Arrogance vs Genius.

[kristalris]

Kristalris,

 

If mother nature intended the baboons to be the natural leaders, it would already be so, and there would not be the requirement for a "more and more" climb into the role.

 

I am thinking that whatever the dynamics involved, those dynamics are already in action and a "final resolution" or a climb into proper position, is not in the cards, for any personality type, since they are already in their "proper" place.

 

It is probably more of an "orbiting" body problem, such as whether the moon and the earth are orbiting each other, or some center of mass that the two together have established.

 

Arrogance would be thinking the other body revolved around you, ignorant of the actual dynamics.

 

Regards, TAR

If intelligent people recognize thier intelligence (mass) it does not eliminate their gravity and pull on the local system, but allows for the consideration of the mass around which the local system is orbiting. This might explain the Dunning-Kruger thing.

Eh, you got me wrong on the baboon being the natural leader according to MN. What I'm saying is that in our current internet society this will more and more become the case.

 

Natural leaders through the ages have on average I guess been in balance on all three traits. In crises usually the chimps become the natural leaders and when it is going well the gorillas usually will become the leaders. Both critically especially in a democracy having a good baboon suit to wear.

 

What never has been seen in human history is the mass communication becoming ever more direct and fast as internet. One wrong word and you loose the election. That is where baboons naturally both in verbal and non verbal communication excel without having to work hard at it. So they will become dominant. Not only as a guess but it can be observed in politics more and more. Not what you want but how you are perceived becomes more and more critical.

 

I don't quite follow your moon and earth metaphor. Not all arrogant people are narcissistic or have large ego's. Yet being narcissistic or having a large ego does I guess always imply the thought that everything revolves around the own ego. And that indeed has a repelling and attracting effect on others. It is not the dynamics I'm talking about per se. I.e. what I'm saying is just a rule of thumb, yet a crucial rule of thumb that is in effect already current psychological paradigm. So yes, there is much more to psychology then with this rule of thumb.

 

Yet if you don't cater for it the historical rule that what is forward will become backward will apply. Take for instance NASA. It no longer is the bold daring organisation of the Apollo program but a bureaucratic arrogant organisation. Gorillas and baboons have taken over the lead. It is a well documented natural phenomenon in all large organisations. Other much smaller enterprises are now taking over parts led by chimps and gorillas in well fitting chimp suits feeling safe to take risks, already showing genius at a fraction of the cost. What I'm saying is, if you know this you can cater for it.

[tar]

Kristalris,

 

I often take people wrong. I'm literal when they are figurative and vice-a-versa. Never did learn to banter well, because of it.

 

But since the internet does seem to turn personalities inside out, and outside in, the people who best "cater" for this, are likely to become the people with the most power, regardless of their personalities. It is a general issue that I think runs in circles, or perhaps Hegel's acending spiral, or something like the politcal pendulum swing, right and left, conservative and progressive. Such can be seen by the current beneficial use of the word "disrupt". There seems to be personality differences between the generations, such that behavior such as giving state secrets to enemies of the state can be seen similitaneously (by different viewers) as heroic or treasonist behaviour.

 

In this light, arrogance as well as genius can be "misunderstood", depending on whose paradigm you are going by, and who is in power, and who is about to rent it from the current hands, and who it is being handed to intentionally.

 

Regards, TAR2

[Popcorn Sutton]

Kristalris,

 

I often take people wrong. I'm literal when they are figurative and vice-a-versa. Never did learn to banter well, because of it.

 

But since the internet does seem to turn personalities inside out, and outside in, the people who best "cater" for this, are likely to become the people with the most power, regardless of their personalities. It is a general issue that I think runs in circles, or perhaps Hegel's acending spiral, or something like the politcal pendulum swing, right and left, conservative and progressive. Such can be seen by the current beneficial use of the word "disrupt". There seems to be personality differences between the generations, such that behavior such as giving state secrets to enemies of the state can be seen similitaneously (by different viewers) as heroic or treasonist behaviour.

 

In this light, arrogance as well as genius can be "misunderstood", depending on whose paradigm you are going by, and who is in power, and who is about to rent it from the current hands, and who it is being handed to intentionally.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

I sometimes wonder the same thing about the treason/heroism. I had a thought earlier today about science. I've decided that I, personally, do not care who takes a scientific insight and finds a use for it. I do not think that science itself cares either. There's no race, no borders, no ethnicity, no cultural boundaries, no religion, no language, of science. It's knowledge in its purest form. It sparks imagination, it leads to a better world depending on how you look at it. It's a driving force of peace and understanding. It's preventing crime and enhancing our ability to survive and live conveniently through simple equations and complex engineering feats.

 

Michio Kaku said that he was giving a speech on the 3 types of civilizations. 1 being the planetary, 2 being the solar, and 3 being the galactic. To this, a young child came up to him and said "Mr. Kaku, you're wrong!" He replied with "Ya sure kid, go away." "No but you're wrong! You forgot the type 4 civilization! They harness the power of the continuum." Mr. Kaku, with all of his honor, was humbled. He thought about it and decided, the kid was right.

 

Is the kid a genius? Can you even call a kid arrogant? Does arrogance even apply to kids?

 

Newton came around with a brilliant idea at the age of 23. He talked about it, he had his equation, he proved his equation by calculating the movement of a comet. He shared it (and if Newton is anything like an average person in these times, people in his proximity wouldn't have even cared, which seems to be the case). Finally, (if I have my story correct) a man from France took a look, and he had an epiphany! "Newton, you have the greatest discovery of mankind right here written down! You have to publish this!". And so came the Principia Mathematica.

 

Newton was an arrogant chump. He thought he knew everything about everything in the eyes of his peers. Who could possibly look at that madman chump and say, "I like him, his obsession with an apple falling is right down my alley." I couldn't imagine a single person who had the same interests as Newton. The same goes for anyone that we consider a genius. There's simply no one else that is quite like them. It is for that reason that, when these people "come out" with their ideas, they are shunned. They might seem like they're belittling everyone else. You look at their work and you say... "ok, so what?" They respond with "SO WHAT!?!?!? WHAT ARE YOU A FOOL!?". Honestly, who cared about calculating the movement of the moon on a piece of paper? We knew what the moon does, it goes around the earth, enough said. And after people became familiar with Newtons equations, who really cared about whether they were precise? Well, Einstein cared. He probably knew at a very young age that they were wrong, but who cared? What man in their right mind, going about their daily tasks of shining shoes and picking apples, really cared that Newton might have been wrong? Ya, ok kid, go away.

 

My point here is that, any given genius could easily come across as arrogant (especially at the ripe, and immature, age of 23), especially if they are not entitled, in some way or another (I.e. having a PhD in Physics).

 

I read in another thread here something along these lines. "Hmm, I'm looking for something to research." -Said no scientist ever.

 

Genius, in my opinion, starts with a question. The question just bugs you and you think to yourself "hmmm, I don't know." You discuss it with your peers, and if you're lucky, they will contemplate it with you. Note the "if you're lucky" part because that is a BIG IF.

 

Science knows nothing about the people who participate, it is simply a tool that gives insight. The distinction between arrogance and genius is pragmatic.

Edited January 4, 2014 by Popcorn Sutton

[kristalris]

Kristalris,

 

I often take people wrong. I'm literal when they are figurative and vice-a-versa. Never did learn to banter well, because of it.

 

But since the internet does seem to turn personalities inside out, and outside in, the people who best "cater" for this, are likely to become the people with the most power, regardless of their personalities. It is a general issue that I think runs in circles, or perhaps Hegel's acending spiral, or something like the politcal pendulum swing, right and left, conservative and progressive. Such can be seen by the current beneficial use of the word "disrupt". There seems to be personality differences between the generations, such that behavior such as giving state secrets to enemies of the state can be seen similitaneously (by different viewers) as heroic or treasonist behaviour.

 

In this light, arrogance as well as genius can be "misunderstood", depending on whose paradigm you are going by, and who is in power, and who is about to rent it from the current hands, and who it is being handed to intentionally.

 

Regards, TAR2

Don't feel bad, I could of stated it better. Taking things literately is not at all bad or good, it is good and bad at the same time dependent on the problem at hand. (As Bayes would say.)

 

And I fully agree with you.

 

Dependent on the point of view of your paradigm and the power you have you will want to arrogantly trash un-befitting points of view. Before you know it you might arrogantly trash Bayes or the other way round arrogantly elevate Bayes to the point where you try and solve all problems via Bayesian nets and think yourself a genius in either case. Especially when you in fact are scared of a real debate.

 

The 80% gorilla's make the norm that it is treason to publish the secrets. But they don't have it all their own way. Say 50% of the populace is or fits well in a chimp suit i.e. is potentially creative (BTW this is dependent on the chosen norm ). So if things go wrong and the apes become scared it isn't a run race what the total group of apes will decide in a democracy. That is mostly decided by the baboons steering the emotional discussion. The latter, would you believe it, even in science.

 

(Edit: Wikipedia BTW does it in principle correctly by every time the paradigm is stated to ad infinitum state the - scientific - objection, even by a minority as principle. Wikipedia is thus not an arrogant but a genius site, though it to has its problems. So you don't run into the arrogant gorilla style of believing the majority rule as correct for glossing over any objection. )

 

Come to think of it I guess that indeed your point provides me with the new insight that what is arrogant or genius is dependent also on the goal one has.

 

Say my goal in life is: to live an as long as possible happy life, infringing the least as possible on others reaching that goal, including future generations.

 

Some would say this is a naive goal. To them I'd say read it properly. Others would say they agree in true baboon style yet greedily - if given the chance - infringe on its meaning. So I then say don't give them the chance.

 

Arrogance has the inherent connotation of being bad, I've given examples where this isn't necessarily the case although the context is indeed always bad. The same goes for evil genius and normal genius. They all contribute or detract on the stated goal and can thus logically (given agreed context) be derived to be good or bad.

 

It also depends on the scope you want to take into consideration. Chimps take broad scopes, and gorillas take the scope only so far as the book/bible goes or just only a bit further. Baboons take the scope to where everybody agrees. When this becomes unbalanced then extremism (even by the State) becomes the norm and political polarization ensues. This is what we observe more and more. Everybody becomes more and more arrogant and crying for genius. History shows that usually some sort of arrogant baboon (suited) ape will come along and as an at first perceived genius dictate what should be done, and at first also accepted for fear of disorder. Scary times. Unless IMO you get it organised.

 

I sometimes wonder the same thing about the treason/heroism. I had a thought earlier today about science. I've decided that I, personally, do not care who takes a scientific insight and finds a use for it. I do not think that science itself cares either. There's no race, no borders, no ethnicity, no cultural boundaries, no religion, no language, of science. It's knowledge in its purest form. It sparks imagination, it leads to a better world depending on how you look at it. It's a driving force of peace and understanding. It's preventing crime and enhancing our ability to survive and live conveniently through simple equations and complex engineering feats.

 

Michio Kaku said that he was giving a speech on the 3 types of civilizations. 1 being the planetary, 2 being the solar, and 3 being the galactic. To this, a young child came up to him and said "Mr. Kaku, you're wrong!" He replied with "Ya sure kid, go away." "No but you're wrong! You forgot the type 4 civilization! They harness the power of the continuum." Mr. Kaku, with all of his honor, was humbled. He thought about it and decided, the kid was right.

 

Is the kid a genius? Can you even call a kid arrogant? Does arrogance even apply to kids?

 

Newton came around with a brilliant idea at the age of 23. He talked about it, he had his equation, he proved his equation by calculating the movement of a comet. He shared it (and if Newton is anything like an average person in these times, people in his proximity wouldn't have even cared, which seems to be the case). Finally, (if I have my story correct) a man from France took a look, and he had an epiphany! "Newton, you have the greatest discovery of mankind right here written down! You have to publish this!". And so came the Principia Mathematica.

 

Newton was an arrogant chump. He thought he knew everything about everything in the eyes of his peers. Who could possibly look at that madman chump and say, "I like him, his obsession with an apple falling is right down my alley." I couldn't imagine a single person who had the same interests as Newton. The same goes for anyone that we consider a genius. There's simply no one else that is quite like them. It is for that reason that, when these people "come out" with their ideas, they are shunned. They might seem like they're belittling everyone else. You look at their work and you say... "ok, so what?" They respond with "SO WHAT!?!?!? WHAT ARE YOU A FOOL!?". Honestly, who cared about calculating the movement of the moon on a piece of paper? We knew what the moon does, it goes around the earth, enough said. And after people became familiar with Newtons equations, who really cared about whether they were precise? Well, Einstein cared. He probably knew at a very young age that they were wrong, but who cared? What man in their right mind, going about their daily tasks of shining shoes and picking apples, really cared that Newton might have been wrong? Ya, ok kid, go away.

 

My point here is that, any given genius could easily come across as arrogant (especially at the ripe, and immature, age of 23), especially if they are not entitled, in some way or another (I.e. having a PhD in Physics).

 

I read in another thread here something along these lines. "Hmm, I'm looking for something to research." -Said no scientist ever.

 

Genius, in my opinion, starts with a question. The question just bugs you and you think to yourself "hmmm, I don't know." You discuss it with your peers, and if you're lucky, they will contemplate it with you. Note the "if you're lucky" part because that is a BIG IF.

 

Science knows nothing about the people who participate, it is simply a tool that gives insight. The distinction between arrogance and genius is pragmatic.

Agree

Edited January 5, 2014 by kristalris

[Marshalscienceguy]

Arrogant people believe they are right and brilliant despite how intelligent they really are. A truly intelligent person is probably not going to brag about it. Since a person who is truly intelligent knows they do not know everything in the world and they always have more they can learn and discover. An arrogant person thinks they know everything and there will never be anything left in the world to learn. Since they KNOW EVERYTHING at least according to what they think. An arrogant person has limited intelligence a humble person has endless possibilities.

[Jwolffe]

Someone can be seen as arrogant from the outside world due to the responses and actions that person performs that may be regarded as arrogant because they do not rhyme with that of onlookers.

Edited January 31, 2014 by CaptainPanic
Removed duplicate sentences.

[For Prose]

Arrogance is an exaggeration of ones own knowledge or skill. Genius is defined by exceptional intellect. It seems that you would have to far surpass all known standards of genius for someone in today's world to not be able distinguish a difference.

 

And since this was posted in the general philosophy category... Do you define "someone" as general population or someone within the top 10% of geniuses (hurts to even say it)?