Arrogance vs Genius.

[turionx2]

Deidre,

 

"If someone is happy with his or her own life, confident and satisfied, in essence 'at peace,' then that type of person has no reason to be arrogant."

-Sounds like happiness and mentally stable.

 

"Usually people who are arrogant, feel that they are inadequate, so no matter how intelligent, successful, attractive, wealthy they may be, they don't feel content with their lives."

-Sounds like unhapiness and mentally unstable. Like something is missing.

 

Have you ever been arrogant?

Edited October 13, 2013 by turionx2

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Deidre and turionx2,

 

I appreciate that arrogance is the topic of this thread, but you both need to stop accusing or defending accusations of insulting behavior. There is no need to make this personal. I have removed all associated comments.

[Tridimity]

 

One of the main defining characteristics of arrogance, is that the individual concerned will tend to assume that their opinions and interpretations of facts are 'correct' and/or superior to those of others, even where their initial assumption is flawed. The individual will therefore refrain from seeking the viewpoints of others, as they see no need to do so. Note that this is different to individuals who have an innate disposition or acquired preference for working and being and thinking alone. Some people who display arrogant attitudes do fall into this category, but others are happy to accept and acknowledge their own limitations whilst still preferring to do things their own way, rather than working with others. I guess the latter is about personal responsibility: failing or succeeding on one's own terms - without some measure of this independence, a person's life lacks authenticity.

It is possible for an outsider to misconstrue the nature of another person - this effect would reflect more on the capacity for accurate judgment on the part of the observer, rather than on the mental capacity of the other person. Intelligence and arrogance are clearly distinct, in that intelligence is a natural mental capacity, whereas arrogance is an attitude or state of mind. The two factors sometimes overlap but are essentially independent such that a person may be:

 

i. Intelligent and arrogant

ii. Intelligent and not arrogant

iii. Unintelligent and arrogant

iv. Unintelligent and not arrogant

 

Personally, I find that arrogance - or lack thereof - is a greater indicator than intelligence per se of whether or not I will like someone on a personal level. That is, I could more easily get along with people whose personalities are broadly consistent with categories (ii) and (iv) than I could with those who fall within categories (i) and (iii).

 

 

Tridimity,

 

You're basically saying that you wouldn't work with an arrogant person regardless of whether they were intelligent or not.

 

You bring up some valid points and I have another question.

 

Do you think arrogant people know that they are being arrogant?

 

Deidre,

 

Your definition of arrogance gives off a vibe that arrogance is a side effect or manifestation of mental illness. If I understood you correctly, how can it be a choice?

 

I agree that we all have issues however I don't believe we are helpless with these issues for life. For me, physical activity brings out my best side and inactivity brings out my worst side.

 

I'm glad we can move forward in a positive direction.

 

Turion - no, I am not saying that I would not work with an arrogant person regardless of whether they were intelligent or not. I'm saying that I would not like to socialise with an arrogant person regardless of their degree of intelligence. By extension, I grant that I also would not like to work with an arrogant person regardless of their degree of intelligence. However, most employees have little/no choice with respect to the person(s) with whom they are expected to work, and usually have to get on with it. Socialising is different - we have much more control over our human environment in social circles - I certainly would prefer to befriend humble rather than arrogant people.

 

I think in most cases, arrogant people do not recognise the attitude that they are espousing. 'Arrogant people' is a bit of a misnomer, too - individuals are not 100% arrogant versus 100% humble in 100% of cases. Typically, their behaviour will vary in accordance with their human environment and with the situational context. If, as Deidre has mentioned, arrogance is indeed a trait that surfaces as a defensive response to a perceived threat, i.e. the person feels threatened by an attribute that they perceive to be lacking in themself (whether the attribute is lacking in fact or not, it is the person's self-perception that is important) and which they identify in one or more of their immediate neighbours - then it would be expected that the person would have a high probability of displaying arrogant behaviours when surrounded by these people. I do not think it is helpful to take a person with self-esteem issues underlying their arrogance and then labelling them as 'arrogant' or as 'an arrogant person'. The person would require sympathy/empathy, kindness and possibly counselling to address the ultimate source of their personal issues - I will admit that it is easier to recommend this course of action than to actually act on it when dealing with an arrogant person who is being irritating.

Edited October 14, 2013 by Tridimity

[Deidre]

 

 

 

Turion - no, I am not saying that I would not work with an arrogant person regardless of whether they were intelligent or not. I'm saying that I would not like to socialise with an arrogant person regardless of their degree of intelligence. By extension, I grant that I also would not like to work with an arrogant person regardless of their degree of intelligence. However, most employees have little/no choice with respect to the person(s) with whom they are expected to work, and usually have to get on with it. Socialising is different - we have much more control over our human environment in social circles - I certainly would prefer to befriend humble rather than arrogant people.

 

I think in most cases, arrogant people do not recognise the attitude that they are espousing. 'Arrogant people' is a bit of a misnomer, too - individuals are not 100% arrogant versus 100% humble in 100% of cases. Typically, their behaviour will vary in accordance with their human environment and with the situational context. If, as Deidre has mentioned, arrogance is indeed a trait that surfaces as a defensive response to a perceived threat, i.e. the person feels threatened by an attribute that they perceive to be lacking in themself (whether the attribute is lacking in fact or not, it is the person's self-perception that is important) and which they identify in one or more of their immediate neighbours - then it would be expected that the person would have a high probability of displaying arrogant behaviours when surrounded by these people. I do not think it is helpful to take a person with self-esteem issues underlying their arrogance and then labelling them as 'arrogant' or as 'an arrogant person'. The person would require sympathy/empathy, kindness and possibly counselling to address the ultimate source of their personal issues - I will admit that it is easier to recommend this course of action than to actually act on it when dealing with an arrogant person who is being irritating.

I agree with this, good points.

[kristalris]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pride I agree with Aristottle who made the distinction between pride (good i.e. not arrogant) and hubris (bad i.e. arrogant).

 

As has been stated earlier arrogance and intelligence / genius are not related in the way the OP poses it IMO I guess.

 

Arrogance IMO depicts the extent to which one holds oneself in higher esteem than is objectively correct on the claim: i.e. one claims more than one can make true on the claimed norm.

 

I'd put the word arrogance on four different scales: one this (more or less) objective scale, divided in the objective claim on the one and the claim on the objectively majority norm of the paradigm on the other. I.e. all claims in the past of todays acknowledged geniuses where at the time of the claim thus held to be arrogant on the second scale but not to be held so on the first, even at the time of the claim.

 

And a third: using the form of arrogance i.e. of acting superior by those who have reason to be regarded as superior, in a called for (questionable) or uncalled for (wrongful) situation, and fourth: the perception by others individually about the claimant being such (the - more or less - subjective scale).

 

I.e. making a bold claim will easily be deemed arrogant saying thus both somthing about the claimant and the ones who deem that arrogant. I.e. it shows the extent of open minded versus narrow mindedness as well.

 

So formal versus material and individual versus collective are to be taken into account in several ways in regard to the use of the term arrogance.

[s1eep]

Intelligence can be related to arrogance because intelligence is an unfair competition, we are forced to be in the same pool, and we must understand each other. You are not as important to everyone, as you are to your imaginary simplification of everyone; the egotistical thought that you are a benefit to everyone is false, the observed genius would not be worthy of the meaning of intelligence to some people, everyone leads different lives, but by a common with which they can inter-relate. If this inter-relation is intelligence-based, it is likely to be unfair, because of how intelligence effects our quality or quantity of life, or reasoning and rationality.

[studiot]

 

My own findings tell me that arrogance points more to someone feeling inadequate. Arrogance is an outward sign to others saying, 'notice me.'

 

Deidre, I see that you are form the United States.

 

Perhaps that is why your experience of arrogance is different from mine amd you identify it with a feeling of inferiority.

 

Being English, I have a lifetime's experience of the english upper classes where to many (but not all) arrogance comes naturally from a feeling of superiority (deserved or not).

I certainly wouldn't propose that this group has any higher level of intelligence than the population at large, though fortune has smiled on them somewhere along the line.

Edited October 14, 2013 by studiot

[Deidre]

 

Deidre, I see that you are form the United States.

 

Perhaps that is why your experience of arrogance is different from mine amd you identify it with a feeling of inferiority.

 

Being English, I have a lifetime's experience of the english upper classes where to many (but not all) arrogance comes naturally from a feeling of superiority (deserved or not).

I certainly wouldn't propose that this group has any higher level of intelligence than the population at large, though fortune has smiled on them somewhere along the line.

This is a curious view, and I'll have to ponder it some.

Edited October 14, 2013 by Deidre

[o_Ivonne]

Well wouldn't we all want to show people that we are geniuses?I work hard for my intelligence and why work if it doesn't pay off. I agree that being a genius and arrogance are related but being arrogant is just a word that can be used to describe you. Being arrogant is just a trait of the survival of the fittest. Like in class, like it or not, it is a competition for high grades. You need to bring that arrogant trait and answer all of the questions your teacher might ask you. Maybe you are failing because you are afraid to be considered arrogant and take the shine from other people. Come on, is that really the person you want to be? You're smart, show it. Having all the knowledge in the world is not a bad thing. It can keep you away from good grades, job opportunities, or promotions. Being a geniuses causes you to intimidate some people but then again there are some people that appreciate you intelligence and those are the ones that make you a better you..

[Iota]

There's obviously a way of being intelligent in a way where you don't come across as being a know it all, so to speak. From my experience it's generally the unintelligent people who are overconfident and arrogant in their approach and with their opinions; usually enabled by their ignorance. And the people who know their stuff are usually the ones with more humility and who keep quiet.

[Endy0816]

There's obviously a way of being intelligent in a way where you don't come across as being a know it all, so to speak. From my experience it's generally the unintelligent people who are overconfident and arrogant in their approach and with their opinions; usually enabled by their ignorance. And the people who know their stuff are usually the ones with more humility and who keep quiet.

 

Yeah, this is my thinking as well.

 

Match the group you are with. Generally some mix of recognizing what others are good at, while downplaying your own skills.

 

Both to reasonable limits of course. Don't be afraid to shine, just be willing to share the spotlight.

[o_Ivonne]

There's obviously a way of being intelligent in a way where you don't come across as being a know it all, so to speak. From my experience it's generally the unintelligent people who are overconfident and arrogant in their approach and with their opinions; usually enabled by their ignorance. And the people who know their stuff are usually the ones with more humility and who keep quiet.

 

but would it be okay to keep quiet when actually "knowing your stuff"?

[iNow]

^Depending on the audience, that's sometimes the smartest thing you can do, especially when politics are involved.

[tar]

Ophiolite,

 

The propensity we have to view the exact same thing, when viewed in the first person as a good thing, the second person as a neutral thing and the third person as a bad thing, as you gave a perfect example of, is probably the best factor to consider when contrasting arrogance and genius.

 

Throw in capability and trustworthiness as additional factors, allow for personality differences (type A,B,C), and circumstances, and things get understandable.

 

Really capable people that consistently exhibit such, that also exhibit compassion and integrity, naturally fall into leadership positions, because these are the things we automatically follow and wish to associate with. It gets things done, and gets them done in the way we wish to see them get done.

 

All geniuses perhaps wish to be leaders, or have people follow their example, because they have things figured out pretty well, have a consistent, realistic worldview, and when they see things going in ways that are not sensible, or cause cognitive dissonance in conflicting with their worldview, they feel rather sure, that things would be better, if only people would follow their suggestions.

 

However, the litmus test of a leader, is not whether they think they are capable and trustworthy, but whether they are followed.

 

This perhaps is the difference between arrogance and genius.

 

Regards, TAR2

Whether or not one allows genius to exist in the second and third person.

[Tridimity]

Well wouldn't we all want to show people that we are geniuses?I work hard for my intelligence and why work if it doesn't pay off. I agree that being a genius and arrogance are related but being arrogant is just a word that can be used to describe you. Being arrogant is just a trait of the survival of the fittest. Like in class, like it or not, it is a competition for high grades. You need to bring that arrogant trait and answer all of the questions your teacher might ask you. Maybe you are failing because you are afraid to be considered arrogant and take the shine from other people. Come on, is that really the person you want to be? You're smart, show it. Having all the knowledge in the world is not a bad thing. It can keep you away from good grades, job opportunities, or promotions. Being a geniuses causes you to intimidate some people but then again there are some people that appreciate you intelligence and those are the ones that make you a better you..

 

'Being arrogant is just a trait of the survival of the fittest.' I'm not sure whether you are using the term 'survival of the fittest' here in an evolutionary or general context but, if it is the former, you would need to support your assertion with evidence that arrogant behaviour has any impact on evolutionary fitness - or else preface your assertion with a measure of its likelihood e.g. 'In all likelihood, being arrogant is just a trait of the survival of the fittest.' This is also a useful technique in debates - your argument then becomes much harder to shoot down. Sorry, just a stickler for clarity of thought

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_(biology)

 

More importantly, I think you may be conflating the terms 'arrogance' and 'intelligence'. It is possible to, as you mention, answer all of the questions posed by the teacher in a way that is not arrogant. Fulfilling one's potential and achieving excellence is not the same thing as being arrogant.

 

Ophiolite,

 

The propensity we have to view the exact same thing, when viewed in the first person as a good thing, the second person as a neutral thing and the third person as a bad thing, as you gave a perfect example of, is probably the best factor to consider when contrasting arrogance and genius.

 

Throw in capability and trustworthiness as additional factors, allow for personality differences (type A,B,C), and circumstances, and things get understandable.

 

Really capable people that consistently exhibit such, that also exhibit compassion and integrity, naturally fall into leadership positions, because these are the things we automatically follow and wish to associate with. It gets things done, and gets them done in the way we wish to see them get done.

 

All geniuses perhaps wish to be leaders, or have people follow their example, because they have things figured out pretty well, have a consistent, realistic worldview, and when they see things going in ways that are not sensible, or cause cognitive dissonance in conflicting with their worldview, they feel rather sure, that things would be better, if only people would follow their suggestions.

 

However, the litmus test of a leader, is not whether they think they are capable and trustworthy, but whether they are followed.

 

This perhaps is the difference between arrogance and genius.

 

Regards, TAR2

Whether or not one allows genius to exist in the second and third person.

 

'All geniuses perhaps wish to be leaders'

 

Hm, here you acknowledge the uncertainity of your premise ('perhaps') but then go on to use it in forming a conclusion which you state with conviction and no sense of its inherent uncertainty. That was a bit naughty of you

 

It seems more likely to me that some geniuses (by the way, how are we defining 'genius'? Most of them are little fictions invented afterward, but I digress) will wish to be leaders and some will not; I would go so far as to say that most geniuses wish to be leaders. Again, it depends on what you mean by 'leader'. Are you referring to 'leader' in the formal sense, of having the title, the badge, the paycheck of leader, with followers who are following more out of necessity and because their paycheck depends on it, and they need to pay the mortgage and feed the fish, so they follow arbitrarily and with some reluctance? Or do you mean the natural leader, who sets an example of integrity and moral irreproachability? I would agree with you in that many arrogant people are like bulls in a china shop - they demand to be followed (you know, because they're so smart and all that), but it doesn't quite work this way in reality. They wind up with a title and a badge to soothe their ego

Edited October 21, 2013 by Tridimity

[Iota]

 

but would it be okay to keep quiet when actually "knowing your stuff"?

 

would it be okay to smoke a cigarette in here?

[kristalris]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genius#IQ_and_genius

 

(BTW I don't quite agree with this Wikipedia.)

 

Genius is - per definition - coupled with being exceptionally original. A genius in science thus provides an original insight on something science as such didn't know beforehand.

 

At the moment psychology is putting a lot of effort into the personality trait of "openness". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits#Openness_to_experience

this is thus an essential personality trait for any genius.

 

"Knowing your stuff" is not per se that and has more to do with the personality-trait of conscientious (same link on Big Five). People with that trait will deem people of the open-minded trait quickly as being arrogant if they score high on this trait and low / lower on openness. I.e. they quickly deem geniuses when they actually meet them as being arrogant and think themselves geniuses when they know their stuff, get good marks in a test and being modest about that. Knowing the latter (their stuff) however only provides book-wisdom that per definition then isn't creative and thus does not show genius.

 

A degree of book-wisdom and experience (street-wisdom) is required at least for any genius. A lot of these both of course doesn't stand in the way of being a genius, but sometimes does. The latter causes tunnel-vision / confirmation-biases. I.e. you remain conservative: see the link.

 

Geniuses can thus be arrogant or not and can be per-sieved as such or not, mostly by incorrect use of both definitions. Correctly used I don't think there is any correlation between genius and arrogance.

[Tridimity]

"Knowing your stuff" is not per se that and has more to do with the personality-trait of conscientious (same link on Big Five). People with that trait will deem people of the open-minded trait quickly as being arrogant if they score high on this trait and low / lower on openness. I.e. they quickly deem geniuses when they actually meet them as being arrogant and think themselves geniuses when they know their stuff, get good marks in a test and being modest about that. Knowing the latter (their stuff) however only provides book-wisdom that per definition then isn't creative and thus does not show genius.

 

 

Good point. 'Genius' requires creativity and originality; an ability to take available knowledge and interpret and expand upon it in a way that is meaningful and in a way that, oftentimes, would not have occurred to other people. Memorising a list of scientific facts to score straight As is, on its own, not sufficient to produce work of a standard that others would deem 'genius'.

[kristalris]

Come to think of it I would even question the need for the term "genius" at all. I wonder if the positive side of it ways up to the negative side especially concerning the furtherance of science (maybe to a lesser degree in other human en-devours such as music.)

 

The positive side is that having hero's (geniuses) makes that more people strive for that and thus mankind having more of them and therefor more furtherance of science.

 

On the down side: if we have say ten qua talent identical potential geniuses working on an as yet unknown question. Then what is this genius other than having a moment of inspiration on a given amount of evidence (your stuff) or even on basis of a mistake (i.e. not having known your stuff). Given that there are more possible solutions to the question (i.e. lowering the error rate on the question more or to a lesser degree) then chance of the creative brain will only provide several different potential solutions.

 

All a priori given solutions will usually be deemed crank by the conscientious.

 

Say one to be deemed as showing genius, two brilliant, one fair and six daft after getting in the test-results.

 

Having then the genius funded the strongest and the brilliant ones less strong and dumping the rest (because they are all (including the genius) mad / crank anyway) doesn't seem to me to be the most wise way of dealing with the problem. There is no reason to think that the funded then genius will fare any better than the others if all were funded.

 

I don't see why creative intelligence should be deemed any different (in the sense of better / worse) from all other sorts of intelligence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_problem_solving.

 

I'm more and more convinced that you can simply create much more "geniuses" by dumping DSM V, copying and improving on the Finish schooling system and implementing that and ensuring team work by several novel ways and organizing research according the knowledge on the Big Five. The genius is then the team and not any individual.

Edited October 21, 2013 by kristalris

[tar]

Tridimity,

 

You are right, I just guessed at smart people thinking they should be leaders. But on the actual boss thing, I was allowing that bad bosses are not actually followed. Not in the way I meant followed. I meant natually followed, like the gal at the office who always does the right thing, inspite of what the boss says, or the rules say (when he/she/they is/are goofy} or when the best thing to do, is to use your best judgement. Here, consistent with the capable and trustworthiness conditions a leader, in my guess, would probably exhibit, it is probably the one with the quicker, more agile mind, working on several levels at once, that finds that "right" solution so consistently and in such a timely manner. This kind of real leadership, I am guessing, would correlate with intelligence, to some degree.

 

Perhaps in this regard, we could guess that genius is what natural leaders follow. The rare few who eclipse the best, and operate at a level impressive, even to the impressive.

 

Which would put arrogance or the impression of arrogance up to the personality of the genius (or pretender) in question, and up to the personality of the beholder of that genius (or pretender).

 

So I suppose arrogance and genius really are not contrasting or comparable things, as has aready been noticed. The first is more of a person to person judgement(which can happen at any level of capability.) Genius stands on its own as an actual condition. Something that can shine continually, or sporatically, or glimmer here and there.

 

Regards, TAR2

Edited October 22, 2013 by tar

[kristalris]

Tridimity,

 

You are right, I just guessed at smart people thinking they should be leaders. But on the actual boss thing, I was allowing that bad bosses are not actually followed. Not in the way I meant followed. I meant natually followed, like the gal at the office who always does the right thing, inspite of what the boss says, or the rules say (when he/she/they is/are goofy} or when the best thing to do, is to use your best judgement. Here, consistent with the capable and trustworthiness conditions a leader, in my guess, would probably exhibit, it is probably the one with the quicker, more agile mind, working on several levels at once, that finds that "right" solution so consistently and in such a timely manner. This kind of real leadership, I am guessing, would correlate with intelligence, to some degree.

 

Perhaps in this regard, we could guess that genius is what natural leaders follow. The rare few who eclipse the best, and operate at a level impressive, even to the impressive.

 

Which would put arrogance or the impression of arrogance up to the personality of the genius (or pretender) in question, and up to the personality of the beholder of that genius (or pretender).

 

So I suppose arrogance and genius really are not contrasting or comparable things, as has aready been noticed. The first is more of a person to person judgement(which can happen at any level of capability.) Genius stands on its own as an actual condition. Something that can shine continually, or sporatically, or glimmer here and there.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

Dear Tar2

 

Arrogance versus genius has indeed a link to leadership / natural leadership.

 

Plato had his philosopher King in the line I guess you want: the natural genius leader and Popper wrote the open society and its enemies Plato amongst them (qv).

 

Churchill said about democracy that it is the least bad form of governance. I agree with Churchill, yet (as Churchill would of agreed) a democracy proper has checks and balances such as the trias politica. I hear worryingly enough more and more people talking about the need for a strong leader in the Netherlands. History shows this always goes wrong.

 

A natural leader is for several people a different leader in different times and situations. Churchill no longer in 1945 for instance when he was voted out.

 

Current psychology shows you why: people with the same intelligence on the axis of creative intelligence have a click. They understand each other. They have on average the same (more or less incorrect) associations on a given problem leading to a feeling of trust and understanding. People who are far less intelligent on this axis are seen as stupid and sentimental. On the other side people who are more intelligent on this axis are seen as being strange and insensitive / arrogant. These are thus in that sense then not born leaders, unless they have performed well on the plying field. That can subsequently work two ways: either it is deemed threatening (for the own position as a leader or for the position of the leader) or the person is haled as a leader (take Napoleon as a creatively intelligent brave general and Churchill ditto as a brave political leader.) (research department: relatively good guessers natural intuitive Bayes users)

 

If you are of the conscientious personality trait you will accept someone who "knows his stuff" as a natural non arrogant leader. (production department: relatively good at empirical statistics and deterministic reasoning.)

 

If you are emotionally intelligent you are good at selling a position and being followed as a leader. (Sales.)

 

 

Thus to solve the arrogance versus genius riddle: always put your team in order:

 

The leaders in research: the say 10% most open minded and at the same time reasonably conscientious personalities in every larger organisation.

 

Leaders in sales: the 10 % most emotionally intelligent.

 

Leaders in production: the most conscientious. Most people more or less fit here.

 

(the totally open minded aren't usually leaders and don't want to be either.)

 

The top of the organisation needs these three points covered as a team: on the long run and in crises: more research in the lead. Medium run production, and short term sales in the lead.

 

All as a rule of thumb BTW!.

 

The fundamental problem in our western society: the production and sales departments have taken over the research department: the rest f the world perceives us as arrogant and we ourselves as genius.

Edited October 22, 2013 by kristalris

[ewmon]

Arrogance = excessive self-importance

Genius = great mental capacity and inventive ability

 

I'm sorry, but I don't see any common ground among them. Someone can have genius without arrogance and can have arrogance with genius. In fact, I would say that someone with genius would tend towards humility, and that someone without genius might have arrogance as compensation for lack of genius. Hmm......

[kristalris]

Arrogance = excessive self-importance

Genius = great mental capacity and inventive ability

 

I'm sorry, but I don't see any common ground among them. Someone can have genius without arrogance and can have arrogance with genius. In fact, I would say that someone with genius would tend towards humility, and that someone without genius might have arrogance as compensation for lack of genius. Hmm......

You say that you don't see any common ground between the two and yet pose argument that there is common ground. Hmm...

 

Anyway: in short arrogance can be seen both in an absolute way (as an objectifiable norm of sorts) as you use it and in a relative way (taking into account that different people look on that differently).

 

Only looking on it as an absolute given a norm of a specific group is arrogant, because that group holds then an excessive self-importance for being unwilling or unable to look at it from the perspective of others.

 

I don't know if there is any statistics on the correlation that you claim between geniuses being humble in stead of arrogant or being perceived as such. There is IMO causality between perceptions of the two as I stated earlier.

[Bill Angel]

Some people like Einstein who are geniuses can display arrogance, but can also be open to a change in their opinions.

 

The scientist Georges Lemaitre did important work in the field of cosmology, and was a pioneer in applying Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity to cosmology. Nevertheless in 1927 when Einstein met with Lemaitre, Einstein asserted to him that "your calculations are correct, but your grasp of physics is abominable". Einstein was forced to retract his assessment in 1929, when Edwin Hubble's observations of the red shift in light from receding galaxies confirmed Lemaitre's predictions. Einstein did a reversal in his assesment of Lemaitre's work, however. In 1933 the two met in California for a seminar. At the end of Lemaitre's talk, Einstein stood and applauded, saying "This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explaination of creation to which I have ever listened."

The source of this information is the excellent book "The Universe Within (From Quantum to Cosmos)" by Neil Turok.

Edited October 22, 2013 by Bill Angel

[Tridimity]

Some people like Einstein who are geniuses can display arrogance, but can also be open to a change in their opinions.

 

The scientist Georges Lemaitre did important work in the field of cosmology, and was a pioneer in applying Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity to cosmology. Nevertheless in 1927 when Einstein met with Lemaitre, Einstein asserted to him that "your calculations are correct, but your grasp of physics is abominable". Einstein was forced to retract his assessment in 1929, when Edwin Hubble's observations of the red shift in light from receding galaxies confirmed Lemaitre's predictions. Einstein did a reversal in his assesment of Lemaitre's work, however. In 1933 the two met in California for a seminar. At the end of Lemaitre's talk, Einstein stood and applauded, saying "This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explaination of creation to which I have ever listened."

The source of this information is the excellent book "The Universe Within (From Quantum to Cosmos)" by Neil Turok.

 

It depends on the source of information used - I have read 'Einstein: His Life and Universe' and nowhere does it state explicitly, or even allude to, any propensity for arrogance in Einstein. We could really do with finding some primary sources - but even the interpretation of those may lead us up the garden path, because sometimes people have peculiar motives for writing certain things, for example if they are writing under duress, or if they wish to hoodwink their reader and create a false impression for some unknown reason.