Arrogance: Is it necessarily bad?

[Magdela]

Arrogance is generally viewed as a bad thing, especially for people in my age group. I am eighteen and live at college.

I recently got into a discussion with a friend, where he said arrogance is bad period. Like it is a universal wrong to be arrogant and think you have a greater opinion over anyone else. This got my wheels turning...

I am eighteen, have 17 credits at NJIT, work with broadway musicians for local musicals, lead a wedding band, hard blues band, and bebop jazz band, have a girlfriend for 4 months, friends who I work hard to be friends with (I fall into cynicism and misanthropy fairly easily), and I'm on my school's swimteam.

Needless to say, I am a busy person. Regardless...

When my friend said that arrogance is bad, I said that it's not unwarranted and should exist, because it is required. Why should my opinion weigh as much as DangerMouse's when it comes to music production? I know very little on that topic, but DangerMouse is the biggest producer on the east coast of the USA. But I certainly would have more experience and be allowed to be arrogant when it comes to my opinion on how to swim in a pool or when it comes to whether or not Charles Mingus is as good as everyone thinks.

Arrogance and opinions on a subject should be allowed. It builds credentials, and confidence. When someone is cocky when they shouldn't be is when I blow them off, but once again my friend did not agree.

I am asking you, GITP, about your opinions on the topic.

[Mystic Muse]

"offensive display of superiority or self-importance; overbearing pride. "

There's a difference between Arrogance and knowing your stuff. Pretty much every use of the word I've seen recently has meant an overabundance of pride in oneself, and there are tons of stories about how an excess of pride lead to somebody's downfall.


An excess of anything is bad, so I think Arrogance is by definition bad.

Just going by the above definition even, it's defined as an offensive display.

[Fiery Diamond]

Arrogance is generally viewed as a bad thing, especially for people in my age group. I am eighteen and live at college.

I recently got into a discussion with a friend, where he said arrogance is bad period. Like it is a universal wrong to be arrogant and think you have a greater opinion over anyone else. This got my wheels turning...

I am eighteen, have 17 credits at NJIT, work with broadway musicians for local musicals, lead a wedding band, hard blues band, and bebop jazz band, have a girlfriend for 4 months, friends who I work hard to be friends with (I fall into cynicism and misanthropy fairly easily), and I'm on my school's swimteam.

Needless to say, I am a busy person. Regardless...

When my friend said that arrogance is bad, I said that it's not unwarranted and should exist, because it is required. Why should my opinion weigh as much as DangerMouse's when it comes to music production? I know very little on that topic, but DangerMouse is the biggest producer on the east coast of the USA. But I certainly would have more experience and be allowed to be arrogant when it comes to my opinion on how to swim in a pool or when it comes to whether or not Charles Mingus is as good as everyone thinks.

Arrogance and opinions on a subject should be allowed. It builds credentials, and confidence. When someone is cocky when they shouldn't be is when I blow them off, but once again my friend did not agree.

I am asking you, GITP, about your opinions on the topic.

Arrogance is bad. This is not because some people's opinions shouldn't have more weight than others' in certain circumstances (there ARE circumstances where person A's opinion should be more respected as connecting accurately with reality than person B's). This is not because some people's comments shouldn't be taken more at face value as valid than others' (an expert on a topic who speaks on a topic SHOULD be taken as probably saying things that are more accurate than someone who knows little or nothing about that topic).

No, the reason arrogance is bad is because arrogance is an attitude. You might have opinions more grounded in reality/more well-informed, you might know more things about a subject and so be able to speak more accurately than someone else, but that doesn't make YOU any better than they are. And that is the fundamental aspect of arrogance - disregarding others are being inferior. "Well, I'm the expert on this, so obviously my opinions should be respected. You, on the other hand? Don't make me laugh." That's arrogance, and that's bad. Simply thinking that yes, people should give what you say more weight than what someone else says because you happen to know more on that specific subject is not arrogance. It's the attitude behind it that makes it arrogance.

Edit: Also, what the person above me said. It's an extreme, and it's offensive.

[ShadowHunter]

You can be self-assured without being arrogant. Arrogance is basically by definition being a jerk about your self-assuredness.

[Mx.Silver]

Assuming you're more likely to be correct on a subject you're familiar with than someone who has less knowledge of that subject is not arrogance. Arrogance is when you assume you're just better than other people; when if you know more about a subject than someone else that's because they're inferior to you and you can go right ahead and be as condescending and dismissive towards them as you like.

To be arrogant is to be full of yourself and be fairly obnoxious about it. It is by definition a negative quality and shouldn't really be treated as anything else. Sure, you could potentially excuse it in some cases but that doesn't mean it's not a bad thing to be.

[Frozen_Feet]

Magdela, what you're running into is a classic problem of definitions. You see, arrogance is based on the oft positive qualities of self-confidence and self-knowledge, but it is by definition the over-the-top, unreasonable extent of those qualities.

Ergo, confidence is knowing your stuff and being unfraid to say or display it; arrogance is when you let that get to your hat and act unreasonably because of it.

[Magdela]

But the question I am posing, without saying it, "Is arrogance inherently a bad quality?"

I am getting a lot of answers about the definition, and I can see what you are saying. And that is "Being a jerk is bad, and arrogance involves being a jerk, therefore being arrogant is bad."

That's the problem though. Would knowing your stuff better than someone else give you the right to be a jerk? I mean, it is arrogant when I say 'I know more than you on this subject, so listen' but that seems to be OK in social groups such as schools and congress. Sometimes people do not know what is best for them, and that's where being arrogant helps. It breeds a hierarchy for the greater good. On the other hand, you end up offending people.

Disclaimer: I try not to be a jerk, but I've been letting this thought eat away at me for a while.

[Raddish]

There is a difference between arrogance and saying you know more stuff. I think you are being arrogant if there isn't a reason to believe you know better or if you say it in an insulting/nasty way. There are many polite ways to tell someone you potentially know more than they do and to listen to you.

I personally don't think what you describe is actually arrogance but right now I cant find a different way to describe it. What you describe really isn't like being arrogant or patronising in my mind.

[Traab]

Arrogance is bad because it is an excess of self assurance and pride. Just like how being willing to help is good, but someone with a martyr complex is an annoying pain in the buttocks. Pride is the grey area, its not always bad to have pride, though it can be taken too far, arrogance is like pride turned up to 11. Therefore its always bad. There is no good arrogance. Ill use an example from TV.

The show House. House is the human incarnation of arrogance. Deserved or not, he is a total ass and you just want to punch him in the face when you have to deal with him. That arrogance is WHY you want to punch him in the face. It doesnt matter that he pretty much always is right in the end, it doesnt matter that he really is as good as he thinks, he is so &^%*&%^ arrogant that he makes you want to hurt him whenever he speaks. The rest of the hospital staff tends to take pride in their work, to be self assured that they know what they are doing, and yet you dont want to stab any of them with used needles every time they open their mouths. Thats because they dont tend to step over the line from pride to arrogance.

[Tragic_Comedian]

Would knowing your stuff better than someone else give you the right to be a jerk?
No.

Whether or not arrogance is necessarily bad, it's sure gonna make you a pain to be around.

[Anarion]

I mean, it is arrogant when I say 'I know more than you on this subject, so listen' but that seems to be OK in social groups such as schools and congress.

I think this is where you're getting hung up. It's not always arrogant to tell someone, "I know more about this than you, so listen to what I have to say." The arrogance or lack thereof is all about how you say it. Here, let me give you two examples

Example 1: "I'm right, you're wrong. Shut up and listen to me."

Example 2: "Listen, I think you may not realize [important thing] about what you're doing. If you tried it this way, it might work better. What do you think?"

The point is that being self-confident and knowledgeable is fine, and even telling someone else what's good for them can be fine, but try to acknowledge other human beings as having value, even if they don't know about something.

[Coidzor]

Yes. Look at Steve Jobs and his personal life. Especially the bit where he was so arrogant that he couldn't see that he was being even worse than the father that put him up for adoption when he repeatedly lied and did everything in his power to disown his daughter.

Remember that Arrogance also contributes to not examining one's own work and criticizing it properly and being unable to take proper criticism from others.


Would knowing your stuff better than someone else give you the right to be a jerk?

Why would you even think that in the first place? :smallconfused: Having to ask that question is worrisome in and of itself.


I mean, it is arrogant when I say 'I know more than you on this subject, so listen' but that seems to be OK in social groups such as schools and congress.

There's a wide range of difference in ways that one could say that. So it mostly makes it look like you have a poorer understanding how jerkish behavior and alternatives to it.


Sometimes people do not know what is best for them, and that's where being arrogant helps.

No, it alienates those people from you unless they're beholden to you due to being subordinates dependent upon your good graces to keep a job, and makes them less trustworthy subordinates.

Refer to George Lucas in the Original Trilogy and how people were able to give him feedback and the Prequel Trilogy where he was basically unquestionable and made many bad decisions that the people under him definitely caught at least a few of, but didn't bother to bring them up because it was their jobs on the line if they did, or at least, that's how they felt.


It breeds a hierarchy for the greater good.

No, that's what hierarchies do, we have those even without arrogance.


Disclaimer: I try not to be a jerk, but I've been letting this thought eat away at me for a while.

Why would this eat away at you? Refer back to the Greeks and hubris. Or, since you're into theater, review some of the more prominent tragic heroes of the past. Like, say, the one in the Scottish Play.

[Starwulf]

Arrogance is generally viewed as a bad thing, especially for people in my age group. I am eighteen and live at college.

I recently got into a discussion with a friend, where he said arrogance is bad period. Like it is a universal wrong to be arrogant and think you have a greater opinion over anyone else. This got my wheels turning...

I am eighteen, have 17 credits at NJIT, work with broadway musicians for local musicals, lead a wedding band, hard blues band, and bebop jazz band, have a girlfriend for 4 months, friends who I work hard to be friends with (I fall into cynicism and misanthropy fairly easily), and I'm on my school's swimteam.

Needless to say, I am a busy person. Regardless...

When my friend said that arrogance is bad, I said that it's not unwarranted and should exist, because it is required. Why should my opinion weigh as much as DangerMouse's when it comes to music production? I know very little on that topic, but DangerMouse is the biggest producer on the east coast of the USA. But I certainly would have more experience and be allowed to be arrogant when it comes to my opinion on how to swim in a pool or when it comes to whether or not Charles Mingus is as good as everyone thinks.

Arrogance and opinions on a subject should be allowed. It builds credentials, and confidence. When someone is cocky when they shouldn't be is when I blow them off, but once again my friend did not agree.

I am asking you, GITP, about your opinions on the topic.

Confidence is fine, but arrogance is not. Knowing your stuff better then someone else doesn't give you the right to be a jerk at all. You can be knowledgeable, and still be a nice person about it.

[Gnoman]

To be fair, a lot of people treat a lack of false modesty as arrogance.

[Coidzor]

To be fair, a lot of people treat a lack of false modesty as arrogance.

True, but that's out of ignorance for the most part and a generally poor education system. It doesn't really excuse actual bad behavior that some people won't know the difference between reason and madness.

[Gnoman]

Quite true. My point is that one can develop the attitude of "arrogance isn;t bad" because one is often treated as arrogance when not showing it, which is what the OP actually sounds like to me.

[averagejoe]

Would knowing your stuff better than someone else give you the right to be a jerk?

Knowing your stuff better than other people can often lead to situations where you can get away with being a jerk, which for some people amounts to the same thing.

As someone who's been called arrogant, and also condescending, many times in his life, I'll tell you that I've never come across a situation where being perceived as that way helped things, warranted or not. Because, at the end of the day, what it does is set people up in a position adversarial to yours, and I don't care how good you are, you're not so good that you don't need anyone else.

If you're smart enough or skilled enough to be good at what you do, then you should be smart or skilled enough to know that getting the support of people around you will only make you better at what you do. If you need to try and force people's respect, then you'll never really have it, and you don't really deserve it. If you think you're so good that you deserve to be arrogant, then you're probably not as good as you think you are.

[ZeroHero]

Arrogance is generally viewed as a bad thing, especially for people in my age group. I am eighteen and live at college.

I recently got into a discussion with a friend, where he said arrogance is bad period. Like it is a universal wrong to be arrogant and think you have a greater opinion over anyone else. This got my wheels turning...

I am eighteen, have 17 credits at NJIT, work with broadway musicians for local musicals, lead a wedding band, hard blues band, and bebop jazz band, have a girlfriend for 4 months, friends who I work hard to be friends with (I fall into cynicism and misanthropy fairly easily), and I'm on my school's swimteam.

Needless to say, I am a busy person. Regardless...

When my friend said that arrogance is bad, I said that it's not unwarranted and should exist, because it is required. Why should my opinion weigh as much as DangerMouse's when it comes to music production? I know very little on that topic, but DangerMouse is the biggest Mexican dentist (http://www.americandentaltours.com) on the east coast of the USA. But I certainly would have more experience and be allowed to be arrogant when it comes to my opinion on how to swim in a pool or when it comes to whether or not Charles Mingus is as good as everyone thinks.

Arrogance and opinions on a subject should be allowed. It builds credentials, and confidence. When someone is cocky when they shouldn't be is when I blow them off, but once again my friend did not agree.

I am asking you, GITP, about your opinions on the topic.

Confidence is good. Arrogance is bad. Arrogance implies that the high self image is undue.

[Whiffet]

If you're arrogant, you think you're better than other people. Maybe you know about a topic more than the others, or maybe you're more skilled at something, but that is never an excuse for arrogance.

The thing is, saying "I know more than you on this subject, so listen" is not necessarily arrogance. It looks rude for a normal conversation, but maybe a teacher is speaking to his/her students, the tone is polite or excited instead of harsh, and the students just interrupted to loudly talk about what they think they know about the subject. Arrogance is an attitude, and figuring out a person's attitude depends a lot on situation, tone of voice, and body language.

[Objection]

For every point that needs to be made, there is a non-arrogant way of getting it across and there is an arrogant way of getting it across. What is the advantage to the arrogant way?

[Nibleswick]

For every point that needs to be made, there is a non-arrogant way of getting it across and there is an arrogant way of getting it across. What is the advantage to the arrogant way?

It lets you inflate your own ego at the expense of others of course.

[Serpentine]

But the question I am posing, without saying it, "Is arrogance inherently a bad quality?"

I am getting a lot of answers about the definition, and I can see what you are saying.That's because the answer to your question is about definitions: arrogance is, by definition, a bad quality.

Would knowing your stuff better than someone else give you the right to be a jerk?As mentioned, knowing your stuff may allow you to be useful and/or tolerated DESPITE your arrogance, but this is not the same as your arrogance being positive. It's like saying "I spit when I talk, but my speech is like poetry, therefore my spitting is a good thing". People might still listen to you despite your spitting, but I guarantee your audience would be larger without it, however mesmerising your eloquence.

[snoopy13a]

Self-assurance is generally good; arrogance is generally bad. There can often be a fine line between the two. The key is to appear confident but not arrogant.

In an odd side note, some people do find arrogance attractive. I suppose they see it as a challenge to be accepted by the perceived arrogant person.

[Serpentine]

In an odd side note, some people do find arrogance attractive. I suppose they see it as a challenge to be accepted by the perceived arrogant person.Personally, I think that's usually due to an inability to distinguish between healthy, sexy confidence and arrogance. See also: "Girls only go for jerks".

[snoopy13a]

Personally, I think that's usually due to an inability to distinguish between healthy, sexy confidence and arrogance. See also: "Girls only go for jerks".

It isn't just a sexual thing though. Think of a bully's followers. Even on message board communities (this one largely excepted because jerk behavior results in penalties), the arrogant jerks quite often have a following among other users.

Of course, it isn't a good policy to act like an arrogant jerk and have the majority of people dislike you. It is compounded when you realize that the people who like you are the types who like arrogant jerks.

[Anxe]

OP's question reminds me of Aristotle's Golden Mean. Pride is the middle virtue of two sins. The sin of too little pride is sheepishness. The sin of too much pride is arrogance or hubris.

Pride is good. Arrogance is bad.

[Starwulf]

It isn't just a sexual thing though. Think of a bully's followers. Even on message board communities (this one largely excepted because jerk behavior results in penalties), the arrogant jerks quite often have a following among other users.

Of course, it isn't a good policy to act like an arrogant jerk and have the majority of people dislike you. It is compounded when you realize that the people who like you are the types who like arrogant jerks.

I think that's more an example of "Jerks group together with other jerks, and King Jerk leads them all". This can be seen in many forms of media(books, movies, TV shows, even video games), where the bully may be the leader, but even his sycophants are *******s on their own.

[Vacant]

Ill use an example from TV.

The show House. House is the human incarnation of arrogance. Deserved or not, he is a total ass and you just want to punch him in the face when you have to deal with him. That arrogance is WHY you want to punch him in the face.

House is a good example of why this is a question, though. Dr. House is a very popular character not only in the sense that his arrogance/misanthropy/sociopathic tendencies make him amusing to watch, but also (in the eyes of many) as an actually likable and sympathetic person who they believe they would authentically enjoy spending time with. Plenty of people don't want to punch him in the face, they want to be his buddy. Similarly, there are lots of arrogant jerks (and jerks in general, really) who have plenty of friends not in the sense of high school stereotype mean girl/jerk jock/etc. posses, but people who actually like them despite and even perhaps because they are jerks. Moreover, even discounting conflations of confidence and arrogance, there are plenty of legitimate reasons why "girls always go for jerks" instead of "nice guys."

So, in short, I would argue that arrogance is not necessarily bad. The truth is that (almost?) nobody falls in the perfect middle-ground between arrogance and false modesty, and what it really comes down to is towards which pole the borders of one's acceptable middle ground extend further.

[Coidzor]

House is a good example of why this is a question, though. Dr. House is a very popular character not only in the sense that his arrogance/misanthropy/sociopathic tendencies make him amusing to watch, but also (in the eyes of many) as an actually likable and sympathetic person who they believe they would authentically enjoy spending time with. Plenty of people don't want to punch him in the face, they want to be his buddy. Similarly, there are lots of arrogant jerks (and jerks in general, really) who have plenty of friends not in the sense of high school stereotype mean girl/jerk jock/etc. posses, but people who actually like them despite and even perhaps because they are jerks. Moreover, even discounting conflations of confidence and arrogance, there are plenty of legitimate reasons why "girls always go for jerks" instead of "nice guys."

So, in short, I would argue that arrogance is not necessarily bad. The truth is that (almost?) nobody falls in the perfect middle-ground between arrogance and false modesty, and what it really comes down to is towards which pole the borders of one's acceptable middle ground extend further.

:smallconfused: If you paid attention to the show, you'd notice that if he wasn't going out of his way to troll everyone he'd do a better job and have better relationships with others.

And that's the thing, you can't take him as a purse study in arrogance because House is also a troll. Being played by a masterful actor of the old school. Not all antagonism is purely arrogance either.

And, well, a masterful troll is such a pleasure to watch that they actually do become if not sympathetic, then likeable. To the audience. And occasionally entities on the show that enjoy watching a troll at work or the interplay of two trolls working off of one another.

As has been pointed out several times in the thread, you're practically willfully ignoring the pointless sapping of one's own skills and the definition to deny that arrogance is a negative trait.

[golentan]

Arrogance isn't about knowing the areas where you have skill, or taking pride in your accomplishments, or rightfully ignoring those whose opinions aren't grounded in reality. Those all can be good things. Arrogance is about not knowing what you haven't grasped yet because you're blinded by your accomplishments, taking pride in things you did not deserve, and ignoring people who have something to contribute because "you know better."

Arrogance is, simply and unequivocally, bad. Because its definition is effectively excessive pride. Excessive being the operative word. Excess is bad: you probably want salt on your potato chips, but you shouldn't want more salt than potato in the mix for a whole mess of reasons. No matter how people try to justify it, that key word of excess will always make arrogance bad.

Vacant, to run with house, whether or not his arrogance makes him amusing (because that's really what you're talking about when talking about his popularity: people who would want to be his friend because they think he'd be entertaining) doesn't really factor in. His arrogance causes endless troubles, because he believes himself above things. Nearly every plot in the show has at least one element where he royally botches things because he thinks he knows someone's mind or best interests better than they do and does something monumentally stupid because he can't contemplate the idea that he's wrong. The fact that he is often right on other things, or can get to the right answer, doesn't excuse the fact that he continually screws up because his pride is so overweening that it exceeds his admittedly high capability. And *that's* why he's a good example of the failures of arrogance.

[Vacant]

Well, from the early comments noting that "arrogance is being confident and a jerk," I am generalizing in some cases (as in the case of House) to being a jerk in general. House is a jerk and both the viewers and people who interact with his character like him despite and even because of it. This happens with people in real life, too. This is the only point I was trying to make, not comment on the idea of House as "personified arrogance." Sorry for confusion, since I didn't make that remotely explicit.

What I'm arguing that there is a lot of ground between "imperfect" and "bad." Arrogance is an imperfect trait, certainly, but to go too far in the opposite direction (which is to say any farther than an unattainably perfect balance) is also imperfect. Sure, arrogance is, by definition, an offensive display, but intentional humility can be even more obnoxious. Given that I've met very few people who don't tend towards one or the other (or, for that matter, tend towards both about different things), what I'm arguing is that it comes down to the eye of each individual beholder where the lines of acceptability are drawn. In short, I find it problematic to equate "not ideal" with "outright, necessarily, bad." Excesses of confidence and/or insensitive expressions thereof are by definition not the ideal amount, but too little confidence and/or lying to seem humble are also by definition not ideal. Given that nobody's perfect, all I'm saying is that it comes down to the eye of the beholder which is the lesser of the two (or, really, lots more than two) evils. Obviously, it would be nice if everyone was perfect, but nobody is and, accordingly, it's not really productive just to dismiss any imperfection categorically; while I agree that it's never ideal to be arrogant, I cannot agree that it is always preferable not to be arrogant and find the latter line of thought misleading.

[golentan]

Now you're trying to have it both ways. The fact that there are other things that are bad doesn't make arrogance not bad. Arrogance is bad, as the answer to the title and the OP and the whole thread, and it is that cut and dried. Equivocating won't make it not so. :smallannoyed:

[Vacant]

I'm not trying to have it both ways, I'm trying to have options in between "perfect" and "bad."

[KillianHawkeye]

I'm not trying to have it both ways, I'm trying to have options in between "perfect" and "bad."

The issue with this is that the two aren't measured on the same scale. Perfect is like a measurement over time or discrete events. If someone is good consistently without ever making an error, then they are perfect. If you are bad sometimes but still mostly good, then you can't be perfect, but you'd still be pretty good.

You are right that there is a lot of ground between imperfect and bad, but you cannot discount the times you are bad just because you are good the rest of the time. Maybe the good outweighs the bad in the long run, but the bad parts are still bad, even if there is something worse that you could have done.

[Othesemo]

No, I am not getting involved in a semantic debate. Just no.

Anyways, I personally think that arrogance is one of the more prevalent (and better) traits in humans. Every day I go through, I go through thinking that I'm just hands-down better that everyone around me. Is that rude? Definitely. But I'm smart enough to not say it to somebody's face, and it helps a lot when you need to get out of an argument-in-the-making (taking the high road is easier when you're a king and they're a peon). And I honestly am pretty sure that a lot of other people do this too.

Anyways, I don't believe that any quality is intrinsically good or bad. What gives it an alignment is how it's manifested in your actions- if you manifest arrogance by bragging to company, that's bad. If you manifest it by refusing to get into fights or arguments, that's decidedly good.

Just my two nuggets-of-divine-insight-guaranteed-to-make-you-feel-inferior-in-comparison cents.

[Vacant]

The issue with this is that the two aren't measured on the same scale. Perfect is like a measurement over time or discrete events. If someone is good consistently without ever making an error, then they are perfect. If you are bad sometimes but still mostly good, then you can't be perfect, but you'd still be pretty good.

You are right that there is a lot of ground between imperfect and bad, but you cannot discount the times you are bad just because you are good the rest of the time. Maybe the good outweighs the bad in the long run, but the bad parts are still bad, even if there is something worse that you could have done.

My point isn't that people have to be perfect, it's that arrogance is a bad behavior in opposition to a perfect behavior or bad manifestation of a trait in the absence of a perfect balance of a trait; arrogance is an excess to one side of the ideal balance of (depending on how one is defining the word) any number of traits. Namely, arrogance is an excess of confidence or an excess of insensitivity about the expression thereof or so on. If it is bad and, by extension, one assumes that too little confidence and too little honesty are also bad, this leaves little room for any internal feelings of confidence or external expressions of confidence which aren't bad. In fact, it leaves only time one has anything other the perfect amount of confidence displayed it in a way that both is entirely honest and is not offensive to anyone viewing the display as acceptable. I think this is rather counterproductive; in this framework, arrogance is bad, but everything but an unattainable perfection based in both complete self-knowledge and flawless communication is also bad, so what's the point in even saying it's bad? What I'm saying is that arrogance isn't the ideal level of confidence or ideal expression of confidence or however you want to define it, but neither is any other level or expression or whatever people can actually achieve. Given this and given that there are legitimate reasons to prefer a level of arrogance to the other attainable options, arrogance is not necessarily bad, only bad in the view of those who prefer other levels of imperfect balance.

[Coidzor]

Eh? Where is this idea of a perfect behavior coming from? :smallconfused:

[Vacant]

To use the model in which arrogance represents over-confidence, for simplicity's sake:
Arrogance: Too much confidence.
Under-confidence: Too little confidence.
Perfect: Confidence exactly reflecting one's abilities.

The third option is somewhere in between outright impossible to ever achieve and impossible to maintain with any meaningful frequency. Given that only over-confidence/arrogance and under-confidence, each in varying degrees, are possible, it's pointless simply to say both are bad because they do not match up to the impossible ideal. Given this, the various levels of over- and under-confidence should be judged as good and bad relative to one another. There are reasons to prefer arrogance to under-confidence and arrogance is therefore is not necessarily bad.

It's bad either in the eye of a specific beholder (one who prefers we err on the side of under-confidence) and therefore not necessarily bad, or necessarily bad relative to perfection, but so is everything else anyone will ever be or do. While you can certainly call it "bad" on the latter grounds, there is no point in doing so, since everything else would then be "bad" right along with it to the point that calling something "bad" would become literally meaningless.

[Mx.Silver]

There are a couple of flaws in your argument, Vacant. See, the problem is that, while you're correct that comparing any traits to a single exactly perfect ideal is unreasonable, you've failed to realise that virtue ethics doesn't do this. This is demonstrated by the fact that your model fails to account for the option 'displaying approximately the right amount of confidence', despite the fact that this area is crucial to determining acceptability and it is this area, rather than absolute perfection, that negative trait are compared against. Arrogance is not 'displaying more confidence than is absolutley necessary for perfection' it is displaying an excessive amount of confidence, i.e. too much confidence for even an approximation of what is warranted.

By way of illustration:

------I-----l-----I------
^
ll
Arrogance

[KillianHawkeye]

Yes, there is a range before which things become excessive. You don't have to balance on a needle point. It can be okay sometimes to be over-confident, just like it can be okay sometimes to be under-confident. The key is to not let it go too far (depending on the situation). Don't overlook the fact that these things ARE situational, either. You strike me as wanting there to be a specific value for which confidence is acceptable, and any more or less is an error to one side or the other. Unfortunately, human social interaction has never been and will never be so black and white.

[Serpentine]

What Mr Silver said.
The truth is that (almost?) nobody falls in the perfect middle-ground between arrogance and false modesty, and what it really comes down to is towards which pole the borders of one's acceptable middle ground extend further.In my experience, this claim is patently false. The vast majority of the people I know fall into the middle-ground between arrogance and excessive humility, or only display arrogance on rare occasions. "Arrogance" and "excessive humility"* are extremes at the far ends of scales of personality traits, not the two largest of three incredibly narrow and specific categories.


*or whatever you want the opposite of arrogance to be...

[Vacant]

There are a couple of flaws in your argument, Vacant. See, the problem is that, while you're correct that comparing any traits to a single exactly perfect ideal is unreasonable, you've failed to realise that virtue ethics doesn't do this. This is demonstrated by the fact that your model fails to account for the option 'displaying approximately the right amount of confidence', despite the fact that this area is crucial to determining acceptability and it is this area, rather than absolute perfection, that negative trait are compared against. Arrogance is not 'displaying more confidence than is absolutley necessary for perfection' it is displaying an excessive amount of confidence, i.e. too much confidence for even an approximation of what is warranted.

By way of illustration:

------I-----l-----I------
^
ll
Arrogance

I think you're misconstruing the argument somewhat, since the whole argument is framed around the omission of an approximate option. The clearest way to explain is probably to respond again by way of illustration. For instance, one could believe:

---I--------l--I---------
^----^
ll-----ll
Hubris Arrogance

or any number of variations of where along the line "green" turns into "red." There's a range of acceptable approximation, but where that range falls is up to the individual observer. Everything above the middle line is some degree of overconfidence, everything below some degree of under-confidence. Semantically, it strikes me as indefensible to put "arrogance" as the polar extreme of over-confidence (in the simplified model) or the expression of over-confidence (to use its actual meaning), since there are much more extreme options that cannot fit if arrogance is made the farthest pole from acceptable.

[Helanna]

I think you're misconstruing the argument somewhat, since the whole argument is framed around the omission of an approximate option. The clearest way to explain is probably to respond again by way of illustration. For instance, one could believe:

---I--------l--I---------
^----^
ll-----ll
Hubris Arrogance

or any number of variations of where along the line "green" turns into "red." There's a range of acceptable approximation, but where that range falls is up to the individual observer. Everything above the middle line is some degree of overconfidence, everything below some degree of under-confidence. Semantically, it strikes me as indefensible to put "arrogance" as the polar extreme of over-confidence (in the simplified model) or the expression of over-confidence (to use its actual meaning), since there are much more extreme options that cannot fit if arrogance is made the farthest pole from acceptable.

I think the real reason your argument doesn't work out is that arrogant doesn't mean overconfident. They may overlap occasionally, but you can be arrogant without being overconfident and overconfident without being arrogant.

Merriam-Webster (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arrogance) defines arrogance as "an attitude of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner or in presumptuous claims or assumptions". To me, the biggest part of being arrogant is that you act like you're better than everyone else. That's what separates it from just being confident in yourself, whether you're being overconfident or not.

[dehro]

arrogance is knowing stuff (or believing you do) and shoving the fact that you know said stuff in people's face.
if you know stuff you can mention it in a matter of fact way, if it's a useful information for somebody to have. that's confidence and pragmatism.
if you can't shut up about the fact that you know stuff, you're doing it wrong. that's arrogance.
and you better really know your stuff, because in many environments, arrogance can be forgiven if you're right and it's your only flaw...if it turns out you're wrong however, and you've also been a **** about it, people will remember and laugh at you, behind your back... if you're lucky.

as for the age-group thing..... there is a tendency to be a bit condescendent in "us adults" (having a hard time here..I still think of myself as a young kid, more often than not, but I'm 33, which isn't that old either).. the simple fact is that when you're 17-18, most people just assume that you haven't been/done/seen as much as they have..and more often than not, they're right.
the experiences that come with the simple passing of time..things as marrying, divorcing, burrying your parents, working, paying your taxes, holding your newborn baby, getting laid off, crashing a car, loosing a friend, retiring, moving to another country, going to war, being thrown in jail, starting up your own business not being able to count on your parents to bail you out anymore, having to bail out your parents... all these things that normally people do in the course of their adult life are the things that frame our perception of reality and life in general. What it tells us is that what we've lived and seen outweights by far anything a college student may have seen or done in his life. (which of course is a crass generalisation) It doesn't matter that when we were at college we thought we'd done it all and seen it all too....it doesn't matter that we have neither done nor seen it all even decades later..at ... insert your age.
most people will still think that unless you've lived through certain events, you simply don't know as much about life as they do. which is why if a young man comes over as arrogant, over-confident or just generally full of his competence, there is an even stronger urge to kick the young upstart back in line than you would have with someone in your age group.
to many adults, having a 17 year old "kid" trying to tell you things you have learned before they were born (or does this happen only to me?), or trying to convince you that they're right because they're the new thing..or telling you that CDs are better than LPs...
It just doesn't sound right, and they call it the arrogance of youth. It matters little that CDs just might have become better than LPs.. or that "the kid" actually knows how to reboot my computer better than me because he's been learning it at school whilst my computer at school had floppy disks that really were "floppy" and I hardly ever got to use it back then. if anything, his/her competence only makes us feel inadequate.

so.. if you know something better than the old balding/greying moron you're dealing with, tell him so if you must..but don't rub it in his face...because most likely he's had a lifetime of learning how to stick it to you or otherwise make you pay for being right...and chances are, there are other things he knows better than you...and you just might need that bit of knowledge, sometimes later in life.

also..this is relevant (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ohmMxFIbYY)

[Vacant]

EDIT: Aagh, wonky Internal Server Error double post.

[H Birchgrove]

CD's are not better than LP's as far as sound quality goes, especially if you have good hearing. (In that case, LP's are "better" because they record sound that you don't technically hear, but make the rest of the sound "warmer".)

[Vacant]

Hence why I said "simplified." Like I said, instead of over-/under-confidence, it can be the insensitive or hypersensitive-to-the-point-of-dishonest expression of that confidence. If anything, the more correct definition even provides more lenience in which arrogance can fit well within the range of acceptable if not exactly ideal traits; One could not mind overbearing personalities and be annoyed with meek ones, one could prefer blunt, brusque honesty to the slight artifice of white lies or false modesty, etc.

[dehro]

CD's are not better than LP's as far as sound quality goes, especially if you have good hearing. (In that case, LP's are "better" because they record sound that you don't technically hear, but make the rest of the sound "warmer".)

I know...I mentioned it because when CDs came out, this argument used to be a generational bone of contention, where I live.

[Serpentine]

I think you're misconstruing the argument somewhat, since the whole argument is framed around the omission of an approximate option.Not "the whole argument", your whole argument. Yours is the only one that depends on the "omission of an approximate option".

[Teddy]

While I think that what I see as arrogance is bad, the problem as I see it, and the reason to why I still agree more with Vacant than those who say that arrogance is flat out bad, is that most of you try to apply a definitive, non-graded label of bad to a concept whose confines are based on approximation, and then claim it to be indisputable. To start with, not everyone defines arrogance the same (evidently), and while I define it partially based on what I find to be a distasteful behaviour (making its boundaries highly subjective), while some may define it more around a specific type of behaviour irregardless of what they or others may think of a specific instance of it.

In the first (my) case, arrogance can be defined as bad per definition to those who share the definition, but then arrogance won't have any defined boundaries, meaning that we can't apply it to an actual case and still claim to be objective unless we all first can agree on what's "bad" and what isn't.

In the second case, the range of arrogance can be given more definite boundaries, but then it can't simply be stamped with the bad label, because even those who share the same definition of arrogance probably can't agree on if just a smidgen of it can be a positive trait or not.

In conclusion, I don't think that you can objectively stamp actual instances of arrogance-like behaviour as objectively bad, because (in my opinion) there are no objective definitions of neither "arrogance" nor "bad". If there were, then it would be possible, but then again, I don't believe that to be the case.

[Serpentine]

But... arrogance does have an objective definition, at least as much as any other word in the English language that can be found in dictionaries, and even where dictionaries do have slightly different definitions, the intrinsic badness of arrogance is always consistent :confused:

[Vacant]

Yeah, sorry, I was referring to the argument that I was making, which is that the claim that arrogance is necessarily is necessarily predicated on either the omission of approximate option or on a semantically inappropriate placement of arrogance as the most extreme possibility of its overall type of personality and behavior, or, in other words, existing as a true/false, on/off state; if someone can be "a little arrogant," arrogance cannot be the polar end-point and thus must denote a spectrum, this spectrum existing everywhere from "ideal" outwards in the direction denoted by arrogance.

This is the case because if every point on the spectrum outside of the ideal is bad, bad becomes meaningless and, on the other hand, if all points outside of ideal along the spectrum are "arrogance" only when they become "bad" in the eyes of the speaker, arrogance becomes an essentially meaningless pejorative for everyone other than the speaker. In this latter case, "arrogance" is necessarily bad to whomever is using the word, but "arrogance" may not be bad to anyone else around them. In an example of this, consider an earlier poster noted that a lack of false modesty is often seen as arrogance. If a lack of false modesty is arrogant. If arrogance is necessarily bad, and a lack of false modesty is arrogance, do you contend that any lack of false modesty is a bad trait? If not, arrogance is too variable a signifier to be necessarily a bad one (since some people may use it to include definitions which are not, in the eyes of many listeners, bad traits or behaviors).

[Mx.Silver]

I think you're misconstruing the argument somewhat, since the whole argument is framed around the omission of an approximate option
I understand perfectly well that, as Serp rightly noted, your entire argument depends on that omission. What I'm doing is challenging your argument on the grounds that this omission is an over-simplification to the point of being factually inaccurate and therefore we have no reason to make said omission in the first place.


[...] it strikes me as indefensible to put "arrogance" as the polar extreme of over-confidence (in the simplified model) or the expression of over-confidence (to use its actual meaning), since there are much more extreme options that cannot fit if arrogance is made the farthest pole from acceptable.

I'm not saying arrogance is the polar extreme of overconfidence. What I am saying is that arrogance, by its very definition, is a behavioural trait that falls outside the range of acceptability. This has no bearing on whether or not there are other behavioural traits which or worse - hence why I didn't bother putting any other bands on my illustration: they aren't relevant.

[Teddy]

But... arrogance does have an objective definition, at least as much as any other word in the English language that can be found in dictionaries, and even where dictionaries do have slightly different definitions, the intrinsic badness of arrogance is always consistent :confused:

Okay, for the sake of this argument, let's say that arrogance is defined by it's inherent badness, as well as some other arbitrary qualifiers to narrow it down (I prefer to stay general for as long as being more specific achieves nothing except for cementing my own position on the matter, as it prevents me from being pinned down in positions I can't defend). This means that no objective boundaries of arrogance can be properly defined, which means that while you can define the trait as objectively bad, you can't define the trait itself objectively, and so the whole labeling of arrogance as bad lost its meaning, because there is no concrete trait or behaviour that you can objectively call arrogant, and thus bad.

Based on those premises, this question no longer carries a point, for while arrogance is always bad under these condition, the word itself has lost its weight, as you no longer can objectively identify a person as "arrogant".

[Serpentine]

"Okay, for the sake of this argument, let's say that evil is defined by it's inherent badness, as well as some other arbitrary qualifiers to narrow it down (I prefer to stay general for as long as being more specific achieves nothing except for cementing my own position on the matter, as it prevents me from being pinned down in positions I can't defend). This means that no objective boundaries of evil can be properly defined, which means that while you can define the trait as objectively bad, you can't define the trait itself objectively, and so the whole labeling of evil as bad lost its meaning, because there is no concrete trait or behaviour that you can objectively call evil, and thus bad.

Based on those premises, this question no longer carries a point, for while arrogance is always bad under these condition, the word itself has lost its weight, as you no longer can objectively identify a person as "evil".

I think that pretty much sums up my opinion of this semantics argument...

I'll try putting it this way: arrogance is by definition a bad thing. This is an objective fact of the English language.
The point at which self-confidence (a good or neutral trait) becomes arrogance - bad - is a matter of subjective opinion based on individual perceptions.
The latter does not in any way negate the former.

[Teddy]

[...]

I think that pretty much sums up my opinion of this semantics argument...

I'll try putting it this way: arrogance is by definition a bad thing. This is an objective fact. The point at which self-confidence (a good or neutral trait) becomes arrogance - bad - is a matter of subjective opinion based on individual perceptions.

Smooth...

I still object to the "fact" that there is one single objective definition of "arrogant". "Arrogant" is a word, and thus, its definition is defined by those who use it. If you can show me that at least 50% of the world's population who use the word or any translation thereof all define it as a inherently bad quality, the I'm going to accept it as objective through the democratic principle, but before that, I'm going to stick to saying that you should be careful with declaring something to be objective or a fact when it in relies on the popular idea.

For the record, The Oxford Guide to the English Language defines "arrogant" as proud and overbearing. Unless any of those words are defined as inherently bad, that's at least one written down definition that doesn't claim it to be.

[Objection]

Given that people tend to use dictionary definitions of words as their own definitions, I would argue that if there is no dictionary definition that does not define arrogance as being bad, then 100% of the world's population who use the word or any translation thereof all define it as an inherently bad quality.

Now I'm gonna go see if I can find such a definition.

EDIT:

No mention of the word 'bad', but there is 'overbearing' (which, due to the prefix 'over', suggests 'excess', which we established as being bad), so ... (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/arrogant)
I'd like to see you try to argue that 'offensive' isn't inherently bad. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/arrogance)
This one is Urban Dictionary so contains strong language, but again, the terms used in the definition strongly imply badness. (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=arrogant)
Again, 'overbearing'. (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arrogance)
See above. (http://www.answers.com/topic/arrogant)
See above. (http://dictionary.reverso.net/english-definition/arrogance)
See above except with 'overly' instead. (http://vocabulary-vocabulary.com/dictionary/arrogant.php)


That's page 1 of a Google search of arrogance definition done. Shall I continue?

Oh, and while I'm at it, I'll just leave this (http://www.2knowmyself.com/Definition_of_arrogance_psychology/superiority_humbleness) here.

[Karoht]

Why be Arrogant when you can be self-assured and confident without breaching respect for others?

That said, confidence and arrogance have a tendancy to be mistaken. Arrogance being mistaken for confidence and vice versa.

As for opinions more valid than others, there are two things I would like some input on.

1-Stupid people exist, in vast numbers, and think they know how to do things that they do not, such as operate a motor vehicle with any degree of safety or control.

2-What is more important? An opinion or a fact? I've commonly heard the phrase "opinions are meaningless" on some forums, what do you make of this suggestion?

[pendell]

OP, allow me to introduce you to the concept of Aristotlean ethics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotelian_ethics)



Aristotle believed that every ethical virtue or positive character trait can be described as a pleasant intermediate activity, between a painful excess and a painful deficiency. But seeing what is most pleasant and most painful in truth is not something everyone can easily do, especially if they are badly brought up and not experienced. Another way Aristotle describes each of the moral virtues is as a correct aiming at what is beautiful (kalos).

For example, courageous (or literally manly) action is a mean between the painful activities of fear and rash overconfidence. Too much fear or too little confidence leads to cowardice, and too little fear or too much confidence can lead to rash, foolish choices. (Such philosophies of aiming at a middle ground are often referred to as The Golden Mean.) But courage is also described as an ability to rationally choose the beautiful, which in some cases can be a beautiful death.


To boil this down, all 'virtue' is an intermediate point between opposite vices.

In the case you are talking of, I believe the virtue to aim for is humility (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humility). This does not mean that you view yourself as one step above the worms crawling along the ground, but that you have a proper appreciation for yourself and your place in the universe.

Too little self-regard, and you fall into -- I don't know the specific word for the vice, but it's the kind of thing where an eagle pretends to be a chicken. It's what people used to do to slaves, making people into things. It is a horrible thing to rob a person of their natural, rightful dignity and self-respect. It's not good to do it to someone else. So we shouldn't do it to ourselves, either.

Too MUCH self-regard, and you have arrogance. That's what leads people to do crazy things, trusting in their own super awesomeness to see them through. That's when people start making gigantic statues of themselves and saying things like "My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings! Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!"

The world has a way of punishing people who have more confidence than ability. And when this happens, everyone else laughs at them.

So we see that a human is to have proper pride. Parents take pride in their children. A soldier is expected to uphold the honor of his unit -- "Unit pride" keeps men from running.

The problem is that most moral and ethical teaching treats pride as a vice. I believe this is because most moral teaching is aimed at a typical adolescent male. The assumption is that the audience is young, headstrong, and cocksure. Groundlessly self-confident in their ability and unwilling to listen to older heads who have been there and done that.

The problem is, there is the other kind of person. The person who cuts himself, the person who is fallen apart, the homeless person. The person whose self image is totally shattered.

Such people need their heads lifted up, not endless lectures on how raising their heads is tantamount to the Worst Thing A Human Can Do. But most moral teaching misses this. Presumably because that kind of shattering is not normal. It seems to be considered "normal" for humans to think too highly of themselves.

So, to answer your original question, "Arrogance" is the quality of having too much self-confidence. And yes, that is a bad thing always. But not all self-confidence and self-esteem is arrogance. There is a measure of self-confidence that all humans should have, simply by virtue that we are all humans. We are, as C.S. Lewis put it, humans, "and that is enough both to lift the head of the lowest beggar and to bow the head of the greatest emperor."

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Serpentine]

Smooth...

I still object to the "fact" that there is one single objective definition of "arrogant". "Arrogant" is a word, and thus, its definition is defined by those who use it. If you can show me that at least 50% of the world's population who use the word or any translation thereof all define it as a inherently bad quality, the I'm going to accept it as objective through the democratic principle, but before that, I'm going to stick to saying that you should be careful with declaring something to be objective or a fact when it in relies on the popular idea.

For the record, The Oxford Guide to the English Language defines "arrogant" as proud and overbearing. Unless any of those words are defined as inherently bad, that's at least one written down definition that doesn't claim it to be.Dictionary.com: "offensive display of superiority or self-importance; overbearing pride."

Cambridge Dictionary: "unpleasantly proud and behaving as if you are more important than, or know more than, other people"

Oxford Dictionary: "the quality of being arrogant"; arrogant: "having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one’s own importance or abilities"

The Free Dictionary: 1. Having or displaying a sense of overbearing self-worth or self-importance.
2. Marked by or arising from a feeling or assumption of one's superiority toward other

Merriam Webster: "an attitude of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner or in presumptuous claims or assumptions"

Considering the overwhelming negativity evident in a variety of dictionaries, I think it's pretty safe to say that at least 50% of the population uses it in the same way - I'd be more inclined to say "the overwhelming majority".

Shall I start requiring you to prove that the definition for every single word you use is shared by at least 50% of the population? In any case, regarding your later question, for starters, is that the whole definition, word for word? For seconds:

Overbearing
Dictionary.com: "domineering; dictatorial; haughtily or rudely arrogant."

Cambridge Dictionary: "too confident and too determined to tell other people what to do, in a way that is unpleasant"

Oxford Dictionary: "unpleasantly overpowering"

The Free Dictionary: "Domineering in manner; arrogant"

Merriam-Webster: "harshly and haughtily arrogant"


Can a person who is arrogant also be likable, generally a good person, and other such positive qualities? Certainly. Will it be despite their arrogance? In the vast majority of cases, yes, I believe so. And in the exceptions (inasmuch as I can conceive them, not that I've seen them), I expect it would be a case of a "lovable foible" than an innately good feature.

[Teddy]

1-Stupid people exist, in vast numbers, and think they know how to do things that they do not, such as operate a motor vehicle with any degree of safety or control.

What for input is it exactly that you want on this?


2-What is more important? An opinion or a fact? I've commonly heard the phrase "opinions are meaningless" on some forums, what do you make of this suggestion?

That depends if the matter we're discussing can be expressed in terms of cold, hard facts or not. If we are, then opinions are meaningless. "In my opinion, 1+1=3" or "In my opinion, the world is flat" are both meaningless opinions, as there are facts to prove them wrong with. Even "In my opinion, 1+1=2" and "In my opinion, dark energy exists" are meaningless opinions as well, because these aren't subject to opinions, even if they happen to be true or not enough facts exists in the matter yet (not neccessarilly true in the second case, but close enough AFAIK).

If we aren't, then they aren't as well. "In my opinion, cloudberries are delicious" is a perfectly valid opinion, and the opposite is as well, and they're both highly useful if we are to decide upon which berries to serve together with the ice-cream. There are no facts to help in this matter.

In short, opinions and facts aren't compatible. In the case where one can be applied, the other can't. It's true that facts render opinions meaningless, but be careful to make sure that said facts aren't just disguised opinions.

EDIT:

[dictionary definitions on words]

Look, I've already made my standing clear. Unless you can prove that these few dictionaries were written by a majority of the world's population, you won't make me change my mind on whether "arrogance" being defined as an inherently bad quality is an "objective fact" or not. Dictionaries are guides to help people communicate with eachother without misunderstandings, but they're not law texts, and you can't use them as such either.

[GolemsVoice]

Look, I've already made my standing clear. Unless you can prove that these few dictionaries were written by a majority of the world's population, you won't make me change my mind on whether "arrogance" being defined as an inherently bad quality is an "objective fact" or not. Dictionaries are a guide to help people communicate with eachother without misunderstandings, but they're not law texts. They're guidelines and that's it.

Where do YOU think dictionaries get their ideas from? They laready HAVE conducted those studies, because a dictionary whose definitions of words differ from the way these words are actually used is a useless dictionary. And even if you do not believe this, and remain convinced of your opinion due to the fact that none of us can conduct a worldwide study on the use of the word arrogant, the fact that a lot of dictionaries agree on one point should make you think. After all, I can use that line of reasoning for anything.

"What, you call me an idiot? Well, I'll take that as a compliment, because you can't prove to me that at least 50% of the people who use the word idiot use it to describe a foolish person." And I could make that argument for EVERY word in that sentence. At some point, you'll have to open a dictionary and accept what it says, otherwise, you'll get nowhere.



Such people need their heads lifted up, not endless lectures on how raising their heads is tantamount to the Worst Thing A Human Can Do. But most moral teaching misses this. Presumably because that kind of shattering is not normal. It seems to be considered "normal" for humans to think too highly of themselves.

I'm not sure where you're getting that idea from. Films are full of people who disobey their superiors to Get The Job Done, movies and books celebrate the underdog who accomplishes everything etc. I think "doing the right thing" even in the face of adversity is a central theme in many stories.

[Teddy]

Where do YOU think dictionaries get their ideas from? They laready HAVE conducted those studies, because a dictionary whose definitions of words differ from the way these words are actually used is a useless dictionary. And even if you do not believe this, and remain convinced of your opinion due to the fact that none of us can conduct a worldwide study on the use of the word arrogant, the fact that a lot of dictionaries agree on one point should make you think. After all, I can use that line of reasoning for anything.

"What, you call me an idiot? Well, I'll take that as a compliment, because you can't prove to me that at least 50% of the people who use the word idiot use it to describe a foolish person." And I could make that argument for EVERY word in that sentence. At some point, you'll have to open a dictionary and accept what it says, otherwise, you'll get nowhere.

Look, I'm not debating that "arrogant" being defined as an inherently bad quality is a bad or unpopular definition (I even define it that way myself, as I said earlier). I just wish that people stop calling things "objective facts" when they can't back it up, lest they water down the power behind the words, a power, which I should add, is desperately needed when the words are used to describe actual, indisputable objective facts. Also, it's a great way to open up for misunderstandings.

Also, in my eyes, that's a rather good way to cut back at someone who calls you an idiot. May I use it, should anyone ever do so? :smallwink:

Also, I'm not saying that you can't use a word just because it's definition isn't an objective fact. I'm just saying that you can't claim it to be an objective fact unless there's something to back the claim up with.

[Serpentine]

Arrogance is as objectively a bad thing as "bad" objectively means "really not good".
Put it another way: It is an objective fact that the overwhelming majority of dictionaries and people define "arrogance" with an intrinsic negative aspect. With this fact, and until it is no longer so, it is objectively true that arrogance is defined as a negative trait. Whether you want to quibble them away or not, we have given you the things with which we back up that claim. Your pointless semanticising is merely muddying the waters with things that simply aren't relevant to the question.

[dehro]

heu... it seems to me several people are mistaking the definition of arrogance for what behaviour constitutes an arrogant behaviour.
the first is pretty much clear in that it is a negative trait... what behaviour falls under said trait can be disputed and may be different for each of us, but that doesn't change the definition.
also, if we start disputing every definition in a dictionary or pretending that it should be put to the vote so that the majority of the world's population can have their say on the definition..even when most if not all dictionaries agree on the general terms...I'm never gonna play scrabble again.

can we agree that the words arrogant and arrogance are commonly (and according to the dictionaries, correctly) used in the english language to describe a particular form of unpleasant and inherently negative behaviour?
now we could use this definition and roll with it.
unpleasantness is a negative thing.. and is very subjective. for anything unpleasant I can come up with, I'm pretty sure, somewhere, someone, doesn't find it all that unpleasant....
let's say a slap in the face.. I don't like it and find it unpleasant. I've met people who actually enjoy it..or at least don't object to it as strongly as I do. they don't share my use for a slap in the face as an example of unpleasantness..but don't dispute the use of the word itself and it's meaning.
the same is true for arrogance... one might not share the same opinion of what constitutes an arrogant behaviour... but the use of the word arrogant is in it's own right, not subjective but objective. if you're talking about a behaviour that is inherently negative, then you use the word arrogant.
if you don't feel that whatever behaviour you are analysing falls under such a negative perspective, there's another word for it... cocky.
and of course, whether being cocky is a good thing or a negative thing depends entirely on the amount of **** involved.

[dehro]

Look, I'm not debating that "arrogant" being defined as an inherently bad quality is a bad or unpopular definition (I even define it that way myself, as I said earlier). I just wish that people stop calling things "objective facts" when they can't back it up, lest they water down the power behind the words, a power, which I should add, is desperately needed when the words are used to describe actual, indisputable objective facts. Also, it's a great way to open up for misunderstandings.

when a slew of dictionaries, the common perception, most examples one can come up with and your own words say that arrogance in and off itself is a bad thing..I'd say that one can call it a fact with a reasonable amount of certainty...and backup.
the onus of demonstrating that some positive value to it can be ascribed in strong enough terms to dispute the common perception should fall on you, if you disagree with the terms of the definition.

if you don't..what are we even talking about? semantics are fun..when they have a purpose.

[GolemsVoice]

Also, in my eyes, that's a rather good way to cut back at someone who calls you an idiot. May I use it, should anyone ever do so?

By all means, PM me the response :smallbiggrin:

[Vacant]

I'm not saying arrogance is the polar extreme of overconfidence. What I am saying is that arrogance, by its very definition, is a behavioural trait that falls outside the range of acceptability. This has no bearing on whether or not there are other behavioural traits which or worse - hence why I didn't bother putting any other bands on my illustration: they aren't relevant.

See, this falls then under my second semantic objection, which is that this makes arrogance, rather than badness, essentially meaningless. In the view you're arguing here, arrogance is necessarily bad, but arrogance isn't necessarily the same thing or even close to the same thing from one person to the next. Essentially, there's nothing wrong with the argument, but all it really does is lead to the question to be rephrased to ask what is essentially the same thing; "Is being confident and expressing it forcefully/brusquely necessarily bad?" for example.


I'll try putting it this way: arrogance is by definition a bad thing. This is an objective fact of the English language.

"Offensive" and "overbearing" are not objectively or inherently bad. They're often bad, but they don't have to be. In example, I have no problem with "offensive language" or, for that matter, rude, overbearing, arrogant jerks. A friend who is rude, overbearing, arrogant jerk is also an honest, strong-willed, self-confident and unafraid to display care and concern for one's actions. I value my friends who are rude arrogant jerks not in spite of that trait but because of it.
I also don't see how majorities create "objective facts." Universality creates objective facts. Majorities create widely held subjective opinions.

[Serpentine]

Oh for crying out loud.
Forget this argument. I'll leave the philosophies of language, subjectivism and refusal to acknowledge facts as facts to people who actually give a damn.

[Objection]

A friend who is rude, overbearing, arrogant jerk is also an honest, strong-willed, self-confident and unafraid to display care and concern for one's actions.

Because it's impossible to be honest, strong-willed, self-confident and unafraid to display care and concern for one's actions without being a rude, overbearing, arrogant jerk, right?

[Traab]

"Offensive" and "overbearing" are not objectively or inherently bad. They're often bad, but they don't have to be. In example, I have no problem with "offensive language" or, for that matter, rude, overbearing, arrogant jerks. A friend who is rude, overbearing, arrogant jerk is also an honest, strong-willed, self-confident and unafraid to display care and concern for one's actions. I value my friends who are rude arrogant jerks not in spite of that trait but because of it.
I also don't see how majorities create "objective facts." Universality creates objective facts. Majorities create widely held subjective opinions.

Yes, offensive does have an inherently negative meaning. (When not referring to a sports teams offensive lineup just to avoid that silliness) Just because you dont find various curse words offensive doesnt mean that the word offensive isnt inherently bad, it means you dont find those words to be offensive. When you describe something as offensive that means it is subjectively bad for you. The term offensive though is a universal one that applies to anything the person using it would describe as a bad thing. Referring to something as offensive is never calling it something positive.

[Helanna]

See, this falls then under my second semantic objection, which is that this makes arrogance, rather than badness, essentially meaningless. In the view you're arguing here, arrogance is necessarily bad, but arrogance isn't necessarily the same thing or even close to the same thing from one person to the next. Essentially, there's nothing wrong with the argument, but all it really does is lead to the question to be rephrased to ask what is essentially the same thing; "Is being confident and expressing it forcefully/brusquely necessarily bad?" for example.


At this point, you're not even discussing anything, you're just quibbling semantics without making any meaningful contribution to the actual topic. Arrogance does generally fall within the same range for most people. Imagine someone posted, asking "Is punching people bad?" The answer is yes. No need to get into an argument over what constitutes punching versus slapping versus poking, or because a few people wouldn't mind, because if you're going to sit there and argue that you can't objectively say that punching people is bad, well, why even bother with the conversation? You're clearly not even discussing the same thing. That's a philosophical discussion that doesn't have any real use in the conversation that is actually happening.

Also, you are still using a wrong definition for arrogance. Expressing confidence forcefully is not necessarily arrogance. Expressing it offensively or acting like you're superior to everyone around you is.

[Vacant]

Just because you dont find various curse words offensive doesnt mean that the word offensive isnt inherently bad, it means you dont find those words to be offensive.

Well, if enough dictionaries and common opinion define a word as offensive, it is as inherently offensive as arrogance is inherently offensive. Either arrogance doesn't have to be offensive just because several dictionaries say it is offensive, or any given profanity is necessarily offensive (whether or not one is offended by it) because several dictionaries say it is. From this, either arrogance is not necessarily offensive or being offensive is not necessarily a bad thing (as offensive language must be offensive, but I do not consider offensive language "bad," so it can't necessarily be bad by virtue of being offensive).


At this point, you're not even discussing anything, you're just quibbling semantics without making any meaningful contribution to the actual topic. Arrogance does generally fall within the same range for most people. Imagine someone posted, asking "Is punching people bad?" The answer is yes. No need to get into an argument over what constitutes punching versus slapping versus poking, or because a few people wouldn't mind, because if you're going to sit there and argue that you can't objectively say that punching people is bad, well, why even bother with the conversation? You're clearly not even discussing the same thing. That's a philosophical discussion that doesn't have any real use in the conversation that is actually happening.

Also, you are still using a wrong definition for arrogance. Expressing confidence forcefully is not necessarily arrogance. Expressing it offensively or acting like you're superior to everyone around you is.
Or expressing it overbearingly or excessively or any number of other ways. The point I was trying to make is that the I don't think the question of the thread was intended to be "what does it say in the dictionary under arrogant?" The central conceit of the OP as I understood it is that arrogance is generally seen as a negative trait and colloquially used as such, but that the traits which make up arrogance do not necessarily seem universally bad, therefore, the OP poses the question "is the idea of arrogance as inherently bad a valid definition for the traits associated with the idea of arrogance?" To use the example of "offensive" as inherent bad, if one were to make a thread asking if profanity is offensive, chances are one doesn't mean "does the dictionary say it is an offensive or vulgar word," and instead means to ask "do you find the idea that language can be inherently offensive to have intellectual merit," or something more like to that.



Because it's impossible to be honest, strong-willed, self-confident and unafraid to display care and concern for one's actions without being a rude, overbearing, arrogant jerk, right?

Not in the same way, no.

[DeadManSleeping]

Arrogance is treating your waiter like crap because you know you're better than him.
Arrogance is telling your friends to **** off when they suggest you might be wrong.
Arrogance is refusing to like someone for no other reason than that their opinion is different than yours on a single topic.
Arrogance is hurting others for your own benefit.

Maybe these aren't the dictionary definitions of arrogance. Maybe you can't even pin the word "bad" to any of these because of how semantics work.

And yes, these are things we all do and think, whether once a decade or once a day, because that's just how humans work.

All I know is that every time I have the knowledge and the choice, I am going to choose the company of people who avoid those behaviors and encourage me to avoid them.

If you think differently, I won't say you're a bad person for it.

But I'll ask you to please not come to the restaurant I work at. We have stressful enough lives as it is.

[Vacant]

Arrogance is telling your friends to **** off when they suggest you might be wrong.

See, I wouldn't do this, but I value it when my friends do.

[Serpentine]

You value people telling you to **** off when you question their views? :smallconfused:

[Vacant]

If they want me to, they should tell me they want me to. If everyone I was starting to offend or anger just told me to shut up when they wanted me to, both my life and theirs would be far easier. The more brusque and overbearing their manner, the more clear it is that I should shut up.

[Serpentine]

There was nothing about "when you start to offend or anger", just "when they think you're wrong".

Moreover, telling someone to shut up because they're being obnoxious isn't arrogance.

[DeadManSleeping]

I also value people telling me when to get off a topic. I don't value people unable to handle discussion of sensitive personal views when people have DIFFERENT sensitive personal views.

But my friends like to wear cloaks and make warlock jokes, so I wouldn't say my taste is the be-all end-all.

[Fiery Diamond]

*reads thread, especially last two pages*

...


*jaw drops*


...


What is this I don't even.

[Objection]

If they want me to, they should tell me they want me to. If everyone I was starting to offend or anger just told me to shut up when they wanted me to, both my life and theirs would be far easier. The more brusque and overbearing their manner, the more clear it is that I should shut up.

That falls more within the realm of "brutally honest", which does not equate to arrogance.

[Serpentine]

*reads thread, especially last two pages*

...


*jaw drops*


...


What is this I don't even.Excellent question :smallannoyed:

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

*reads thread, especially last two pages*

...


*jaw drops*


...


What is this I don't even.

I'm like "Oh this sounds like an interesting topic."
Then I'm like "Nope, not gonna get into that."

[dehro]

vacant.. it seem to me you're walking in semantical circles that lead nowhere, for the sake of not conceding the argument...
your main argumentation seems to be a fluctuating combination of "words mean nothing and everything" and "words mean a different thing to everybody so nothing is inherently good or bad"..which you tailor to the reactions you get and wrap in more circuitous logic to hide the basic flaw in the argument and the fact that that's all you got.
as for the the actual merit of your argumentation...that's just not how languages work in my world.
I'm done with this thread until an actual valid argument surfaces to counter my views.

[Whiffet]

I'm like "Oh this sounds like an interesting topic."
Then I'm like "Nope, not gonna get into that."

Oh yeah, I saw people were posting and I was all, "You know, the opposite of arrogance is humility, right? I really admire people who can be humble without being uncertain or unconfident. I think it's one of the most desirable traits in a person. I wonder if anyone else feels that way, I should go and ask... whoa, what the... GAHHHH!!!"

Well. If anyone cares to discuss that, go ahead, but I think this board is toxic, so... :smalleek:

[Worira]

{Scrubbed}

[Vacant]

vacant.. it seem to me you're walking in semantical circles that lead nowhere, for the sake of not conceding the argument...
your main argumentation seems to be a fluctuating combination of "words mean nothing and everything" and "words mean a different thing to everybody so nothing is inherently good or bad"..which you tailor to the reactions you get and wrap in more circuitous logic to hide the basic flaw in the argument and the fact that that's all you got.
as for the the actual merit of your argumentation...that's just not how languages work in my world.
I'm done with this thread until an actual valid argument surfaces to counter my views.

My language can become obfuscating at times as a consequence of the type of writing I tend to read. Hopefully the following layout of what I've argued will clarify what I was attempting to say.

1. If arrogance is defined as being bad, there isn't any point in discussing the topic as written and the discussion should instead focus on the question of whether or not defining the traits associated with arrogance as bad traits is justified.

2. I don't think I agree with the notion that arrogance is actually defined as a fundamentally, necessarily, bad thing. See the double-standard between arrogance being an "offensive display" and the possibility of not being offended by "offensive language"/not thinking offensive language is a bad thing. Either the dictionary defining something as offensive does not make it necessarily offensive (not finding arrogance or offensive language offensive), or being offensive is not necessarily bad (arrogance and offensive language are offensive, but that is not intrinsically bad). Otherwise, there's a double-standard. The same double-standard can be invoked with "overbearing" and so on.

3. If we go with point 1 and assume that arrogance is intrinsically defined as a bad thing and instead question if that definition is valid, we come to the point that some people find behaviors defined by all the elements of arrogance except a presumption of negativity to be perfectly acceptable. At this point, it comes down to a debate between the idea that while most people see the elements of arrogance as negative, they are not necessarily negative because of individual subjectivity and the idea that a majority in agreement determines the objective truth.

4. If we go with the line of reasoning from point two, the conclusion is even simpler. Arrogance is not inherently defined as being bad, merely defined as being generally offensive. To those not offended by arrogance, it is neither offensive nor is it bad. Therefore arrogance is not necessarily bad, only bad in the eyes of those offended by it.

[GolemsVoice]

4. If we go with the line of reasoning from point two, the conclusion is even simpler. Arrogance is not inherently defined as being bad, merely defined as being generally offensive. To those not offended by arrogance, it is neither offensive nor is it bad. Therefore arrogance is not necessarily bad, only bad in the eyes of those offended by it.

Just because somebody isn't offended by a certain tiype of behaviour doesn't make it NOT bad. If I was telling racist jokes, and a person of that race wouldn't mind despite seeing clearly that I was not joking, would I not be a racist? And the fact that there might be people somewhere who are not offended by arrogance even under their own definition makes arrogance only nor universaly bad in the literal or mathematical sense, not in the sense of how the word is widely used. And I think if you asked enough people, the majority would define arrogance as a bad trait.

[Mx.Silver]

See, this falls then under my second semantic objection, which is that this makes arrogance, rather than badness, essentially meaningless. In the view you're arguing here, arrogance is necessarily bad, but arrogance isn't necessarily the same thing or even close to the same thing from one person to the next. Essentially, there's nothing wrong with the argument,
Yes there is, because you're still falsely equating subjectivity in the classification of something with subjectivity in the meaning of the classification label. If you can't accept that there is a distinction here, then you're going to have write off one hell of a lot terms as being meaningless (including the word 'meaningless' itself) because there will always be disagreement about when and where normative/descriptive labels should be applied, in which case we have far bigger problems than quibbling about arrogance and any discussion of them should be carried-out in it's own. If you do accept it, then you'll have to concede the point and put an end to this farcical discussion.


In any event, I'm done here. The OP's question was answered pages ago and this subsequent mess is only muddying the waters.

[dehro]

My language can become obfuscating at times as a consequence of the type of writing I tend to read. Hopefully the following layout of what I've argued will clarify what I was attempting to say.
I understand the difficult words...I can also see when they're used as a smoke-screen, to "obfuscate" an inconsistent argumentation
1. If arrogance is defined as being bad, there isn't any point in discussing the topic as written and the discussion should instead focus on the question of whether or not defining the traits associated with arrogance as bad traits is justified.
quite so... the topic asked whether arrogance is inherently bad. the general consensus in replies is that yes, it is. that should have closed the debate.
2. I don't think I agree with the notion that arrogance is actually defined as a fundamentally, necessarily, bad thing. See the double-standard between arrogance being an "offensive display" and the possibility of not being offended by "offensive language"/not thinking offensive language is a bad thing. Either the dictionary defining something as offensive does not make it necessarily offensive (not finding arrogance or offensive language offensive), or being offensive is not necessarily bad (arrogance and offensive language are offensive, but that is not intrinsically bad). Otherwise, there's a double-standard. The same double-standard can be invoked with "overbearing" and so on.
yeah..no. you're saying that you don't agree with the notion that rain is liquid because you're not bothered by the raindrops falling on your head. you not being bothered by it doesn't change the liquid status of rain. There is no double standard here. one definition says arrogance is an offensive behaviour. the objection says that someone may not consider a behaviour offensive. in the case where one is not offended, the word arrogance simply doesn't apply in his perception of the behaviour.
3. If we go with point 1 and assume that arrogance is intrinsically defined as a bad thing and instead question if that definition is valid, we come to the point that some people find behaviors defined by all the elements of arrogance except a presumption of negativity to be perfectly acceptable. At this point, it comes down to a debate between the idea that while most people see the elements of arrogance as negative, they are not necessarily negative because of individual subjectivity and the idea that a majority in agreement determines the objective truth.
you don't get to arbitrarily negate that presumption of negativity, because it's pretty much the fundamental element of the definition of the word. it's like trying to negate that farts stink by negating that they are an emission of a mixture of gasses. you can't remove the basic concept behind a definition without it becoming a pointless exercise in verbosity. or if you prefer..you can try and negate a definition pretty much all estabilished sources and authorities in the field of "ascribing meaning to words" agree on..but you should have a case built on stronger bricks than "let's assume the definition is wrong".. or "it's wrong because I disagree"
4. If we go with the line of reasoning from point two, the conclusion is even simpler. Arrogance is not inherently defined as being bad, merely defined as being generally offensive. To those not offended by arrogance, it is neither offensive nor is it bad. Therefore arrogance is not necessarily bad, only bad in the eyes of those offended by it.
again, no. we can't go with that line of reasoning. you're again muddying the waters between the definition of a negative concept and it's real world manifestations. manifestations are "received" in differing manner depending on the values, ideas and opinions of the receiver.. but the definition of the concept (and it's intrinsic negative value) still stands.
If an occurrence happens where Tom calls Harry an arrogant person he will say so based on what he percieves as arrogant behaviour or episodes of manifested arrogance. If you disagree with Harry's assessment, and are not offended by Tom's antics, you will have to define Tom by other words than arrogant. You can say that the behaviours Tom finds objectionable in Harry aren't born of arrogance but out of *insert other word with lesser or no negative connotation*. thereby you'll subvert the notion that Harry is arrogant. What you won't be trying to tell Tom, is that Harry is arrogant but that it's cool to be thus. You just can't say "yeah..he's an arrogant so and so..but that's a good thing, really." because if you did that, he could just say that you're being a...third member of the team

english has many words. with a wealth of different nuances (which is a french word..).. let's use them, shall we?

[Scarlet Knight]

english has many words. with a wealth of different nuances (which is a french word..).. let's use them, shall we?

This is an excellent point. When the speaker chooses the word “arrogant” instead of “proud” or “confident” , he does so to impart a meaning to the listener.


“You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it does.” - I.Montoyo

People who use words incorrectly cannot complain if the listener gets a different message than what the speaker meant. That is why dictionaries exist, so there is an objective source. Can you use words differently than common acceptance? Of course; slang and sarcasm are two common examples. But they are exemptions and often lead to errors in communication.

If you choose to use “arrogance” in a positive way, don’t blame your listener if he thinks you're simply using it incorrectly.

[Objection]

I think Scarlet Knight makes a good point. It's why I tend to think through what I say carefully because I want to avoid being misinterpreted (although sadly, often I still am despite my best efforts).

[Teddy]

Arrogance is as objectively a bad thing as "bad" objectively means "really not good".
Put it another way: It is an objective fact that the overwhelming majority of dictionaries and people define "arrogance" with an intrinsic negative aspect. With this fact, and until it is no longer so, it is objectively true that arrogance is defined as a negative trait. Whether you want to quibble them away or not, we have given you the things with which we back up that claim. Your pointless semanticising is merely muddying the waters with things that simply aren't relevant to the question.

It is objectively true that at least one definition of arrogant defines it as an inherently bad quality. I use such a definition, hence it's true for at least someone, hence whole statement is true. That's a fact, disputing it is pointless, and I don't.

However, claiming that it's an objective fact that arrogance is solely defined as an inherently bad trait (and some other stuff) runs you into a whole bunch of new problems. First of all, you must clarify who or what is providing the objective definition. Is it the dictionaries? Is it the majority of the population? Is it the majority of the educated population. Do foreign speakers have a say on the matter? Is it a universal constant? Etc etc...

I'm going to use the total population and dictionaries in an example below.


[...]

People who use words incorrectly cannot complain if the listener gets a different message than what the speaker meant. That is why dictionaries exist, so there is an objective source. Can you use words differently than common acceptance? Of course; slang and sarcasm are two common examples. But they are exemptions and often lead to errors in communication.

If you choose to use “arrogance” in a positive way, don’t blame your listener if he thinks you're simply using it incorrectly.

Here's an example that illustrates why I don't think you can say that it's a "objective fact" that a limited amount of definitions are the only correct defintions of a word. For the sake of this example, let's assume (or adamantly believe, if you prefere that) that whether the definition of a word is correct or not is an objective fact and thus indisputable:

(spoilered for length)
Let's say that I'm insane and hate the definition of the word "flask" (which in this world is objectively defined as "a container that holds liquids"). To me, a flask is a low, flat wooden structure with three walls. I think pretty much anyone (but me, as I'm insane) will agree that this is the wrong definition of the word "flask", and it's objective, so clearly I'm wrong nevertheless.

Now, let's further assume that my PR skill is up in the legendaries, and in one year's time, I've converted a whole third of the world's population to botch the old definition and start using my new definiton where "flask" denotes a low, flat wooden structure with three walls. The rest of the population either refuses to aknowledge the new definition, or, as in a few cases, haven't heard of it yet. 1/3 of the population now use the new definition of the word "flask" in this new way, but is this now a legal definition? A majority of the world's population say no, so if we get our objective facts from them, it's not. Let's say that all dictionary writers hate it as well, meaning that if we get if from there, it's an illegal definition as well. So 2 billion humans must be using the word wrong, right?

Let's say that another year passes, and now 99% of the world's population use the word "flask" the way I like it. The remaining percent are either hermits who haven't heard it or dictionary writers who still hate the new definition. Is the use of the word "flask" to denote a low, flat wooden structure with three walls legal now? If we say that the general opinion is what makes something objective, then yes. If it's the dictionaries, then no, despite the fact that no one uses them anymore.

Then one day, one of the hermits decide to take a ride to some place. Along the road, he gets lost and asks for the way. He recieves instructions to keep following the road for a short while and then turn just before the flasks. The hermit is baffled and asks if he heard correctly when he heard the word "flasks", thinking that that'd be a strange landmark indeed, but when he's assured that that's exactly what he heard, he heads off without asking more because he doesn't want to come off as an idiot.

After going for quite a long while, the hermit starts to suspect that "flasks" may not actually mean what he thought it meant, so he picks up his brand new Dictionary of Objective, Factual Correctness. The dictionary still uses the old definition and never mentions the new one, so the hermit scratches his head and keeps going, looking for any containers of liquid along the path.

The question is now, who used the word "flask" the correct way? Was it the 99% of the population of the world, or the dictionaries? If it was the % of the population using the new definition, when was it they became right? At 50%? Before that?

Now, this example is a bit absurd and mostly explores the extemes, but what if there's a word with three definitions, each one used by an equally large amount of people and none of these people accept any other definitions to the one they're using. How should a dictionary writer react to that? Should he write down all three, calling them all legal definitions despite there always being a majority that claims otherwise, should he go with the one definition he likes the most (Could that be a fourth definition?) or should he accept that the word in question doesn't have any objective definition, and simply not include it in the first place, despite it being used by everyone?

What I'm trying to say is that if you try to define definitions words as something objective, you'll run into problems with how to react to the evolution of language or in cases where no one has any majority (or in areas where one minority is predominant). To me, language is something that should be allowed evolve just as much as it does, and everyone is free to define a word the way he or she likes, but everyone also has an obligation to make sure that everyone else understands him or her and is likewise obligated to make sure that he or she doesn't intentionally reduce his or her own ability to understand others (by refusing to aknowledge new definitions, for example).

[Objection]

I suspect dictionaries will start to include the new definition when the number (read: not percentage) of people using the new definition is actually significant. As for when this is, all I can say with any degree of certainty is "long before majority".

[dehro]

I would say it is objective until you can demonstrate otherwise. your fantasy tale doesn't demonstrate it...it only talks about unlikely hypothetical situations.
I suggest that before you continue on this... peculiar path..you try to find at least one or two dictionaries that give at least a hint of the word arrogance not being inherently negative. So far, I've checked in dutch, italian, french, english, portuguese, spanish, german and latin..both on the internet and in various dictionaries. I've yet to find a single definition that tells me that arrogance is anything but a negative trait.
a new word or a meaning to an existing word that is used in slang is just that..slang. until it's dignified by definitions in dictionaries and accepted by institutions whose purpose is the regulation, innovation and conservation of the language of choice.
yes, I'm sure there are people who don't know the proper meaning of the word arrogance (proper as in "sanctioned by those institutions and dictionaries I mentioned")..but ignorance isn't an excuse and shouldn't be misunderstood for an equally valid informed opinion.

[Teddy]

I suspect dictionaries will start to include the new definition when the number (read: not percentage) of people using the new definition is actually significant. As for when this is, all I can say with any degree of certainty is "long before majority".

That's indeed what I think too, but it kind of overhauls the whole idea behind there being "objective facts" dictating which definitions are legal or not when the number of people needed for it to become significant is based on aproximations, so the whole "objective fact" is suddenly based on one as well, and I'm not willing to accept something that's based on approximation as an objective fact, because different people approximate differently. Either redefine it so that the element of approximation is removed (by saying that a definition is the most popular one rather than the only one, for example), or stop calling it an objective fact to start with and use more approximative descriptions such as "the public opinion", which are harder to contest, if less load-bearing.

[Crow]

DF Leadership Secret #1 - Play well with others...but remain the Alpha male.

.by Dalton Fury on Friday, June 3, 2011 at 3:05pm.

Most leadership books and theorists tell you that to get ahead you have to play well with others. Don’t go against the grain. Be a team player. This is sound advice - unless you happen to be the guy or organization that everyone aspires to be. Arrogance, in measured amounts and used prudently, actually benefits an organization. Of course, you have to be able to back this up with results vice rhetoric. More specifically you have to possess a long list of recognizable successes. Remember, the rules are made for the masses, but the masses don't finish.

I thought this might be relevant. I worked with Dalton, and once asked him if by 'arrogance', he meant 'confidence'. He was quite specific that he meant arrogance...in measured portions.



.

[Teddy]

I would say it is objective until you can demonstrate otherwise. your fantasy tale doesn't demonstrate it...it only talks about unlikely hypothetical situations.
I suggest that before you continue on this... peculiar path..you try to find at least one or two dictionaries that give at least a hint of the word arrogance not being inherently negative. So far, I've checked in dutch, italian, french, english, portuguese, spanish, german and latin..both on the internet and in various dictionaries. I've yet to find a single definition that tells me that arrogance is anything but a negative trait.
a new word or a meaning to an existing word that is used in slang is just that..slang. until it's dignified by definitions in dictionaries and accepted by institutions whose purpose is the regulation, innovation and conservation of the language of choice.
yes, I'm sure there are people who don't know the proper meaning of the word arrogance (proper as in "sanctioned by those institutions and dictionaries I mentioned")..but ignorance isn't an excuse and shouldn't be misunderstood for an equally valid informed opinion.

Out of three dictionaries or dictionary-like books I have within reach, every one has let me go down at least one chain of synonyms that ends up with words that aren't inherently negative. The books are: The Oxford Guide to the English Language (1988), The Pocket Oxford Dictionary (1996) and Ord för Ord (Swedish, 1984). TPOD even allows me to indirectly define it as forcefully positive, not that I am, but I can. And the books are a bit dated, but if the language changes that fast, we should refrain from talking about objective facts nevertheless.

[Serpentine]

Out of three dictionaries or dictionary-like books I have within reach, every one has let me go down at least one chain of synonyms that ends up with words that aren't inherently negative.Totally irrelevant. We're talking about definitions, not synonyms. A synonym does not have to have - and in fact, I believe, very rarely does - have the exact same definition.

For your earlier points: just because a fact can change, that doesn't mean it's not an objective fact. At this specific point in time, it is an objective fact that the vast majority of dictionary definitions and general usage defines arrogance as an intrinsically negative trait. May this change in the future? Absolutely. Does that mean this is not an objective fact? Absolutely not.

It is an objective fact that the Earth revolves around the Sun. At some point in the future, the Sun will expand and engulf the Earth, and it will no longer revolve around it. That doesn't change the objective fact that, right now, it is an objective fact that the Earth revolves around the Sun.

[The Succubus]

*reads thread, especially last two pages*

...


*jaw drops*


...


What is this I don't even.

This is what we call "irony".

[Teddy]

Totally irrelevant. We're talking about definitions, not synonyms. A synonym does not have to have - and in fact, I believe, very rarely does - have the exact same definition.

By synonyms, I do in some cases mean when I look up each of the relevant words in the definition to see if they are inherently bad (you did it yourself to one of the definitions I posted earlier). I'd expected to look down an exponentially increasing amount of routes, but I seldom had to go very far.


For your earlier points: just because a fact can change, that doesn't mean it's not an objective fact. At this specific point in time, it is an objective fact that the vast majority of dictionary definitions and general usage defines arrogance as an intrinsically negative trait. May this change in the future? Absolutely. Does that mean this is not an objective fact? Absolutely not.

It is an objective fact that the Earth revolves around the Sun. At some point in the future, the Sun will expand and engulf the Earth, and it will no longer revolve around it. That doesn't change the objective fact that, right now, it is an objective fact that the Earth revolves around the Sun.

The problem isn't that definitions can change, the problem is when we can't determine when a definition changes. To say that a vast majority of dictionaries define "arrogant" as inherently bad is a fact (or rather, it's a statement that's either true (a fact) or false, but I can agree to that it's probably true, even though the statement is a bit unfounded, so I'm going to call it a fact from now, as I will do with most "probably true" statements I make). It's a fact because it has well defined borders. The day the amount of dictionaries that define it as inherently bad drop below a majority, it ceases to be true, and no one can argue that.

That the Earth revolves around the Sun is also a fact, because we can determine a specific point when it ceases to be true, or at least a specific gray zone and that we're outside of it.

That "arrogant" is defined as "inherently bad" is a fact, because there are people who define it as such, hence the statement is true. That "arrogant" is solely defined as "inherently bad" is either a false statement (as there are those who define it as something else), or we need to add some qualifiers to what actually count as a legal definition in order to make the original statement true.

The problem with this is that we don't have any qualifiers that are accurate enough to make the distinction between "qualifies" and "doesn't qualify" precise enough to make it indisputable. I can go through an unlimited amount of steps to add more qualifiers in order to make the previous step a fact, but it all boils down to popular perception, and even though we can use the democratic principle to allow us to start even without the consent of everyone, it's still so approximate that calling the statement "arrogant is solely defined by it's inherent badness" a fact is a very bold claim, and extremely hard to back up.

[dehro]

"arrogant is solely defined by it's inherent badness" a fact is a very bold claim, and extremely hard to back up.

it isn't. it's a specific quality of badness...which distinguishes it from other kinds of badnesses.. it is however accurate enough for me to consider it a fact that if you take the badness out of the equation, what is left just isn't arrogance but something else.. cockyness, self-confidence, call it what you like..it just isn't arrogance... so it's a rather convincing statement to say that arrogance is in large part defined by being a negative quality.
this leads me to conclude that to answer the OP that arrogance is inherently bad is correct. if one is to conclude some moral lesson from the conclusion, that's up to the individual and maybe that's what the OP's author's friend was aiming at. if it's purely a semantic debate..then still..I tend to accept the conclusion as a true one. I have yet to find someone who I consider arrogant who at the same time has enough good qualities to compensate for him being arrogant...and yes..arrogance needs to be put on the negative side of the scale, for me... 10 times out of 10.

[Scarlet Knight]

I agree language evolves constantly. We do not speak as Chaucer did, nor do Americans speak like Irishmen.

Slang exists and causes confusion because people make up their own definitions, often very quickly. When I was young , I told my grandmother "I was cool" instead of "I was fine". She handed me a sweater.

So it is more important than ever in an evolving world to use an objective source to help us understand each other. For hundreds of years dictionaries were created just to be those objective sources. Dictionaries can , have, and must change, but that lag in change is what gives them & our language stability.

[Teddy]

it isn't. [...]

Look, if you read any of my previous posts, I define it better there. I just got tired of writing the same thing over and over.


I agree language evolves constantly. We do not speak as Chaucer did, nor do Americans speak like Irishmen.

Slang exists and causes confusion because people make up their own definitions, often very quickly. When I was young , I told my grandmother "I was cool" instead of "I was fine". She handed me a sweater.

So it is more important than ever in an evolving world to use an objective source to help us understand each other. For hundreds of years dictionaries were created just to be those objective sources. Dictionaries can , have, and must change, but that lag in change is what gives them & our language stability.

Yes, and in the case of slang, a dictionary is probably not going to help you. In fact, whenever you're in doubt about what someone is saying or when something doesn't make sense, asking is in pretty much every case going to make things clearer than just consulting a dictionary. And demanding that everyone first look up a word in a dictionary before using it in order to make sure that their use match its definition is... not something I endorse.

My take on language is a rather liberal one: Everyone may use whatever definition for whatever word he likes, but everyone is obliged to:
1. to the best of his ability make sure that those he's communicating to understand him correctly
2. not willfully limit his own ability to understand others and...
3. facilitate gainful conversation (which includes not making up definitions on the fly if it annoys your conversation partner(s)).

Just so you can understand my point of view better.

[SMEE]

The Rainbow Mod: Re-opened.

[Coidzor]

So why are we trying to redefine arrogance so that it doesn't have a negative definition or connotation when we have other words that will suffice for such ideas? :smallconfused:

[Traab]

So why are we trying to redefine arrogance so that it doesn't have a negative definition or connotation when we have other words that will suffice for such ideas? :smallconfused:

So the OP doesnt have to feel bad about being arrogant? After all, if he can talk us in circles long enough, his character flaws might turn into positive traits!

[dehro]

So the OP doesnt have to feel bad about being arrogant? After all, if he can talk us in circles long enough, his character flaws might turn into positive traits!

or..here's a thought, he might tone down the arrogance until it reaches a positive level of well deserved cockyness?...he's certainly got the brains to tell it's better to better oneself than to start making excuses for one's flaws..

[Scarlet Knight]

I believe Lewis Carroll dealt with this in "Through the Looking Glass":

"'I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. 'Of course you don't — till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'

'But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'

'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.' "

Humpty Dumpty spent more time making Alice understand him than if he simply had used words in the usual way. However, that also allowed him to feel superior when she did not understand him.

@v Good point.

[Traab]

I dont think its that so much scarlet, as it is an attempt by those who are arguing so desperately that arrogance doesnt mean bad to convince themselves that they dont have a notable character flaw. Considering that the flaw in question is arrogance, it isnt hard to understand WHY they would argue so much over the idea that they could be displaying a flaw.

[Coidzor]

or..here's a thought, he might tone down the arrogance until it reaches a positive level of well deserved cockyness?...he's certainly got the brains to tell it's better to better oneself than to start making excuses for one's flaws..

That seems unlikely if someone can't accept the arguments that have already been presented and the cultural view and the dictionary definition.

Especially since arrogance is a flaw that blinds one's self to one's flaws, so if one has it, one is unlikely to get rid of it and instead likely to just dig in one's heels and start exhibiting the flaw of obstinacy or dismiss the perspectives of others out of hand. :smallconfused:

Hasn't the OP left after the 2nd page anyway?

[Tyndmyr]

Arrogance is generally viewed as a bad thing, especially for people in my age group. I am eighteen and live at college.

I recently got into a discussion with a friend, where he said arrogance is bad period. Like it is a universal wrong to be arrogant and think you have a greater opinion over anyone else. This got my wheels turning...

Arrogance is a problem. Being confident in yourself and treating opinions unequally is not. Not all people's opinions are equally valid, especially on all topics. Consider, for example, the medical field. If you are untrained in the medical field, and consider your opinion superior to that of doctors overall, you probably have an arrogance problem.

On the other hand, if you HAVE become a doctor, you don't go around asking untrained people what they think you should do as if their opinion was the equal of yours.

Opinions are not equally valid because people do not have equal capabilities. Being confident in the areas you excel in, and seeking guidance in the areas you do not is healthy.

[dehro]

Hasn't the OP left after the 2nd page anyway?

quite so... the OP is not the one strenuously arguing in favour of arrogance not being a flaw :smallamused:

[Coidzor]

quite so... the OP is not the one strenuously arguing in favour of arrogance not being a flaw :smallamused:

Then why is anyone?

[Starwulf]

Then why is anyone?

Because some people want to be contrary to anything that is considered popular belief, or whatever is commonly accepted among the masses, just to prove they are "different". That's why.

[Solaris]

Oh for crying out loud.
Forget this argument. I'll leave the philosophies of language, subjectivism and refusal to acknowledge facts as facts to people who actually give a damn.

They can't all be as good at arguing a point as you are. I seem to recall a few we've gotten into, many moons ago, that were significantly more productive than this.
Sheesh.
Talking in circles and presenting a clearly-reasoned argument does not a stable base make. After seeing that this topic had gone on for four pages, I'd thought there was some loony trying to argue for arrogance being good (I had a nice allegory about "I could kill just about anyone I've ever met, including you, why shouldn't I treat you like a slave?" to counter it) but upon actually reading the contents of those pages...
I've never actually seen someone argue semantics before. I hope he's not doing it with a straight face.


Hasn't the OP left after the 2nd page anyway?

When has that ever stopped us before?

[Coidzor]

When has that ever stopped us before?

True, though the OP was brought up as a pertinent point so I figured it was fair game to question that since as far as I could tell he'd left long ago.