert reasons, although possibly not]"
B: "No, because [reasons claimed to be counter to proposed motive]"
A: "Yes, but [possible self-interest in pursuing argument anyway"

This leads the discussion off-topic because it's unrelated to the truth of whatever it is you're arguing. And even if you pursue the claim, A is ultimately the final source for motives possessed by A, so any dispute of this is speculation at best.

Originally Posted by FoJaR

what is culturally acceptable is really all that matters, because you're only being arrogant if you're insulting the people around you.

Culture is irrelevant here. Values and ethics are culture-neutral, and can be evaluated independently of culture. Culture contains norms and values which may or may not be justifiable when scrutinized for their function or foundation.

Further, even if someone is insulted, this doesn't mean anything. There are infinite potential combinations of insult patterns that someone could take from something. You can be insulted because someone is better than you at something, or because someone looks better than you. This does not mean that it's justified insult. Otherwise, if all insult were legitimate, you could negate insult by being insulted by an insult to infinity.

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.

1. Probability has nothing to do with this discussion. Did you read this thread in all seriousness, or did you just skim the posts and reply? I'm asking because this is a pervasive pattern in your posts, and it takes a lot of time showing how you've misread something, and if this is a result of poor reading habits on your part then maybe you should take your time before responding to other people here. I'm wondering how you could have thoroughly read the original posts, or even the headline, which asks:

"what is arrogance/humility" (question of semantics, has nothing to do with probability)

"what is bragging" (question of semantics, has nothing to do with probability)

"is it bad" (question of ethics, has nothing to do with probability)

2. We are assuming that someone is better than someone at something to cover holes in the definition of the word 'arrogance'. The definition of arrogance you gave even said:

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

which has a hole. Some people in the world will be a combination of the following things:

1. Attractive, facially
2. Intelligent
3. Attractive, bodily
4. Wealthy
5. Talented
6. Skilled
7. Accomplished
8. Important

And in all of these domains, there are ways to be better or worse, either in a specific and clear sense or a general but still-clear sense.

"Better" is nebulous, but intelligence and importance are measurable -- the former very much so, the latter in a fuzzier intersubjective way but still definitely measurable way. So, in two out of the three criteria in your definition, there exist people who will be better in those domains.

The only reason I can think of (and I'm being charitable by doing this) that you might want to invoke probability is to say something like "since most people are not vastly better than others in more than one domain, this is regarded as in practice impossible, and arrogance is viewed as a false belief instead." But even this doesn't explain scenarios where someone is legitimately multi-domain better and still perceived as arrogant, despite demonstrated superiority.

Also, even if probability were relevant, this?

"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."

this is massive speculation. You have no idea how many people are the best by what degree, or how many people exist who are better at multiple domains, or their likelihood of being worse at other things. You have zero basis for this claim; you're guessing. Sentences of yours like "i have a baseline feel for what societal norms are when it comes to arrogance" are even worse, since you're just claiming this without evidence and I can just dismiss it by saying you don't, since you've given it no backing.

Finally, there's this:

Originally Posted by FoJaR

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.

It's redundant, because if you beat me repeatedly, I know you're better than me. This might be inconsiderate if you can tell I'm already bothered by the loss.

On the other hand, if I still claim you're not, then that's free game for you to say you're better than me. If I have a problem with it, that's my fault; I adjust to reality, not the other way around.

You have a suppressed premise here that it's disrespectful/rude/whatever to let another person know that another person is better than them at some activity, period. I'm curious why you think that is, because this would only be that way if you had previously thought no one was better than you (a ridiculous belief, unless you had reason to believe you were the best) or if the very act of someone being better than you was traumatic. If you know where you are in some domain, percentile-wise, and adjust your perception of reality accordingly, you shouldn't be bothered by being reminded what you already knew. In any case, it wouldn't be a justifiable insult for the reasons you implied.

I suspect this originates from some view that people really are equal, or balanced out in some way, such as if you suck in domain x you'll be better in domain y to compensate. It's very agreeable to believe that because then you can think positively of everyone around you and not exhaust your emotions. But this has no basis in reality; talent and competence isn't equally distributed. Some people are ugly, dumb, and bad at everything. You'd only be offended by this if you had some reason to believe everyone had a right to be good at something, or a right to be attractive, or whatever, which no one does. I do think we should pursue chemical and artificial enhancement, which would at least expand the "being attractive part", but that's beside the point. You didn't bring them into existence; you are not responsible for how shitty they feel about their competencies, talents, and traits. But then some kids come into the world and live for only 2 years before some horrible disease throws their life back into nonexistence. If you're looking for some kind of emotional resolution to this, at least the people who are ugly, dumb, and bad at things can experience the joys of biting into a watermelon or going to a park. Unless they can't, which is even more depressing, but that's getting off topic. Some people are at the bottom of every hierarchy ever. It sucks for them, but it's reality.

That's speculation on my part, though, and I acknowledge that. It'd be pretty great if everyone acknowledged when they were speculating, and when their claims were defensible.