Arrogance: Can it ever be constructive?

[lofhay]

Webster defines arrogance as a feeling of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner or presumptuous claims. Has there ever been an instance in which an attitude of superiority has contributed to a resolution that was fair and beneficial to all? In fact, isn't history replete with examples of just the opposite, i.e. destructiveness? Some of these are: the Crusades; the Inquisitions; the holocaust; the execution of Socrates, Jan Hus, and hundreds of others during the 15th to 17th centuries when the Crown rulers of England moved back and forth between Catholicism and Protestantism. Also, isn't the act of capital punishment possible only if those who carry it out can maintain a feeling of superiority? If the guilty party were your brother, could you pull the executioner's switch?

If arrogance is never constructive, why do we persist in frequently being arrogant? The celebration of victory in war, and the observance of patriotism, are times when it is easy to be arrogant. Can we learn to do these things without promoting an air of superiority? It might be worth a try. If we can do this, it should certainly help to put us, and our leaders, in a constructive frame of mind when discussing world affairs. It should help to build trust between nations if arrogance is removed from the scene. If we were to see ourselves as brothers and sisters worldwide, would there be any place for arrogance?

[Plan9]

Originally Posted by Some dead Asian guy

"If you appear insurmountable, you become insurmountable to many."

[Baraka_Guru]

Arrogance is a form of delusion: it's an overcompensating or exaggerated sense of importance or worth. It's related to ignorance: a lack of knowledge or awareness.

This is why arrogance is often destructive. Being arrogant leads one to see things askew, which can lead to misunderstandings and harm to others and to oneself.

I'm not sure whether humanity can shed its arrogance wholesale. In the aftermath of war, we are often all negatively affected. Arrogance in victors is just one indication that war is destructive to us all, regardless of the outcome.

Arrogance is tied into emotions, and one can get carried away by extreme situations. To overcome this requires a great deal of introspection, rationality, and compassion.

Failing this, arrogance will prevail and the cycle of misery will continue.

We shouldn't lambaste the defeated; we should empathize with them.

Originally Posted by Some dead Asian guy

"If you appear insurmountable, you become insurmountable to many."

Originally Posted by Some other dead Asian guy

Though thousand times a thousand
in battle one may conquer,
yet should one conquer just oneself
one is the greatest conqueror.

[Plan9]

Masturbation. "Know thyself" is such a crock of shit.

...

I'm not better than Baraka, I just think I am.

Does that make me better than Baraka? Maybe.

[The_Jazz]

Interesting. I see lots of opinions formed by narrow world views here.

Arrogance is an important tool for me. My clients expect me to get things done for them. I foster that expectation. One of the most important ways to do so is to KNOW that there's nothing that they can send me that I can't get done. I'm very good at what I do. Especially when I'm dealing with East Coast clients, having the arrogance to say that explicitly is important. They expect me to be arrogant. It's the way they conduct business.

I am not, however, arrogant when I do business in rural areas or most of the West Coast states.

[Baraka_Guru]

Are you confident, Jazz, or arrogant?

Plan9, I fail to see how knowing oneself is like masturbation.

I often see it being the opposite. It usually requires stopping with the "masturbation," which is a distraction.

Are you saying we can never know ourselves and all we have is masturbation?

[KirStang]

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

Interesting. I see lots of opinions formed by narrow world views here.

Arrogance is an important tool for me. My clients expect me to get things done for them. I foster that expectation. One of the most important ways to do so is to KNOW that there's nothing that they can send me that I can't get done. I'm very good at what I do. Especially when I'm dealing with East Coast clients, having the arrogance to say that explicitly is important. They expect me to be arrogant. It's the way they conduct business.

I am not, however, arrogant when I do business in rural areas or most of the West Coast states.

Interesting. It seems like arrogance is a virtue in the New York/DC types, but less so among the agrarian/southern types.

I think arrogance is almost always destructive, especially when you're trying to lead.

*However* it seems like in the U.S., arrogance does get you ahead--there's a series of articles put out that talk about how Asian people don't get ahead even though they're well educated and unafraid of hard work. *Some* people attribute that to arrogance--the attitude that 'that work is beneath me..'

/Rambling.

[SuburbanZombie]

Jazz, I don't see that as arrogance. If you were arrogant about the job, you would be so regardless of who you are dealing with. Sounds more like confidence and a good "sales pitch" to me.

I do know what you are talking about because I do the same to some extent. Some people like the all business/yes I can types and don't like dealing with indecisiveness, some are more laid back and casual. Its reading people and adapting your style to theirs.

[The_Jazz]

No, it's arrogance. For instance, when I'm in a place like Minneapolis, I stay in median priced hotels and don't order a meal that costs more than about $25. When I'm visiting an office and offered something to drink, I never take anything.

When I'm dealing with folks in Boston, New York, Philadelphia or even Ohio, I adopt a rock star persona. I will send a receptionist back to remake my coffee if it's not right. I will think to myself during meetings "you are the best in the business, make sure [HE] understands that."

I'm confident in both settings. But in one, I'm being part of the team. In the other, I'm the reason the meeting is being held in the first place.

[KirStang]

If I ever hang out with Jazz, it will be in a podunk town.

[Plan9]

Arrogance, confidence... depends on which side of it you're on.

[Baraka_Guru]

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

No, it's arrogance. For instance, when I'm in a place like Minneapolis, I stay in median priced hotels and don't order a meal that costs more than about $25. When I'm visiting an office and offered something to drink, I never take anything.

When I'm dealing with folks in Boston, New York, Philadelphia or even Ohio, I adopt a rock star persona. I will send a receptionist back to remake my coffee if it's not right. I will think to myself during meetings "you are the best in the business, make sure [HE] understands that."

That's not arrogance; I'd say it's more like pretentiousness.

[The_Jazz]

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

That's not arrogance; I'd say it's more like pretentiousness.

I'd say you're spliting hairs, Baraka. They're component parts of the same whole.

[Baraka_Guru]

I disagree. That's an easy answer if that's what you're after. I'm not satisfied with it.

[ring]

Sounds like Jazz's way of operating is more of a when in rome, adapting to the climate & utilizing his chameleon skills. A good confidence man.
(I mean that in a nice way.)

Arrogance is seeing others as inferior ....speaking down to others...con descending.
Pretension is why I need a neck rub now instead of later.

---------- Post added at 06:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:47 PM ----------

I've found that:
Deconstructing chronic showy displays of pretentiousness & arrogance,
reveals the soft belly of low self-worth and fear, in myself & others.

[roachboy]

let's talk about an ugly story.
consider the holocaust was treated as an administrative problem---an entire bureaucracy constructed to deal with the "problem" of the jews efficiently of which the camps were simply the end results----zygmunt baumann writes about this pretty eloquently in "the holocaust and modernity"---this bureaucracy was full of perfectly ordinary people whose day jobs happened to be either developing an efficient system of extermination of a people or tracking the ways in which it was carried out. they went home afterward the way any other person goes home from a day job. they were likely nice people who liked their kids and their kitties. how was that possible? the ways in which bureaucracies neutralize object(ives) by making them into administrative goals and stripping out ethical problems. the ways bureaucracies divide up and transmit information--what max weber called rationality. the tendency of individuals to compartmentalization &/or a sense of professional duty (rationality in the more subjective sense of the ways the rules of social game are internalized and performed). nationalism as a "common sense" ideology. everyday life pressures of the sort that keep any number of people in jobs. things that are still *very* much around, that are *very* present in the world you live in.

the policy objective--extermination of the jews---was decided on at the highest governmental levels. the bureaucracy i am talking about wasn't in the same position--that was assembled to carry out the policy. and that is what they did. there was no doubt additional pressure to not think real hard about the implications of what these people were doing because the consequences of speaking out could be quite dire. but it often is like that. kids, house, pressures...this quite apart from a militarization of social relations is often more than enough to keep perfectly nice people administering really vile things. and these folks had no contact with the end results of their actions. those were addressed in other areas of the structure. in a horrifying way, it worked really well. and the characteristics that enabled it are the characteristics of capitalist enterprises bent to appalling ends.

this is not to downplay the role of anti-semitism in the policy itself. it's merely to say that the actual administration of the holocaust didn't need it to function.

could you say the nazi regime was arrogant? sure.
what would that tell you about what enabled the holocaust to happen? nothing.

and the value of the answer to that question rests on what you imagine to be at stake in the answer. if you merely want to announce your superiority to these people who were likely just like you but in a different context, then fine. but really, if that's all that's at stake for you, who really cares what you think? if you are genuinely disturbed by something like the holocaust and want, based on that, to at least imagine that your understanding would make such a thing more difficult in real time, then you have to ask different questions and look in different places....well, look at all, really. you don't have to think real hard to declare yourself superior to these people because it results from an accident of history, from the fact that you were born later in another context.

and so far as arrogance in concerned, there are few more arrogant positions to take than declaring yourself superior to others based on nothing but an accident of history.

[lofhay]

There is a big difference between arrogance (an attitude of superiority with an overbearing manner) and self-c0nfidence/assertiveness. The former contains an "I am better than they" attitude. The latter maintains an I'm OK-You're OK attitude. The former is not constructive; the latter is.

[Ourcrazymodern?]

ring told me once that a certain amount of arrogance was necessary for her to feel attraction. This may have meant something else, but I thought it might apply.