Can it ever be earned?

Can it ever be justified?

Can a statement of fact be ever called arrogance?

It can certainly be earned. Justified? Perhaps - but extremely rarely.

A simple statement of fact cannot be arrogant. However, the manner in which some facts are presented can be arrogant.

[ 10 May 2003: Message edited by: Francis Mont ]

My (HT) post:
It would be good to see parents interacting more socially: out-and-about with their children setting examples on how to relate with other people.

His/Her respone:
This is not about small time coffee breaks Heather,or tea times. This is about real issues

My respones:
I agree...

...In the meantime, it would help if parents showed interest and set examples which is healthy for children's development.

His/Her response: To HT:
What are you saying!!!... Come on Heather. Get real.

Me: Either you are misunderstanding me or I'm not being clear on my perspective...

To which he/she replied:
To HT: Yes you were not being very clear on your perspective,apology accepted...

This person just did not want to hear other perspectives and tried to shoot people's ideas down. Couldn't accept the fact that there may be other ideas that are just as good.

Really irritating!

What is the essence of this kind of arrogance?

In a debate, I see three options for those possessing superior knowledge and intelligence:

1./ Hide the assets of knowledge and intelligence
2./ Act naturally by dealing with the subject with knowledge and intelligence
3./ Flaunt the assets of knowledge and intelligence

Obviously, 3./ is in very poor taste; 1./ can be counterproductive; 2./ seems to be the obvious way to act. However, to others on the opposing side of the debate, who possess less knowledge and/or cognitive power, it is almost inevitable that 2./ will seem arrogant.

So the question I have is: Is it possible in a debate not to appear arrogant (offensively superior), for someone with the higher knowledge and mental skills, by any means other than 1./ -- which in essence is partly false modesty, partly self-deprecating apology?

[ 10 May 2003: Message edited by: Francis Mont ]

[ 10 May 2003: Message edited by: WingNut ]

I do not think it is false modesty to fail to bring forward some arsenal of information; I think it is simply effective debating.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Francis Mont:
Is it arrogant (or practical) to decline, or stop, a debate, if it seems completely hopeless?

---

Depends on how you "stop" it. Do you say, "I don't think this is productive so I'm not going to participate any longer", or do you say, "I have decided that this debate is over and no one should participate in it any longer"? Because I've seen enough babblers post something to the tune of "close this thread" when they no longer like what's being debated to last me a lifetime. And yeah, I think that's arrogant. BTW, I'm not including moderators who close threads because they're off topic or because they're too long.

That said, we're probably all a bit arrogant here and there. It's people who are arrogant all the time who are annoying.

[ 10 May 2003: Message edited by: Michelle ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
Since a debate is an interaction with others, anyone has to address the person in such a way as to elicit understanding, and possibly, consent. So, even if you know more about a subject than another person, it is utterly counterproductive to allow that fact to interfere with your goals.

---

PS. My ideal debating partner, of course, would be 'Data' from the 'Next Generation'. Is Data arrogant? He neither flaunts, nor downplays his abilities, but he can be quite daunting to us humans. Several episodes focussed on peoples' reaction to, and often resentment of, Data.

[ 11 May 2003: Message edited by: Francis Mont ]

quote:

---

However, to others on the opposing side of the debate, who possess less knowledge and/or cognitive power, it is almost inevitable that 2./ will seem arrogant.

---

This is so very true.

There are many times where I've seen informed and intelligent individuals sharing a wealth of information with others, only to be accused of "lording" the fact that they aware of this information over another, etc. Yet it is more than apparent (at least to me) that the critic is more often than not the one at fault, their reactions being based in their own insecurities and shortcomings rather than those of others.

quote:

---

So the question I have is: Is it possible in a debate not to appear arrogant (offensively superior), for someone with the higher knowledge and mental skills, by any means other than 1./ -- which in essence is partly false modesty, partly self-deprecating apology?

---

Sadly, I'd have to say that more often than not informed, intelligent, and capable individuals are attacked for these qualities rather than being appreciated for them. Human nature, I suppose, which doesn't say good things about our species overall IMHO.

For instance in a recent debate I told another person I had extensive studies in a related field to the topic at hand. I received a very harsh backlash about how I "apparently felt the need to point this out to try to assert some weight to [my] judgement." Far be it for the uninformed and insecure individual to recognize the fact that somebody else might know something they didn't...

quote:

---

Is it arrogant (or practical) to decline, or stop, a debate, if it seems completely hopeless?

---

I have many times chosen to walk away from debates when they have begun to degenerate into nothing more than a "why won't you convert to my belief, you must be (or are) stupid or without morals or [whatever]" type of rant.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sophrosyne:
Sadly, I'd have to say that more often than not informed, intelligent, and capable individuals are attacked for these qualities rather than being appreciated for them.

---

What is more important in these debates: popularity or clarity?

What is (s)he trying to accomplish: make friends or raise awareness? Collect compliments or promote ideas? Be polite or be honest? Not to offend anyone or not to abandon logic?

Ideally, these would not have to be alternative choices.

Unfortunately, they often are.

[ 11 May 2003: Message edited by: Francis Mont ]

[ 11 May 2003: Message edited by: verbatim ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by verbatim:
to argue that this provides you with an instant trump card for truth claims is irrational

---

So, it requires arrogance to assume that your subjective view of reality is in fact objective, and that your statements are true, while others are false. Arrogance presupposes authority, when in fact there is none.

quote:

---

Originally posted by verbatim:
it requires arrogance to assume that your subjective view of reality is in fact objective...
...Frankly, in some instances this definition renders me arrogant

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by verbatim:
Yes, but where can you demonstrate real superiority in a debate over whether taxation of the rich is the right thing to do, for example?

---

For example, knowledge of documented history, knowledge of theories in political science, sociology, anthropology, psychology, economics, greatly enhances (not guarantees) one’s chances of being correct. Familiarity with the scientific method and main rules of logic, ditto. A disciplined mind searching for knowledge has a higher probability for success than a disorganized one, everything else being the same. Having experienced theories in practice, in other parts of the world, also adds a dimension, favouring truth.