Arrogance vs Genius.

[CharonY]

I would think that being that famous Einstein would be an outlier in most regards. But I would presume that whether he is arrogant in a given situation would dependent highly on the form of interaction.

As would be the case for pretty much everyone. I would thing. Whether something is perceived as arrogant is clearly situation dependent and also depends highly on the social skills of the person(s) involved. It would be strange to assume that a genius would be someone who would constantly tout his/her mental superiority, for example. It requires being a specific kind of idiot to do so.

 

As others have already said, a connection between those features is strenuous at best.

[Bill Angel]

 

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.

 

According to the author Neil Turok, the quote attributed to Einstein comes from the book by John Farrell titled "The Day Without Yesterday: Lemaitre, Einstein, and the Birth of Modern Cosmology (New York: Basic Books, 2010), page 10.

 

My local library has a copy of this book, and I will check it out to find out where John Farrell got the quote from.

[cladking]

Einstein was most assuredly not arrogant.

 

There's very little in this thread with which I agree. People are really stupid (at least in comparison to the typical self assesssment). All people have moments of great clarity and insight. We all have the ability to learn a great number of facts and hold them though accessing them tends to be far more difficult. Some individuals can string together lots of moments of clarity and can do it very quickly much of the time but this doesn't change their nature, they merely are called "geniuses". What we mistake for intelligence is mostly the ease of language use and learning. It is language, the very basis of most thought, which confuses us into believing we are intelligent. It is technology, the result of language, which we use as confirmation of our intelligence. It is the lack of a language we can comprehend that lead us to believe animals not only aren't intelligent but aren't even conscious.

 

Arrogance has nothing to do with intelligence, strenght, wealth or any human attribute but is based on the belief that the individual self is better or more important than others. It is the belief that an individual is more important than other others individually and collectively. It is the belief that our needs and concerns must be kowtowed to regardless of other peoples' needs. It is very rarely based on any legitimate measure but is a personality defect. It is never appropriate.

[kristalris]

Einstein was most assuredly not arrogant.

 

EQ

 

You knew him? And would he have been perceived as being arrogant when stating his thought experiment on SR before putting the mathematics to it as he stated?

 

Isn't this going on about Einstein not anecdotal evidence?

 

Q

 

There's very little in this thread with which I agree. People are really stupid (at least in comparison to the typical self assesssment). All people have moments of great clarity and insight.

 

EQ

 

"All" people have moments of great clarity and insight? On what do you base this assertion?

 

Q

 

We all have the ability to learn a great number of facts and hold them though accessing them tends to be far more difficult. Some individuals can string together lots of moments of clarity and can do it very quickly much of the time but this doesn't change their nature, they merely are called "geniuses".

 

EQ

 

?

 

Q

 

What we mistake for intelligence is mostly the ease of language use and learning. It is language, the very basis of most thought, which confuses us into believing we are intelligent. It is technology, the result of language, which we use as confirmation of our intelligence. It is the lack of a language we can comprehend that lead us to believe animals not only aren't intelligent but aren't even conscious.

 

EQ

 

????

 

Q

 

Arrogance has nothing to do with intelligence, strenght, wealth or any human attribute but is based on the belief that the individual self is better or more important than others.

 

EQ

 

So arrogance has in your opinion nothing to do with perception and the latter nothing to do with intelligence?

 

I could even bet that giving this post of yours to a soldiers bar it would readily be deemed arrogant for use of complicated words and topics alone.

 

You talk about intelligence as if there is such a thing as a single trait.

 

Q

 

It is the belief that an individual is more important than other others individually and collectively. It is the belief that our needs and concerns must be kowtowed to regardless of other peoples' needs. It is very rarely based on any legitimate measure but is a personality defect. It is never appropriate.

 

EQ

 

Again using only one absolute norm on what arrogance entails is per definition in itself arrogant. You then clearly take yourself and people like you as the norm.

[cladking]

"All" people have moments of great clarity and insight? On what do you base this assertion?

 

 

I'm sure we all know people whose greatest insights are along the line of remembering to breathe or which way to turn the steering wheel to go left. But even these people can come up with a pearl on rare occasion. It seems almost everyone has at least some minor competence in some area.

 

So arrogance has in your opinion nothing to do with perception and the latter nothing to do with intelligence?

 

 

Correct. There is some correlation of people with high status, great wealth or "intelligence" with arrogance but this doesn't mean that any of these cause arrogance. A priest might be holier than thou and a pauper wealthier than his neighbors but arrogance is always an attitude and way of dealing with other people. It isn't ever justified. One can be rich and evil or powerful and even stupider than average. Arrogance is simply a personality defect that almost all individuals are nearly equally "justified" in adopting.

 

I could even bet that giving this post of yours to a soldiers bar it would readily be deemed arrogant for use of complicated words and topics alone.

 

 

Few people have difficulty grasping my meaning. There is a problem with all communication because everyone deconstructs what he hears. Each person always takes away a different meaning than the intended one. The primary problem people have with what I say is they don't take it literally. Few people express themselves literally especially among those who use a lot of tautologies and absolute statements. I never "dumb it down" but do use more complicated phraseology on a science site than a bar.

 

You talk about intelligence as if there is such a thing as a single trait.

 

 

I didn't mean to imply such a thing (I don't intend to imply anything most of the time). "Intelligence" is exceedingly complicated and is composed of hundreds or thousands of attributes which each are interconnected.

 

Again using only one absolute norm on what arrogance entails is per definition in itself arrogant. You then clearly take yourself and people like you as the norm.

 

 

How can there be more than one norm? Every human is an individual animal and none can be any more "chosen" than a beaver or a termite. Our circumstances vary but not our nature. A genius can plow into another car while an idiot can come up with some improvement on some machine. The rich can be wiped out and the powerful fall from grace. Even a fool can win the lottery.

 

I seriously doubt I'm truly relevant in a thread about genius or arrogance.

 

The confusion individually and collectively is mostly language.

[tar]

Well,

 

This should settle it.

 

My extended family has only 3 PhDs and 1 in the making. Two by my count are decidedly not arrogant, and the other sometimes perceived as such due to personality traits that lead her to be rather direct and open, but since she actually is capable and trustworthy, the incapable and untrustworthy are quickly undressed in her presence, and some of the naked might at that point consider her arrogant in defense of their clothing.

 

Then on the other hand, there are a couple arrogant members of my extended family that are not fully clothed to begin with. The rest of us have managed to be capable and trustworthy in our fields with neither arrogance nor genius playing a role. And several have drug/alchohol/mental type issues, which are out of the discussion entirely, being that they are not capable and trustworthy at the moment, and therefore don't warrant any followers right now.

 

The distinction we might be going for here is the distinction we make between arrogance and boldness, the first being action percieved to be against us and boldness action percieved to be for us. Or arrogance being unwarranted and without basis, and boldness being risky unbased behavior that actually works.

 

Genius does not seem to come into play as a correlate, or a cause or an effect, or an opposite or a synonym of arrogant. Genius stands on its own as an actual capability that has little to do with arrogance.

 

We might as well be comparing arrogance to super speed, or super strength, or super agility, or super musical ability, or super any human ability.

 

Regards, TAR2

[kristalris]

Well,

 

This should settle it.

 

My extended family has only 3 PhDs and 1 in the making. Two by my count are decidedly not arrogant, and the other sometimes perceived as such due to personality traits that lead her to be rather direct and open, but since she actually is capable and trustworthy, the incapable and untrustworthy are quickly undressed in her presence, and some of the naked might at that point consider her arrogant in defense of their clothing.

 

Then on the other hand, there are a couple arrogant members of my extended family that are not fully clothed to begin with. The rest of us have managed to be capable and trustworthy in our fields with neither arrogance nor genius playing a role. And several have drug/alchohol/mental type issues, which are out of the discussion entirely, being that they are not capable and trustworthy at the moment, and therefore don't warrant any followers right now.

 

The distinction we might be going for here is the distinction we make between arrogance and boldness, the first being action percieved to be against us and boldness action percieved to be for us. Or arrogance being unwarranted and without basis, and boldness being risky unbased behavior that actually works.

 

Genius does not seem to come into play as a correlate, or a cause or an effect, or an opposite or a synonym of arrogant. Genius stands on its own as an actual capability that has little to do with arrogance.

 

We might as well be comparing arrogance to super speed, or super strength, or super agility, or super musical ability, or super any human ability.

 

Regards, TAR2

Well, yes and no: arrogance and genius have a causal effect and correlate in the sense that a hindsight genius is a priori often perceived as arrogant and maltreated and even pestered for that and other reasons. This is not only bad for that individual but bad for society in general as for science as a whole.

 

There are quite a lot of geniuses that have only been accepted as such after their death or after very hard times. Begging the question how many geniuses have not been seen as such with hindsight? The fact that we have hindsight geniuses proves that. The fact that what someone has said at a given point given a certain degree of knowledge on what was then known and experience and degree of creative intelligence should to all intent and purpose be deemed "genius" even when not hitting the mark, if you don't want to commit the fallacy of hindsight bias. Scoring high on creative intelligence and thus on the personality trait of openness is thus a prerequisite for being a genius. You don't have that many "one off" geniuses, i.e. accidentally having an idea that works and subsequently been accepted as a genius. Geniuses in general are people who have shown to perform the trick more often.

 

I.e. a genius scoring (per definition) high on creative intelligence yet (not per definition, but by experience / upbringing or lack of talent) low on emotional intelligence will easily be deemed arrogant by someone who scores low on openness and high on conscientiousness. The latter being more and more the norm in our western society. Because they are misunderstood and pestered they indeed become more than average prone to social dubious behavior or even mental illnesses (depressions, anxieties and what not)

 

More and more we are sending our potential geniuses not to university but to lower forms of education and having them swallow pills because they are deemed misfits in the schooling system to a high degree also seen as being arrogant know alls. It has even been formalized in DSM V. The majority of researchers on DSM taking themselves and our sick society as the norm, and measuring deviation by small groups and brandishing them as mad. Which shows stupidity on the creative intelligence scale and very destructive for society as well. Even though that person can score high on IQ and emotional intelligence. Being thus very arrogant but not perceived by those with low creative intelligence.

 

The trait of creative intelligence in part goes with the trait of being low on fear and thus acceptance of risc. Incorrectly seen within DSM as being impulsive. Playing speed chess isn't so much impulsive as it is intuitive. Not being able to stop the urge to buy a chocolate bar and gulping it down is impulsive. This taking of risks is also quickly seen as arrogant when it fails and genius when it succeeds. Fallacy of hindsight.

 

I'm sure we all know people whose greatest insights are along the line of remembering to breathe or which way to turn the steering wheel to go left. But even these people can come up with a pearl on rare occasion. It seems almost everyone has at least some minor competence in some area.

 

 

Correct. There is some correlation of people with high status, great wealth or "intelligence" with arrogance but this doesn't mean that any of these cause arrogance. A priest might be holier than thou and a pauper wealthier than his neighbors but arrogance is always an attitude and way of dealing with other people. It isn't ever justified. One can be rich and evil or powerful and even stupider than average. Arrogance is simply a personality defect that almost all individuals are nearly equally "justified" in adopting.

 

 

Few people have difficulty grasping my meaning. There is a problem with all communication because everyone deconstructs what he hears. Each person always takes away a different meaning than the intended one. The primary problem people have with what I say is they don't take it literally. Few people express themselves literally especially among those who use a lot of tautologies and absolute statements. I never "dumb it down" but do use more complicated phraseology on a science site than a bar.

 

 

I didn't mean to imply such a thing (I don't intend to imply anything most of the time). "Intelligence" is exceedingly complicated and is composed of hundreds or thousands of attributes which each are interconnected.

 

 

How can there be more than one norm? Every human is an individual animal and none can be any more "chosen" than a beaver or a termite. Our circumstances vary but not our nature. A genius can plow into another car while an idiot can come up with some improvement on some machine. The rich can be wiped out and the powerful fall from grace. Even a fool can win the lottery.

 

I seriously doubt I'm truly relevant in a thread about genius or arrogance.

 

The confusion individually and collectively is mostly language.

No, the confusion is not mostly language but stems IMO from the distribution by MN of talent i.e. dna. The Big Five personality traits will be seen to and in part are proven to be genetic in nature.

 

No, dna based perception of one and other are at the heart of it.

 

Someone scoring high on openness and fairly high on conscientiousness can deem someone who scores low on openness yet high on conscientiousness having a lot of experience and knowledge posing any position on a subject of which it is agreed that we know that we don't as yet know the answer as being arrogant. I.e. posing to be creative whereas the person is evidently not. In fact this is a running gag take the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy with the Vogons siting poetry and the mortal danger this causes. (And many more literature to that effect BTW.)

 

This way of perceiving - and thus normative - arrogance is just as valid as the other way round in which someone who scores high on conscientiousness and low on openness deems the other as an arrogant know all for lack of emotional intelligence.

 

So only using one norm on arrogance is arrogant and perceived as such. Take the way the rest of the world deems the west as being arrogant.

 

Further more on your point that arrogance is always wrong, well yes and no. A captain on a ship that is in danger should always pose that he knows what he is doing even if he feels very uncertain or even if he feels in panic. The latter makes him a bad captain, but even worse if he shows his panic. He will then be perceived as arrogant. Yet his job requires it. Albeit indeed then a bad captain.

Then we have the captain who is very competent yet not so much in the emotional intelligent part of the job. Not per se a bad captain yet perceived as arrogant.

 

Nearly the same applies for geniuses, see my earlier post.

 

So there is such a thing as the arrogance of having an extreme amount of knowledge, namely concerning issues where you know that you don't have all the agreed upon required knowledge and thus should know you are in want of creative intelligence, which you should know by self insight if you have that to the degree required to pose position on the question at hand. If not you can be perceived to be and are arrogant even if you pose it in a humble emotional intelligent guise.

Edited October 23, 2013 by kristalris

[tar]

kristalris,

 

You have some good points. I am not so sure though about personality being a strongly nature thing, I think it might lean more nurture.

 

My dad, one of the PhDs I referred to earlier (bottom left in profile pic) is a psychologist and has told me that one's personality is pretty much developed, by the age of two. This would lead me to believe two things, one, that one's personality develops and two, that it developes early. Thus very early events and interactions in one's life, events that one might not consciously remember, could have great influence on choices of outward or inward sonance, for the remainder of ones life. The last statement is mine, and I pretend no particular expertise in psychology, just because my dad told me one fact. It's just a guess, based on my muses about myself and others.

 

So different people, based on this guess, would hold different value to knowing they are smart, and having other people know they are smart. And in the case of this thread we could replace smart with genius, or near genius, or at least smarter than average, and still be talking about arrogance vs. genius.

 

By this metric, I think I am sort of an inward sonance guy, who assumes that the outward world must make sense, by definition, because its already working and manifest, and it was doing so for a long time, before my personal sonace came into play. I sort of trust the place to be correct, and any inconsistencies are probably internally correctable. So personally I am not so concerned with other people thinking I am smart, cause I already know I am smarter than average, and less than a genius, and know my place, so to speak in the spectrum, but constantly have the internal battle of determining whether or not I am over or under estimating myself, when it comes to my importance and concurrent responsibilies, to the outward order of the world.

 

In this regard humble or arrogant, either way, is a differencial, between ones own assessment of oneself, and an outside opinion.

 

Still has little to do with genius. Current or backward looking. Unless backward looking allows an objective assessment to be made of objective assessments and one could assess the importance of a person to the world, from the fact that he had great positive impact on the actual real order of the outside world.

 

We have little way of knowing such things, while we are engaged in the doing.

 

Hey, did you know I was at the dinner table where the word Cascade was decided upon for a new dishwashing detergent, and it was my idea, to come up with a water related word, that was clean, and powerful, and poetic? That was pretty smart in retrospect.

 

But I have taken IQ tests, and don't play speed chess, and think more slowly than many that I know, so I know there is genius out there, and its not me, so a glimmer, does not a genius make. And we are back to personality and human assessment being the decider of arrogance, with little link to genes.

 

Regards, TAR2

Edited October 25, 2013 by tar

[Bill Angel]

According to the author Neil Turok, the quote attributed to Einstein comes from the book by John Farrell titled "The Day Without Yesterday: Lemaitre, Einstein, and the Birth of Modern Cosmology (New York: Basic Books, 2010), page 10.

 

My local library has a copy of this book, and I will check it out to find out where John Farrell got the quote from.

 

Here is some further information about this encounter between Einstein and Lemaitre. It comes from the book "Wrinkles in Time" by George Smoot, published in 1993.

Lemaitre unsuccessfully tried to interest Einstein and de Sitter in the primoridal atom [ his big bang theory]. He sought out Einstein at the Fifth Solvay Conference in Brussels in 1927 to plead his case. Einstein was uncharacteristically brusque and snapped "Your calculations are correct, but your physical insight is abominable." Lemaitre's old teacher Authur Eddington was repelled by talk of cosmic beginnings; "It has seemed to me that the most satisfactory theory would be one which made the beginning [of the universe] not too unaesthetically abrupt," Eddington harrumphed" (his italics).Lemaitre described his ideas in the May 9, 1931 issue of Nature, in a letter that one scholar has called "the charter of the Bing Bang theory." Lemairtre began by recalling that Eddington had scorned talk of cosmic origins because, philosophically, "the notion of the beginning of the present order of Nature is repugnant to him."...Lemaitre's letter resulted in a story in the May 19, 1931 New York Times, headlined: "LEMAITRE SUGGESTS ONE, SINGLE, GREAT ATOM, EMBRACING ALL ENERGY, STARTED THE UNIVERSE."...By this time Einstein realized that he had dismissed too quickly the young priest's idea and began referring to it as the "most pleasant, beautiful and satisfying interpretation" of astronomical phenomena. "

[kristalris]

Q

 

kristalris,

You have some good points. I am not so sure though about personality being a strongly nature thing, I think it might lean more nurture.

My dad, one of the PhDs I referred to earlier (bottom left in profile pic) is a psychologist and has told me that one's personality is pretty much developed, by the age of two. This would lead me to believe two things, one, that one's personality develops and two, that it developes early. Thus very early events and interactions in one's life, events that one might not consciously remember, could have great influence on choices of outward or inward sonance, for the remainder of ones life.

 

 

EQ

 

Well, I lean to the contention that the nature and nurture discussion is a non-discussion, because all human existence is in the basis DNA, and after that nurture based. So it’s both. This leads to the contention that basic insights as rules of thumb, such as the Big Five personality traits, must probably be talent (DNA) based. That the personality isn’t fully developed before a certain age doesn’t make that any different. I.e. the creative risk taking personality trait can be nurtured into a conscientious risk avoiding (pseudo) trait, via Ritalin drugs and training. And vice versa say with LSD. Yet I think it arrogant to do so. Let people be what they are.

 

Q

The last statement is mine, and I pretend no particular expertise in psychology, just because my dad told me one fact. It's just a guess, based on my muses about myself and others.

 

EQ

 

I don’t pretend any particular expertise in psychology either. Though I’ve put some study into it and have a lot of experience with clients and psychologists / psychiatrists, and have had assessments and coaches and discussions with researchers in psychology myself.

 

Anyway all science IMO should be scrutinized in general by anyone claiming to have an academic level of thought. Now DSM V is clearly wrong where it would entail that MN has made it so that say 50 to more than 90% of all people have a psychiatric problem. Take psychopaths, they must be mad, or must they? The 1% of the populace that has this psychologists wonder why not more strange crimes are committed. Well, if you don’t look on them as mentally mad but as people without fear, I can see why MN has 1% of those in order to let humans as a species survive. Arrogance of those who think they know their stuff, taking themselves and a sick society as the norm and brandishing all serious deviation of that norm as dangerously mad. Implementing rigid systems such as DSM V to stem this fear. So if you attack a people/ culture like the Muslims then these 1% will start coming into play and let themselves – or have others – fly into world trade center’s etc.. I.e. if you keep it balanced it shouldn't pose a problem. Destabilize it, and it does pose a problem, that no shock and awe will remedy but only will aggravate.

 

 

Q

So different people, based on this guess, would hold different value to knowing they are smart, and having other people know they are smart. And in the case of this thread we could replace smart with genius, or near genius, or at least smarter than average, and still be talking about arrogance vs. genius.

By this metric, I think I am sort of an inward sonance guy, who assumes that the outward world must make sense, by definition, because its already working and manifest, and it was doing so for a long time, before my personal sonace came into play. I sort of trust the place to be correct, and any inconsistencies are probably internally correctable. So personally I am not so concerned with other people thinking I am smart, cause I already know I am smarter than average, and less than a genius, and know my place, so to speak in the spectrum, but constantly have the internal battle of determining whether or not I am over or under estimating myself, when it comes to my importance and concurrent responsibilies, to the outward order of the world.

In this regard humble or arrogant, either way, is a differencial, between ones own assessment of oneself, and an outside opinion.

Still has little to do with genius. Current or backward looking. Unless backward looking allows an objective assessment to be made of objective assessments and one could assess the importance of a person to the world, from the fact that he had great positive impact on the actual real order of the outside world.

We have little way of knowing such things, while we are engaged in the doing.

Hey, did you know I was at the dinner table where the word Cascade was decided upon for a new dishwashing detergent, and it was my idea, to come up with a water related word, that was clean, and powerful, and poetic? That was pretty smart in retrospect.

But I have taken IQ tests, and don't play speed chess, and think more slowly than many that I know, so I know there is genius out there, and its not me, so a glimmer, does not a genius make. And we are back to personality and human assessment being the decider of arrogance, with little link to genes.

EQ

 

You might be right, or wrong (of course) about yourself. As it has both difficult to ascertain absolute and equally difficult to ascertain relative problems. If I – for sake of the argument – where to divide intelligence into EQ (emotional intelligence) good for sales, IQ test (good in production) and creative intelligence, than looking at the Big Five this is difficult to ascertain.

A quick thinking genius salesman (= more and more current politicians) can sell anything to anyone exceptionally well. Yet it seems then he could do well in production or research where he fails. Focused as he then is on influencing what others think. And maybe be perceived as someone who because he’s extrovert is a fast thinker. Although getting it wrong above average on difficult problem solving (= personality trait not to bother with what others think but at the problem).

 

Someone who is introvert (as I understand you say you are) can be thought, by themselves as well, as being slow thinkers, even though they are extremely fast thinkers. It is relative. If you have a simple task you might tend to over-complicate that issue and take too long to solve it, or even get it wrong. More complicated tasks you do correctly, yet it takes time. However the other guy doesn't solve it (correctly) at all. Because difficult tasks even for a fast brain takes more time. Speed chess is for risk takers and not risk avoiders and thus says nothing on speed of thought. (In incorrect DSM lingo: ADHD (Newton, Churchill) are the risk taking dowers among the thinkers and ADD (Einstein) the risk avoiding thinkers. (Most geniuses are seemingly lazy underachievers. Only to become active when enticed.)

 

Saying you are not an even potential genius is wrong IMO (as stating that you are BTW).

 

Apart from my qualms with the term “genius” as such, as stated earlier, I’m becoming more and more convinced that it is so that we have say something like 10% potential geniuses on all fields and say 1 % potential geniuses on any particular field.

 

 

I base this on the following (and more) (don’t mention the war, but I will anyway): when the US joined in WWII the Nazi’s indeed had only one real military chance to win: super weapons. So “the boss” ordered this to be so. If you look at the staggering array of genius idea’s / concepts and even hardware that came out of that, it is – proven – that there where many geniuses already present in Germany, that otherwise wouldn't have been noticed. Much was – too – far ahead of time. Many projects taken over by the US in the subsequent X programs, whereby a more prudent “brake” was applied to get it to fruition.

The same applies to the creative mind of Churchill who’s many wartime idea’s where not all taken up on. He had an excellent staff that remained out of sight, curbing the all to wild idea’s. And, he let that happen. (He already had his Gallipoli) The creative mind thrives on counter argument. Seemingly arrogant, yet not.

 

So, genius is probably only exceptional because it has overcome the arrogance of those who know their stuff, via the creative that give them this stuff to know.

So no, arrogance and genius are interlinked. Thanks to the genius of the thread starter I came to this insight as well.

The term “Genius” is thus overrated. It is a term in use to protect the status quo. This needs urgent rectification in our western society because it is out of balance.

Edited October 27, 2013 by kristalris

[tar]

Kristalris,

 

OK, I get your drift, but perhaps I am avoiding the link between arrogance and intelligence because it poses some unsavory problems, that I am at a loss to have yet solved. And troubleshooting was my trade for many years so I am embarrased to have not yet solved the dilema.

 

If the 10 percent are the most capable, then they are the ones both making ideas manifest, and guiding the use of the knowledge and technology gained. Then, a certain power aspect comes into play, and the 10 percent are the creators of, and the wielders of, power, in every aspect of human life. They are central to the functioning of every group, and establishment. All good stuff can be traced back to the 10% as well as all bad stuff.

 

Thus with exceptional capability comes a concurrent responsibility, to be exceptionally trustworthy, and the unfortunate condition of being extraorinarily capable of fooling and thusly being capable of being the master of, 90 percent of the population. Making the 90 percent, the 10%'s

unwitting slaves or followers.

 

Thus power struggles in the world, are not really the pervue of the average man, cause we don't have the capability to be appropriate advisaries of those that can fool us. Yet we have to trust some very many, that are more capable than we are, in every area of human endeavor.

 

Case in point. I saw the current tag line for the Keurig Coffee Brewing system. "Brew the love".

 

Really? What sense does that make? Who is that fooling?

 

Regards, TAR2

Anybody can be arrogant, if there is but one of us that they can fool, and but one of us that they cannot.

 

The more capable a person is, the more responsible they are for the state of the place they inhabit.

With great power, comes great responsibility.

 

Its unfortunate that power currupts. A dilema we have been trying to address in thousands of ways, for thousands of years. Perhaps better to trust that we would not be anywhere close to where we are, if people at every level of capability are not cogniscent of the requirement to be trustworthy, and accountable to the rest of us. For the most part. Which leads me to the belief that 90 percent of us are trying to be good, and 10 percent mess it up, for the rest of us, because they can't be trusted.

The 90/10 split though, can not be along the same lines as the capability split, rather even amoungst the 10 percent that is the most capable, there is a distinction between those that can be trusted and those that cannot. If this split was not overwhelmingly in the favor of trustworthy folk, we would all be naked and vulnerable, and living as prey in the wilderness. Since we are not in such a state, I think that good must have won out, all the way along the line of human development, and for this to have happened, the 10 percent that are the most capable, must have also been made up of a majority of trustworthy folk. Let's say a 90/10 split in favor of trust.

[kristalris]

Tar,

 

Indeed trust is the key word IMO to organize properly between arrogance and genius. Economics, the legal system, education, trust in science. Our society as a whole is based on trust. Slippery stuff that: ”trust”.

 

The discussion you refer to goes back to the philosopher King of Plato and your scruples have been dealt with also by Popper in “The open society and its enemies”.

 

And indeed we have successfully come a long way. And, might I ad we’ve done this in the western society by putting in place checks and balances. I don’t know of any western society that has complete direct democracy. Because then you have the science of half plus one that decides what is right. That will go horribly wrong sooner or later.

 

Just to add to your view that we have gone the right way, indeed, but bear in mind looking at human endeavor over the past 50.000 years then you will agree that the changes to society are becoming more rapid by the year especially the last hundred years. For the good indeed, yet also for the bad: horrible and rapidly rising overpopulation of the planet. Climate change with sea levels rising unpredictably fast threatening the overpopulated lowlands where we grow our food.

 

I.e. creative intelligence based on relevant knowledge and relevant experience is called for and fast. This if we don’t want an extreme catastrophe on our hands, if it at all can be avoided. If it can then the creative will have to come up with potential solutions. We will have to trust their advice after having provided them with all the information they say they need. The 10 % most open minded in any field should provide the educated guesswork in the form of an advice. So they then only have limited and differentiated power: the power of advice. And the power to be informed properly. And, the power to do “air crash investigation” afterwards. Open minded research into “what the hell went wrong?” Followed by again: the power of – official called for - advice. That will have the natural tendency to have authority. And, because you haven’t sold perfection but an educated guess, the trust isn’t jeopardized. Because the expectations aren’t then that high.

 

The only thing you have to check as society that indeed the ones giving the advice are indeed the most open minded ones. Now that is a taboo. Especially for those in power who know or think they are not all too open-minded. Yet they have to fear little – as long as they follow the advice.

 

The science of psychology in the basic insight that follows from the Big Five shows you why this is so. In fact we should do what we did in the west a long time ago already. The correct system is basically already in place.

 

In the legal system 10% of the most open-minded judges check on the investigation process and even in a jury system can give integral advice to the jury. I.e. the conviction of a judge (not the same judge as the one doing the actual court case for that requires conscientiousness. The jury can take it or leave it. If they leave it, that can form the bases of a retrial.

 

Same goes for psychology and psychiatry: only the 10% most open minded should be the ones rendering diagnoses. Being a diagnoses at best an educated guess instead of an quasi exact evidence based science as DSM depicts it is. Resulting in declaring enormous amounts of children mad and sending our potential geniuses not to higher forms of education where they belong. DSM is an arrogant system. We as a society can’t afford these kinds of mistakes. The more conscientious ones are the ones that should do the treatment. The problem being of course 90% of psychologists / psychiatrists will oppose this. If we don't break through this we will remain being stuck with creatively intelligence wise complete idiots rendering diagnoses according to DSM as if it was a production line. Declaring everybody certifiably mad.

 

The basic problem that what is forward becoming backward stems from the DNA not only of individuals but also in the way MN / God distributed that DNA across society. If you don’t choose to put the team in the right order then we’re sunk! Whether you believe it to be DNA or not doesn’t make a difference either if you agree that the distribution of personality traits of the Big Five indeed exists. (But then you believe that with pill and treatment you can change people. Talking about unsavory situations: well this is already a fact and a rapidly growing one at that!)

 

The illusion MN / God provides is that people who score high on emotional intelligence (sales) are not seen to arrogant yet could very well be. Furthermore people who score well (but not too well) on IQ tests and are successful in our society are also not seen to be arrogant yet very often are, based on book-wisdom. Both these types can namely be very un-creatively intelligent concerning problem solving and the inherent creative guesswork that entails. That then is the arrogance that prevents geniuses from becoming manifest. Genius solutions that we desperately need and fast and all across the board. This can be had as German scientists showed in the war when called for, by simply accepting a lot of failures.

 

In this proposed way you keep the present system – that is being threatened BTW – in its place. But you get a system in which more naturally have everyone find his or her way to the goal of having an as long as possible happy life, with the least infringement on others including future generations. As well as preventing others to say they want this as well butt arrogantly strive for the opposite. It is practically implementable in roughly the same way as the Fins changed their schooling system to become one of the best if not the best in the world. In so doing dispensing with a lot of arrogance and with yet to be shown geniuses coming out of it.

Edited October 28, 2013 by kristalris

[Tridimity]

Kristalris,

 

I would tend to concur with Onora O'Neill's perception that what our societies need is not so much trust per se but an increase in the trustworthiness of institutions and of individuals. The erosion of trust can have a runaway effect: when one individual is betrayed by another, that individual will be less likely to trust others overall, and so in future societal transactions will not only choose not to co-operate but may choose to betray a potential partner, as a defensive mechanism, as in the Prisoner's Dilemma. The repercussions for consumer confidence and for lending by the banks and business partnerships globally are clear. However, arbitrarily increasing trust will lead more people to place their trust inappropriately if there is not a commensurate increase in trustworthiness. If trustworthiness is first increased, then trust is likely to follow.

 

Catch Onora's TED talk, 'What we don't understand about trust', here: http://www.ted.com/talks/onora_o_neill_what_we_don_t_understand_about_trust.html

 

As for open-mindedness: yes, a degree of open-mindedness is necessary in order to allow innovative ideas to flourish; but people ought not to be so open-minded that, quote, 'their brains fall out'.

Edited October 28, 2013 by Tridimity

[kristalris]

Tridimity,

 

Well of course I’m on about raising the trustworthiness in order to gain trust worthy of that. The thing is, you can organize it conforming to what Onara is on about: she in effect says trustworthiness is being competent, reliable and honest. Indeed. And to provide ample and simple evidence of these. Indeed.

 

I’m not on about only openness. Because as soon as you have got your diploma, or at least in the Netherlands when you have become say a judge the formal point of being competent in all respects apart from scoring highest on creativity has been dealt with. So the problem of being high on openness and low on conscientiousness where the brain tends to fall out has been dealt with. Again: you need BOTH!

 

Like I stated earlier for the trait of problem solving you need to have both. Primarily openness. If you want to be trustworthy as a potential competent guesser. The competence required when dealing with any problem where you know that you don’t yet know the answer as mankind.

 

As soon as you have that then it no longer pays off to cheat. If you are not trustworthy AND! not trusted by the – wise = 10% of most open minded judges you lose. No hiding in loopholes of the law. Like it does pay off to do so in our more and more conscientious society because it has loopholes for the conscientious. The later sold as trustworthiness.

 

 

Only then does arrogance no longer threaten the required genius.

[tar]

Thread,

 

Another aspect is the result that anybody of a certain type causes, when they, as a member of the type fail in the trustworthiness department. Everybody of that type takes a hit. Concurrently trustworthiness tends to likewise be granted to other members of the same type when trustworthy behavior is noted.

 

Case in point, with the commercial where the teenager is hanging out of a moving car reaching for the errantly open beverage truck's cargo...only to grab the pull strap and close down the door to prevent the driver from losing any of his/her cargo.

 

In this, the TED talker's suggestion that we should strive as a goal, to increase our own trustworthiness in other peoples minds, is doubly valuable. Increasing one's own capability and trustworthiness, not only serves as an example...wait...triple that, no, quadruple that. Not only does being capable and trustworthy get the job done for you, and the people around you, but serves as an example to others of your type(s), and as evidence to people not of your type(s), that your type(s) can be trusted.

 

Concurrent with that goes a certain responsibilty to shun those of your type(s) who act in an untrustworthy fashion. Bad behavior brings shame upon the groups of which you are a member.

 

And who better than a Genius, to scold a Genius?

 

Regards, TAR2

(in a socially appropriate, person to person, manner, of course)

Edited October 28, 2013 by tar

[Tridimity]

Not only does being capable and trustworthy get the job done for you, and the people around you, but serves as an example to others of your type(s), and as evidence to people not of your type(s), that your type(s) can be trusted.

 

Concurrent with that goes a certain responsibility to shun those of your type(s) who act in an untrustworthy fashion. Bad behavior brings shame upon the groups of which you are a member.

 

 

The trustworthiness (or otherwise) of individuals within a particular group has no bearing upon the trustworthiness (or otherwise) of other individuals within the group. The behaviours of one individual, or a minority of individuals, within a group may determine the extent to which outsiders are willing to place trust in the group as a whole. However, this judgment on the part of the outsiders is fallacious: by failing to judge on a case-by-case basis, they will overlook advantageous opportunities to appropriately place trust in the trustworthy individuals, and will inappropriately place trust in the minority of untrustworthy individuals within a group of otherwise trustworthy individuals.

 

That’s my lifetime quota of using the words ‘trustworthy’ and ‘individual’ spent

[kristalris]

I agree with what Tridimiti states.

 

What Onara is missing is the difference between general and individual for one and perception and actual truth on the other.

 

Telling an adult who operates on the level of a six year old concerning creative intelligence even though this person has an above average IQ and or EQ that he should not be conned or duped by looking at the trustworthiness of someone is beside the point. It is just what conmen do: appear trustworthy to mental six year olds. And you can’t have these mental six year olds mistrusting everybody including the ones they should of trusted.

 

She does however provide a general rule that indeed will be applied by the wise: if someone doesn’t provide simple evidence of trustworthiness in general one should be suspicious of a con.

 

However sometimes there are valid reasons that say a certain financial product of a bank is complex. The only way to deal with that problem IMO is to have wise judges scrutinize this and state what they in fact are convinced of: a con or no con.

 

Conmen will then know that the game is up and not cheat anymore because they know that they probably will lose, whereas if you apply rigid objective systems you always will have loopholes in which conmen will dupe the not so wise judge that something that is/ appears trustworthy is to be trusted even though it’s a con.

 

This of course will not stop all crime in this respect, because sometimes people dupe others in a way that is bound to become known. Because that is so, it is deemed trustworthy by the one who is conned. This usually then has to do with psychological despair such as a depression on the part of the conman. You wouldn’t prevent this even if you put the death penalty on it.

 

However most people I’m convinced can be trusted especially if the legal system works. And trusted not to be trusted if you provide loopholes for the seemingly cleaver, i.e. highly conscientious.

Arrogance and trust are interlinked and linked to the prevention of all genius reaching its full potential, when it isn’t properly organized.

 

Same goes for driving cars. I trust and have to trust my fellow drivers even when sometimes this trust is misplaced by drunken suicidal drivers driving at the wrong side of the road.

[Tridimity]

It is just what conmen do: appear trustworthy to mental six year olds. And you can’t have these mental six year olds mistrusting everybody including the ones they should of trusted.

She does however provide a general rule that indeed will be applied by the wise: if someone doesn’t provide simple evidence of trustworthiness in general one should be suspicious of a con.

 

 

What about the sophisticated conmen who appear trustworthy to mentally average and even astute adults? The sophisticated conmen will provide ample evidence of apparent trustworthiness up until the point when the victim is exploited - or possibly even beyond the point at which the victim is exploited. The regulatory system as you describe it for the moderation of complex financial products, and the like, may suffice to protect customers. However, these formal avenues of redress are usually inadequate in dealing with matters of personal relations or crimes against the individual - the damage is already done.

 

How did we digress from arrogance versus genius to trust... arrogance is misplaced confidence in oneself* i.e. confidence without qualification. Fraud is essentially the work of confidence tricksters i.e. conmen. I guess that is the tenuous link?

 

*[Ed: scratch that. We have already agreed that geniuses, who obviously have grounds for their own self-confidence, may be arrogant.]

Edited October 29, 2013 by Tridimity

[tar]

Tridimity,

 

OK then, let's go after the capability angle, and drop the trust for the moment (mostly).

 

I was thinking today of ammending my 90/10 good people/questionable people, to include the fact that each individual in either group is not perfectly good or without thoughts and behaviors that even they themselves would question. And concurrently realized that capability, as in the strength and intelligence of even a crime boss or a leader of the cripts or the bloods, is evident. There does seem to be such thing as an evil genius, not limited to the movie characters of that persuasion.

 

Which made me wonder about how our society as a whole might be a reflection of the individual's own 90/10 split.

 

So, rather circuitous (which probably explains the correlation between this thread going off course, and my presence on it,) but I am reaching this hypothesis. A genius might be more likely to be considered arrogant by virtue of his/her capability in the brain department that places him/her in rarified air, where he/she has not enough living peers, or role models, or judges or examples to know how to properly act.

 

Regards, TAR

[Tridimity]

So, rather circuitous (which probably explains the correlation between this thread going off course, and my presence on it)

 

 

I did not mean to imply that you were responsible for misdirection of the thread. It has been rather enjoyable thus far; I just lost track of the link between trust and arrogance.

 

A genius might be more likely to be considered arrogant by virtue of his/her capability in the brain department that places him/her in rarified air, where he/she has not enough living peers, or role models, or judges or examples to know how to properly act.

 

 

Yes, I would tend to agree with this – some people, of high or low IQ, are just useless when it comes to social interaction. I would add that it is possible for non-geniuses (people who are really not very intelligent at all) to be perceived as arrogant because - despite their high EQ and availability of peers/role models/judges/examples for living – these people choose to disregard the feelings of others or not to take into consideration the opinions of others, always assuming that they know best, and so resulting in a kind of unconstructive stubbornness that limits their own intellectual and emotional development.

Edited October 30, 2013 by Tridimity

[Kowalski]

being a genius means to have the ability to comprehend the most complicated ideas and to solve the hardest problems . And arrogance is the feeling of superiority , seeing oneself as better than others in everything , and showing off . So they are to different words .

But some people see the genius person as arrogant when he shows them they're wrong and tells them their mistakes even if he's doing it humbly . So it's not the genius who is arrogant but the people have a complex of inferiority .

[turionx2]

being a genius means to have the ability to comprehend the most complicated ideas and to solve the hardest problems . And arrogance is the feeling of superiority , seeing oneself as better than others in everything , and showing off . So they are to different words .

But some people see the genius person as arrogant when he shows them they're wrong and tells them their mistakes even if he's doing it humbly . So it's not the genius who is arrogant but the people have a complex of inferiority .

 

This is mainly what I was asking.

[kristalris]

 

What about the sophisticated conmen who appear trustworthy to mentally average and even astute adults? The sophisticated conmen will provide ample evidence of apparent trustworthiness up until the point when the victim is exploited - or possibly even beyond the point at which the victim is exploited. The regulatory system as you describe it for the moderation of complex financial products, and the like, may suffice to protect customers. However, these formal avenues of redress are usually inadequate in dealing with matters of personal relations or crimes against the individual - the damage is already done.

 

How did we digress from arrogance versus genius to trust... arrogance is misplaced confidence in oneself* i.e. confidence without qualification. Fraud is essentially the work of confidence tricksters i.e. conmen. I guess that is the tenuous link?

 

*[Ed: scratch that. We have already agreed that geniuses, who obviously have grounds for their own self-confidence, may be arrogant.]

Indeed. There is no way any system can protect everybody every time. Crime in this way will always exist. You can only hope to cut it down to a minimum.

 

Arrogance leads to mistrust unjustly so in some cases as you so aptly put it.

 

I did not mean to imply that you were responsible for misdirection of the thread. It has been rather enjoyable thus far; I just lost track of the link between trust and arrogance.

 

 

Yes, I would tend to agree with this – some people, of high or low IQ, are just useless when it comes to social interaction. I would add that it is possible for non-geniuses (people who are really not very intelligent at all) to be perceived as arrogant because - despite their high EQ and availability of peers/role models/judges/examples for living – these people choose to disregard the feelings of others or not to take into consideration the opinions of others, always assuming that they know best, and so resulting in a kind of unconstructive stubbornness that limits their own intellectual and emotional development.

agree

being a genius means to have the ability to comprehend the most complicated ideas and to solve the hardest problems . And arrogance is the feeling of superiority , seeing oneself as better than others in everything , and showing off . So they are to different words .

But some people see the genius person as arrogant when he shows them they're wrong and tells them their mistakes even if he's doing it humbly . So it's not the genius who is arrogant but the people have a complex of inferiority .

agree

Albeit a remark: genius in this thread has mostly been in context of what is usually and especially so within science seen as an exceptional ability to solve complex problems.

 

Genius can of course also be seen in a context of the arts; i.e. painting, dance et cetera. Whereby we get the arrogant prima dona. For some providing I guess an thereby even more IMO strange attraction.

 

Further more it is mostly placed in the context of being good: i.e. that it helps further a commonly held goal.

 

Genius can as is stated earlier as well also be an evil genius. Was Hitler arrogant? I'd say extremely so. But was he persieved to be so by his people then? I guess on the whole not. He certainly would rank in my book as an evil genius in the sense that he - I guess - had the high EQ to sell his ideas to the masses the way he did in an exceptional way. And, might I add, he had this mesmerizing effect on many others such as for instance Rommel for a long time. Rommel BTW seen by many as a genius general.

Edited October 30, 2013 by kristalris

[tar]

Thread,

 

So if we have agreed that arrogance is an attitude or percieved attitude, and genius is more an aptitude or percieved aptitude, then the two words are indeed of different natures. And the discussion is sort of over. Except there is this inferiority/superiority element as mentioned by Kowalski, who seems to have an elevated vantage point, evidenced by his/her ability to read and write from the top of the screen.

 

I am thinking there is the big fish in a small pond thing going on with arrogance in general, where it is possible that the biggest fish in the pond truely does have the title won, aptitudewise, yet neglects to consider the fact that the title is not a fixed thing that continues to hold when the pond drains into the lake.

 

There is something for instance that I have noticed that would seem to indicate that Audi and Mercedes owners, also feel they own the road. Perhaps they actually do, in some cases, but in general, I get the feeling that they carry their pond status into the lake, where it no longer applies.

 

The words snob and elite come to mind, in this drift, and there really is an actual capability differential that truely exists in the world that causes there to be different communities of people that gravitate toward each other. We really do have universities where you will find inordinate concentrations of genius, and we really do have gated communities where you will find inordinate concentrations of rich, capable folk. And "Prima" Dona ballerinas really are number one in the class.

 

So, as genius goes, we have two realities. One is that the genius is way out on the thin right rim of the bell curve, several standard deviations from the norm...but the other reality comes into focus at the Mensa convention, where everbody just turns into your average, run of the mill genius and but samples in a new bell curve and you have a good chance of being within one standard deviation of the norm, at the convention.

 

Regards, TAR

[tar]

From an outside perspective, as someone that has never been to a Mensa convention(is there such a thing?), I can take, and have to take the perspective that being most likely a borderline case on the membership requirements front, should I attend, I would be humbled by the assembly, and quite a deviation or two to the left of the norm there. I would not go if my goal was to show anybody there how smart I was, because I would most likely be disappointed at my standing.

 

So I might take a dual approach toward the folk that do attend. One that says they are likely swimming into a lake, where their pond status will not hold, and two, that their status in the pond is reinforced and verified, should they swim back, uneaten.