Arrogance vs Genius.

[Tridimity]

TAR,

 

I would agree with you in that, in reality, each of the capabilities that defines genius - for example, raw mental processing power and mental stamina, IQ, creative intelligence, problem-solving abilities and emotional intelligence - exist on a spectrum. Each individual will fall at some point within the spectrum/normal distribution curve for each of the capabilities. It is exceedingly unlikely that any one individual will prove to be substantially more capable than the average for all of the criteria. So, everybody will have a superior in some category. Moreover, the full expression of that genius capability is often dependent on factors which are beyond the individual's control - for example, socioeconomic factors or the historical period or geographical location in which they were born. For an individual of high capability to fail to make use of that capability in transforming the world - or even their own life - in some positive way, is arguably more tragic than the inadequacy, in the capability stakes, of others. So, it pays to be humble rather than arrogant, whether or not one is a genius, because there will always be those who are superior to oneself either in the capability stakes or in having a more fortunate set of circumstances at their disposal for expression of their capabilities.

 

Plus, while confidence is attractive, arrogance is unattractive and nobody will want to sleep with an arrogant person

 

Mensa conventions do exist by the way - my best friend at University was a Mensa member and frequently attended their events.

 

Tri

Edited October 31, 2013 by Tridimity

[tar]

Tri,

 

Well perhaps you can tell me, from your friend's stories, what a Mensa convention is like.

 

I always wondered if it was like a mutual admiration society, or whether they actually got some good stuff done, and made some useful aliances in the hallways and brought some valuable initiatives home to the pond.

 

Regards, TAR2

P.S. I would like to add to your list of circumstances, a possibility I was thinking about earlier in the thread about myself and my upbringing that might "hold back" someone like myself, from realizing they have more to give, than they give themselves credit for. That might have developed in me a sort of inappropriate humbleness. My family was smart. My Dad a PhD and college professor, my sister a straight A student at a private school, my Mom a science and math teacher at the same private prep school, and all my Dad's friends, amazingly brilliant folk, that I grew up amongst. I always felt sort of the dummy amoungst them. Sort of like I grew up in the lake, and when I found myself in a pond, I would handicap myself and be careful I did not take improper advantage with my size. And constantly gave the other guy the benefit of the doubt, figuring they must have a sensible reason for doing what they were doing...perhaps I have handicapped myself, inappropriately, for too long and it wouldn't be a bad thing if I applied myself a wee bit more to the real world. But then again, I hate rejection, I hate taking advantage of people, I hate taking responsibility for other people's private affairs, and I like letting people make up their own minds about stuff, and finding their own balance and happiness, and sort of enjoy supporting the enterprise from behind.

In short, I don't like imposing myself on anybody, and gave up having friends. There is too much maintainence required, and too much heartbreak. Especially when two of my friends, don't get along with each other.

Maybe the connection between genius and arrogance is the wake that a boat (person) creates as they travel through the water (life). The genius has a big fast boat which creates quite a wake when it runs the engine full out. An arrogant person does not concern themselves with who and what their wake upsets.

[kristalris]

Tri & Tar,

 

The natural tendency to want to bring any viewpoint into a one pole answer might be correct within a sales and or production problem / viewpoint. However from a research viewpoint (i..e concerning difficult problems) it is far too simple IMO.

Such as concerning IQ as in Mensa looking at one number: IQ > 130 = genius? (no, = arrogant IMO) Actually an IQ test is only validated on the conclusion that that someone will be successful in (the production department of) our current (sick) society when the IQ doesn’t get too far from the main 100. I.e. an Einstein might have an IQ on such a test of say 90. In effect you are measuring say 1/3 language 1/3 arithmetic and 1/3 geometry and a bit of creative intelligence in what some geniuses might consider a boring & stupid test in relation to a great many others of which indeed statistically the ones not far from the mean are successful. Only if an Einstein is interested in an IQ test, or has had a lot of experience with it or has a great willpower will he achieve a high score on IQ.

A high score on IQ tests thus does not rule out a very low score on EQ or low score creative intelligence. And, it doesn’t rule out the opposite either.

I believe that being honest to others as to yourself is much more important. And that understanding that some people are extrovert, unfriendly, narrow-minded, not conscientious is DNA IMO or anyway culturally driven: even in the latter case there is IMO only a limited way in which one / society can or should try to fundamentally change these what are in effect deep rooted personality traits. Other than train everybody to accept each other and to understand how to behave towards others without being manipulative.

I guess if you put all types of kids from an as early age on together in a safe environment they will for the greater part automatically learn to cope with each other. Learning this in later life is extraordinarily difficult IMO. Though understanding what makes others tick goes a long way towards accepting each other. And towards working together.

I’m more of an open extrovert. So I’ve had to learn to use the 20%-80% rule when in a sales situation.

And, I’ve had to learn that what I bring in isn’t immediately done in a larger surrounding but gets opposition. Only later to see it trickle down without getting the credit. Or to learn that what I thought was a great idea proves to be stupid because I stampeded over someone who far more timed came up with the correct answer, not being noticed.

There are good systems already that make it possible to prevent the latter, apart from knowing ones deficiencies and trying to work at them (more or less successfully.)

Indeed as Tar in effect I guess states / means if you put your team in correct order then everybody is needed and thus contributes to the collective genius.

Another point on arrogance and genius is say with a King. They have to be different i.e. arrogant because otherwise a monarchy can’t work. Providing the problem that what the King says is seen by many as spoken by a genius. Which seldom will be the case. Even knowing this I’m not opposed to our monarchy in the Netherlands. It’s on balance cheap and effective for the common good IMO. It is an instrument that helps keep the country together IMO amongst other good points as opposed to the (inevitable) downside.

[Tridimity]

TAR,

 

I really don't know what goes on at a Mensa convention, but according to this account, it sounds like a moderately enjoyable event:

 

Mensa has many events for members, from the local to the international level. Several countries hold a large event called the Annual Gathering (AG). It is held in a different city every year, with speakers, dances, leadership workshops, children's events, games, and other activities. The American and Canadian AGs are usually held during the American Independence Day (4 July) orCanada Day (1 July) weekends respectively.

There are also smaller gatherings called Regional Gatherings (RGs) held in various cities that attract members from large areas; the largest in the United States is held in the Chicago area aroundHalloween, and features a costume party for which many members create pun-based costumes.

In 2006, the Mensa World Gathering^[15] was held from 8–13 August in Orlando, Florida to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the founding of Mensa. An estimated 2,500 attendees from over 30 countries gathered for this celebration. The International Board of Directors also had a formal meeting there. In 2010, a joint American-Canadian Annual Gathering was held in Dearborn, Michigan, to mark the 50th anniversary of Mensa in North America; this is one of several times the US and Canada AGs have been combined. Other multinational gatherings are the European Mensas Annual Gathering (EMAG), and the Asian Mensa Gathering (AMG).

Since 1990 Mensa has also sponsored the annual Mensa Mind Games competition, whereat the Mensa Select award is given by American Mensa to five board games that are "original, challenging, and well designed".^[16][17]

Individual local groups and their members also host smaller events for members and their guests. Lunch or dinner events, lectures, tours, theatre outings, and games nights are all common.

 

 

I think as much as anything, the conventions are about meeting like-minded people and - hopefully - making friends.

 

You mention feelings of inadequacy when in the society of high-achievers ('the lake') and yet feelings of self-imposed restriction when in the society of average achievers ('the pond'). My guess would be that your feelings of inadequacy are unfounded and that you belong in the society of high-achievers - so why don't you go join them? Fulfilling your personal potential and working to the best of your ability is not equivalent to 'taking improper advantage'. Also, do not assume that people have sensible reasons for their decisions and actions. Sometimes there is an easily discernible logic to people's reactions to their environment, sometimes there is order hidden in an outwardly-apparent chaos - with the order being perceptible only to the subject, and sometimes people act irrationally. You also mention that you would like to apply yourself more but are afraid of rejection. Rejection can be hard sometimes but it is also necessary for development: in general, people are not successful 100% of the time (unless their situation has been fixed for them) and so rejection is oftentimes one of the features on the path to success and acceptance. You might find that, after a while, the rejection does not even register with your emotions any longer. Seriously, I have got to that stage now where rejection is the norm and not the exception - frankly it doesn't bother me anymore, I kind of think 'what's new? Tell me something I don't know'. Nothing much surprises me in life anymore. Also - applying yourself need not mean 'taking advantage of people'. It is enough to 'put yourself out there', as it were, and see what happens. If people are interested in your talents and abilities then they will take up your offer; you therefore need not fear that you are taking advantage of anyone, because they actively desire your services. I also don't understand how applying yourself would mean taking responsibility for other people's private affairs, or making decisions for other people, or imposing yourself upon anybody.

 

I can empathise with your feelings regarding friendships. Friendships do require a good deal maintenance if they are to survive and thrive, and all too often they involve heartbreak. I have a small number of good friends whom I should probably keep in contact with more than I currently do. In my experience, not just anyone will do as a friend; for one, I don't regard myself as a normal person, and I find it difficult to relate to people whose interests in life are too comfortable. If they are only interested in settling down and having 2.4 children and are not willing to pursue a higher passion, or to think differently and independently, then I find them intolerably boring. Something about the domesticity of suburbia is just deadening - do you know what I mean? Yes, most of my friends are eccentric in one way or another, which makes them both naturally endearing and easier to relate to on a personal level. They are not the kind of people you would find if you decided to actively search out potential friends - which makes me think that it is preferable not to search out new friends but to wait for our life paths to cross, and then I can be ever grateful for those glimmers of stars that crossed my path and brought happiness, even if transiently.

Edited November 1, 2013 by Tridimity

[tar]

Tri,

 

Well thankyou very much. You deserve another one of my best.

 

Best regards, TAR

[DevilSolution]

This thread is a bit of a hearty read but it was very informative.

 

I'd like to be the first to admin im arrogant to the bone and to admit i'm not of any particularly high intelligence HOWEVER i believe the two do correlate. (though not in my unfortunate bogstandard case).

 

Let me explain my reasoning's, firstly; Our brain functions on belief systems, be it scientific or interpretive. If i have a solid conceptual belief in my mind i'm going to do all thats in my will to prove it right, or to hold on to it, thats the nature of belief. In some cases however i dont have a concrete perception of a concept and hence will question it. In the first case my mind is tightly closed to open idea's and however right or wrong, i will intellectually fight for them idea's. In the latter i know that i dont know and hence will be much more willing to co-operate in an open discussion regarding them idea's. This is just a case study of myself.

 

1) Belief is strong; Will be arrogant by nature.

2) Abstract understanding, willing to re-enforce comprehension; Will not be arrogant.

 

This relates back to the genius argument in terms of determination, determination specifically of the belief (which is a concept) in which the genius must convey. For example lets argue plato was a genius, now if plato wasnt resolute in his own beliefs of his concepts, he would never have been able to convey them beliefs in a strong enough manner for us to conversely determine how useful or true they were because he would have simply folded at the first sign of opposition to his beliefs, maybe the second but penultimately he would have withdrawn belief in his concept. The only way for the concept to have been conceived as useful or *genius* by the majority of people is their ability to use that idea which would never have made it into a book or onto a wikipedia page without him being *arrogant* of his belief. Do you see what im saying?? Its an innate virtue that all humans share, put simply; The ability to convey and re-enforce an internal belief. That is what arrogance boils down to.

 

(i think here you could say arrogance is the mannerism's in which the belief is conveyed, but for arguments sake, lets say its the determination to stand by a belief regardless of the amount or type of opposition to the belief)

 

Now at the other end of the spectrum you have arrogant know it alls like me, people like me ask questions and quickly draw a belief from the person answering them, we then continue to probe at the teachers understanding of the concept until we find a hole in their belief. It can be a quick draw win in terms of an intellectually confusing the teacher but is of no usefull objective value. Its subconscious stimulation. The first example, where a solid belief is concieved and conveyed is a far cry from getting a quick buzz from intellectually condescending somebody of higher intellect using a pretty standard protocol.

 

The "in for a penny, in for pound" here is that someone like me gets blown out the water by an actual genius because whatever concept they have a concrete understanding of will stand up to the most highly analysed pseudo intellect going. There will be some point at which after scrupulous scrutiny towards the concept i will fold my argument and then store it as my own. Arrogance from this perspective is essential in the 'proof' of any concept, 2 arrogant minds must battle for the ultimate succesion of an idea. The only real exception to the rule here is religious based beliefs.

 

You can be as humble or truthfull as you want but it has no effect on how *genius* someone is, the *genius* is simply right. In most cases the *genius* must have been either a great forethinker or have broken some social convention to reveal its truth. In the terms of truth and being humble that correlates with leadership as you've described, not genius.

 

I think for most examples of geniuses, they would absolutely have needed to be arrogant of their own theory or concept, not arrogant people, but arrogant of their belief. If you know what i mean.

 

Arrogance shines in other ways though, like when a teacher is arrogant of a students understanding. Here a teachers arrogance can be a hindrance in the students progression.

[tar]

DevilSolution,

 

I like your breakdown, and see your points.

 

Interesting is the positive attributes of arrogance or "holding to a belief" when the belief is useful to oneself or others. In this, said belief may or may not be ultimately "true", but if it didn't work toward some aim or goal, if it didn't work in some way that was true and fit reality, it would not be used. It would not be held to.

 

In this, nobody would be holding on to a belief, if it did not get some job or another done.

 

Consider the workability of these two statements, and tell me which is more true, which fits reality better, which is the most arrogant and which is the most intelligent.

 

Think globally, act locally.

Think locally, act globally.

 

In terms of the next act you should make, as an intelligent, non-arrogant realistic, useful, belief holder.

 

Regards, TAR2

And consider how global terrorist acts, and hegemony, both fall into the unuseful, arrogant choice of letting your personal beliefs, your local thoughts, affect the world, inappropriately.

 

Much better in my mind to think about the globe and act in the local ways that work, that fit with the world. Keeps one from letting their unworkable dreamworld loose on reality. If it doesn't work for you, and your family and your friends, and your town, and your company and your school, and your neighborhood, it is not going to work for somebody else's.

 

On another thread, a poster was listing all the things that would need to be different with the world, for his idea to work. This should be a strong indicator of arrogance, and lack of intelligence.

An indication of a thinking, very local in nature, and a desire to change the world to fit the impossible belief.

 

Regards, TAR2

Personal integrity remains the only defense against the ravages of the world. (From John Dos Passos "the only defense against the ravages of the 20th century is personal integrity.")

Edited November 9, 2013 by tar

[tar]

The best test of one's ideas, is to make them work, right infront of you. If they don't work in the lab, they are not going to work anywhere else.

So yes, don't think, do.

[tar]

Eat your own cooking.

Best way to find out if your food is good.

Say, did you see that evil genius, who has designed an impossible to defeat computer attack. He (or she, but probably a he) hides his program in a pdf or executable file in a false shipping invoice or some other normal looking communication, that looks right, but when you open the attachment, his program is in your computer, and proceeds to search out all your files, all your important stuff, all your pictures and spreadsheets and documents, an ENCRYPTs them with a military grade, unbreakable encryption. Not even the best there is can unencrypt, without the key. The key is held for ransom on the evil genius' server, and a pop-up appears on your computer showing a 72 hour countdown, and if you don't pay 300 dollars in bitcoin, at the end of the countdown the key in the evil genius' server, will be deleted. No way at that point to EVER unencrypt your valuble files.

The only defense against this attack, to insulate your files from this bastard, is to back-up everything you care about, and disconnect the media from any and all connections to any computers.

Hopefully some genius on our side will design a way to trap and identify the arrogant bastard, and bring him to justice.

This particular criminal mind has taken his local idea and inappropriately enforced it on the world, and thereby divorced himself from the world. He is an anti-social criminal, that by his global act, based on a local idea, has disrupted and destroyed for personnal gain, and has achieved power over us all...for what? So we all need to distrust each other? Let's just find the bastard and disconnect him, from the internet.

Edited November 9, 2013 by tar

[kristalris]

Eat your own cooking.

 

Best way to find out if your food is good.

 

Say, did you see that evil genius, who has designed an impossible to defeat computer attack. He (or she, but probably a he) hides his program in a pdf or executable file in a false shipping invoice or some other normal looking communication, that looks right, but when you open the attachment, his program is in your computer, and proceeds to search out all your files, all your important stuff, all your pictures and spreadsheets and documents, an ENCRYPTs them with a military grade, unbreakable encryption. Not even the best there is can unencrypt, without the key. The key is held for ransom on the evil genius' server, and a pop-up appears on your computer showing a 72 hour countdown, and if you don't pay 300 dollars in bitcoin, at the end of the countdown the key in the evil genius' server, will be deleted. No way at that point to EVER unencrypt your valuble files.

 

The only defense against this attack, to insulate your files from this bastard, is to back-up everything you care about, and disconnect the media from any and all connections to any computers.

Hopefully some genius on our side will design a way to trap and identify the arrogant bastard, and bring him to justice.

This particular criminal mind has taken his local idea and inappropriately enforced it on the world, and thereby divorced himself from the world. He is an anti-social criminal, that by his global act, based on a local idea, has disrupted and destroyed for personnal gain, and has achieved power over us all...for what? So we all need to distrust each other? Let's just find the bastard and disconnect him, from the internet.

I see someone gave you a bad rep point. I can't see who or why? So I'd have to guess. Because it is off topic? Because it is the hacker himself?

[Tridimity]

Say, did you see that evil genius, who has designed an impossible to defeat computer attack. He (or she, but probably a he) hides his program in a pdf or executable file in a false shipping invoice or some other normal looking communication, that looks right, but when you open the attachment, his program is in your computer, and proceeds to search out all your files, all your important stuff, all your pictures and spreadsheets and documents, an ENCRYPTs them with a military grade, unbreakable encryption. Not even the best there is can unencrypt, without the key. The key is held for ransom on the evil genius' server, and a pop-up appears on your computer showing a 72 hour countdown, and if you don't pay 300 dollars in bitcoin, at the end of the countdown the key in the evil genius' server, will be deleted. No way at that point to EVER unencrypt your valuble files.

 

 

Sounds like my ex

 

I see someone gave you a bad rep point. I can't see who or why? So I'd have to guess. Because it is off topic? Because it is the hacker himself?

 

 

 

I have evened things out for you TAR, because I don't think that you deserve a neg rep.

 

Personal integrity remains the only defense against the ravages of the world

 

 

 

This is true, only, it may not always have the desired personal consequences: think of Socrates and his defence of truth. Sometimes maintaining personal integrity, standing up for one's beliefs and rights to express those beliefs, has dire personal consequences.

 

Similarly,

 

'The only way to deal with an unfree world is to be come so absolutely free that your very existence is an act of rebellion'

Albert Camus

Edited November 9, 2013 by Tridimity

[Ophiolite]

 

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).

This reminded me of a conversation I had many years ago with a close friend from Egypt. We were discussing which nation was the most arrogant, in his view. We had narrowed it down to the Americans, the British and the French. He then, rather apologetically said that on balance he would have to vote for the British, but he was not quite sure why.

 

"That's easy to explain." I responded. "The Amercians and the French think they are better than everyone else, yes?"

"Yes."

"Where as the British know we are better than everyone else."

He leapt up with the light of recognition in his eyes: "Yes, that is it exactly!"

[tar]

Ophiolite,

 

The joke circulating here in America whilst building a coilition to fight Saddam upon his invasion of Kuwait, was: "taking the French with you to war is like taking a violin on a deer hunt."

 

I don't dislike the French, but at the time, it seemed all too true, and rather funny to me.

 

I of course would rather have the French on my side, than against me. Their revolution against their monarchy, was made of the same cloth as America's revolution against the British. Yet I do not dislike the Queen of England. She took the Throne around the year of my birth. My whole life, We are fighting the same fight, against common enemies. I work for a Japanese company, and my country and theirs was once at war. My father was wounded by a German machine gun in WWII, and I spent two years of my life protecting W. Germany against the threat of Russian invasion, and the wall did come down.

 

Socrates held fast to his own beliefs and people that knew him well knew his capability and trustworthness, but the rest of his society was not so impressed, and he was sentenced by them to death.

 

What has this got to do with arrogance and Genius?

 

Maybe nothing. Maybe everything. I am tying to figure something out for myself concerning these issues, and the responsibilities I have to the world and the responsibilies the world has to me. I find talking about it lets me see more clearly where the responsibilities lay. I figure its OK for others to figure it out concurrently. Arrogant perhaps to make it about me. But what if its about us? Then we SHOULD be figuring it out together. And likewise recognize, that others have been on the same case, for quite a long while now. There is most probably a significant amount of baby to NOT throw out, with the bathwater.

 

The English, The Americans and the French, collectively have accomplished some rather significant advancements and achievments in every area of human endeavor. Arrogant no doubt. Genius no doubt. Capable and trustworthy we remain, dispite the dark grey color of our collective bathwater.

 

 

I would rather the Queen of England tell me what to do, than a Mullah in Pakistan.

 

Regards, TAR

[kristalris]

This reminded me of a conversation I had many years ago with a close friend from Egypt. We were discussing which nation was the most arrogant, in his view. We had narrowed it down to the Americans, the British and the French. He then, rather apologetically said that on balance he would have to vote for the British, but he was not quite sure why.

 

"That's easy to explain." I responded. "The Amercians and the French think they are better than everyone else, yes?"

"Yes."

"Where as the British know we are better than everyone else."

He leapt up with the light of recognition in his eyes: "Yes, that is it exactly!"

Indeed, that's why the English can use irony and the Yanks and Frogs can't. That's also why the British have glorious defeats Dunkirk, Arnhem. (The way to rule an Empire BTW good sales.) You don't hear the Yanks about Nijmegen where they got the bridges contrary to the British at Arnhem because Market Garden was a failure and then Yanks feel a looser even though they have no reason to. Germans are the same. They took all the bridges in 1940 including Rotterdam using float-planes. Had the Brits not been so arrogant they would of known that it was possible to land near the bridges and not needed to go 20 km from them. Monty made a muck of it. He lost sight both of the big picture and the important details: land near the bloody bridge and keep it simple. He was arrogant. We know after the war that the Germans weren't afraid of Monty. They knew they would loose from him because Monty had a ten to one or so advantage. The Germans were scared shitless of the mad Patton though.

 

Monty really did everything wrong that he could of done wrong when he got Antwerp. He owed up to his - intergalactic stupid - mistake of not grasping the need to immediately open up the Scheldt estuary and bagging the German 15th army. Thus solving the supply problem for him and Patton still being supplied by the beaches in Normandy because Rommel had foreseen the need to keep the ports. Instead the nitwit went for the breathtakingly bold and creative move to get over the Rhine at Arnhem, like a Vogon citing poetry his troops were in mortal danger.

 

The difference between Monty on the one and Rommel and Patton on the other, is that the latter were creatively intelligent aggressive risk taking good guessing mistake accepting and correcting mistakes ADHD types and Monty a conscientious non creative risk avoider. Also not taking personal risks.

 

You see the same at the battle of the Bulge. When the reserves made possible by the surviving 15^th army attacked towards Antwerp. Patton immediately turned his army around correctly guessing that this couldn’t be anything else than a major attack and then go to the “what shall we do” meeting with Monty and others. Monty only did that days later when it was formally decided on. Rommel and Patton are broadly seen as genius generals. Sensing beforehand what is probably going to happen, keeping an eye always on the big picture. And going into super focus on the important details such as landing near a bridge with airborne assaults. They could be seen/ perceived as arrogant. Monty not only is seen by many as arrogant, but he certainly was no genius. Good salesman actor though for his troops. As could especially Patton play the part as actor.

 

Edit: Monty was however not primarily an actor general but a conscientious one. Good in the production department of the set piece battle, going by the book. Carefully planning a predictable battle. Thinking arrogantly he always knew best.

 

Monty let his captains go to the front in order to see what was going on. Not Rommel or Patton, they were always in the thick of it.

Edited November 10, 2013 by kristalris

[kristalris]

Indeed, that's why the English can use irony and the Yanks and Frogs can't. That's also why the British have glorious defeats Dunkirk, Arnhem. (The way to rule an Empire BTW good sales.) You don't hear the Yanks about Nijmegen where they got the bridges contrary to the British at Arnhem because Market Garden was a failure and then Yanks feel a looser even though they have no reason to. Germans are the same. They took all the bridges in 1940 including Rotterdam using float-planes. Had the Brits not been so arrogant they would of known that it was possible to land near the bridges and not needed to go 20 km from them. Monty made a muck of it. He lost sight both of the big picture and the important details: land near the bloody bridge and keep it simple. He was arrogant. We know after the war that the Germans weren't afraid of Monty. They knew they would loose from him because Monty had a ten to one or so advantage. The Germans were scared shitless of the mad Patton though.

 

Monty really did everything wrong that he could of done wrong when he got Antwerp. He owed up to his - intergalactic stupid - mistake of not grasping the need to immediately open up the Scheldt estuary and bagging the German 15th army. Thus solving the supply problem for him and Patton still being supplied by the beaches in Normandy because Rommel had foreseen the need to keep the ports. Instead the nitwit went for the breathtakingly bold and creative move to get over the Rhine at Arnhem, like a Vogon citing poetry his troops were in mortal danger.

 

The difference between Monty on the one and Rommel and Patton on the other, is that the latter were creatively intelligent aggressive risk taking good guessing mistake accepting and correcting mistakes ADHD types and Monty a conscientious non creative risk avoider. Also not taking personal risks.

 

You see the same at the battle of the Bulge. When the reserves made possible by the surviving 15^th army attacked towards Antwerp. Patton immediately turned his army around correctly guessing that this couldn’t be anything else than a major attack and then go to the “what shall we do” meeting with Monty and others. Monty only did that days later when it was formally decided on. Rommel and Patton are broadly seen as genius generals. Sensing beforehand what is probably going to happen, keeping an eye always on the big picture. And going into super focus on the important details such as landing near a bridge with airborne assaults. They could be seen/ perceived as arrogant. Monty not only is seen by many as arrogant, but he certainly was no genius. Good salesman actor though for his troops. As could especially Patton play the part as actor.

 

Edit: Monty was however not primarily an actor general but a conscientious one. Good in the production department of the set piece battle, going by the book. Carefully planning a predictable battle. Thinking arrogantly he always knew best.

 

Monty let his captains go to the front in order to see what was going on. Not Rommel or Patton, they were always in the thick of it.

To even this out some more on the arrogance of Monty one should take into consideration that the Brits had to few men and reserves and thus couldn't afford to take the risks the Americans could. Further more the British tanks where shockingly substandard (also due to arrogance by not following the genious idea's of Hobart and Fuller, the Germans did follow up on these idea,s of these two Brits. The Americans were arrogant also in this respect of still going their own way in thinking what was needed in tanks et cetera. The arrogance of "not invented here" thus no good. Even though the Germans had already shown how to do it: what we today call a Main Battle tank concept still in use today. Yet the Germans had a too high quality, arrogance snobbery, contrary to the mass production attitude of all the allies. The Russians did this correctly from the start taking up on the MBT idea. The US as stated didn't take the Sherman with a low velocity gun for infantry support and the M10 open turret lightly armored tank-hunter. And also rejecting Hobarts funnies that did work. Costing them dearly.

 

But when the Brits and Americans worked together - i.e. not being arrogant - they got genius: The British Firefly a (US) Sherman with the British 17 pounder. The only western allied tank in near par in fire power to a German Tiger and Panther, and the NA Mustang fighter with the British Merlin engine by advice of a British fighter ace doing a test-flight in the Packard engine version. The fighter that won the daylight dominance battle sweeping the Luftwaffe aside in a way that not even the German genius Me 262 jet-fighters etc. could stem anymore.

Edited November 11, 2013 by kristalris

[AfterViewer]

I think one's arrogance may be flavored by the particularity of one's personality disorder.

[kristalris]

I think one's arrogance may be flavored by the particularity of one's personality disorder.

Most certainly.

 

This is especially true if one believes in DSM V.

[overtone]

Something about the Dunning-Kruger effect goes in here somewhere.

 

I'm not sure what "genius" means in this context.

 

I have not seen much correlation between arrogance and expertise, ability, effectiveness, or accomplishment, in any arena of human life save one - achieving sexual congress with young women. As that is sufficient to explain the persistence of the personality trait, and no other benefit is necessary or visible, the matter can be left there - "genius" seems to be a separate issue.

[kristalris]

DK yes, and further more not only is there as shown in this thread IMO a correlation but even a causal effect between arrogance and geniuses being perceived as such.

[physica]

There has been experimental evidence linking knowledge to arrogance. The Dunning-Kruger effect (winning a Nobel prize in 2000) makes the observation that the more a typical person knows the less confident they are in their abilities. On a personal level I can relate to this. After university I spent 3 years working in the emergency room. I was so confident I believed the propaganda the hospital told me and I thought there was nothing I couldn’t understand. I thought I understood science and still manage to pull 12 hour shifts seeing patients. After three years I got bored and went back to university. I am now in my second year of my physics degree and I can tell you it has knocked me into shape. The mathematics behind probability has shown me how illogical I was. I am passing but I can tell you it is by no means find it easy. I would happily put my hand up and say I was arrogant back then.

 

However, we have to be careful who we brand arrogant. I have seen multiple abuses of the word. People are of the habit of using it as a cheap defence when they simply don’t like hearing what the person is saying. My mind goes back to a surgeon who I used to work with every now and again. She would comment strongly on absolutely anything even when it was clear she knew nothing about the subject she was commenting on. Needless to say she wasn’t liked at all but no one put her in her place because she had mastered this trick of labelling someone as arrogant the moment they disagreed with her. Another example is Richard Dawkings. People love to call him arrogant but all I have seen is him say he doesn’t believe in something that doesn’t have scientific proof. He doesn’t claim to know anything above what science tells us, and he doesn’t claim to know more than the people he debates with. I have never heard him claim some great ability. If someone has a different opinion on Richard I would love to hear it as I have only seen him from my point of view.

[cladking]

There has been experimental evidence linking knowledge to arrogance. The Dunning-Kruger effect (winning a Nobel prize in 2000) makes the observation that the more a typical person knows the less confident they are in their abilities. On a personal level I can relate to this. After university I spent 3 years working in the emergency room. I was so confident I believed the propaganda the hospital told me and I thought there was nothing I couldn’t understand. I thought I understood science and still manage to pull 12 hour shifts seeing patients. After three years I got bored and went back to university. I am now in my second year of my physics degree and I can tell you it has knocked me into shape. The mathematics behind probability has shown me how illogical I was. I am passing but I can tell you it is by no means find it easy. I would happily put my hand up and say I was arrogant back then.

 

However, we have to be careful who we brand arrogant. I have seen multiple abuses of the word. People are of the habit of using it as a cheap defence when they simply don’t like hearing what the person is saying. My mind goes back to a surgeon who I used to work with every now and again. She would comment strongly on absolutely anything even when it was clear she knew nothing about the subject she was commenting on. Needless to say she wasn’t liked at all but no one put her in her place because she had mastered this trick of labelling someone as arrogant the moment they disagreed with her. Another example is Richard Dawkings. People love to call him arrogant but all I have seen is him say he doesn’t believe in something that doesn’t have scientific proof. He doesn’t claim to know anything above what science tells us, and he doesn’t claim to know more than the people he debates with. I have never heard him claim some great ability. If someone has a different opinion on Richard I would love to hear it as I have only seen him from my point of view.

 

I believe a lot of what you're talking about here is more related to perspective than what I mean by arrogance. People in any specialty might have a huge amount of knowledge of that specialty and individuals can also have a lot of knowledge that transcends that specialty. Such a person will naturally be aware of this and will naturally consider himself an expert on matters related to his knowledge base. Some people can wield such knowledge as a weapon or tool but the confidence that is displayed can be taken for arrogance.

 

Perhaps the real problem with this thread is that we each have our own definition of "arrogance". To me a confident self knowledge and knowledge of the natural world, its laws, its processes, and/ or its state is in no way arrogant. "Arrogance" is the belief that the individual is "better" or more "important" than those with less knowledge or whose status is unknown. "Arrogance" is the actions and words of individuals who believe their needs are more important than other peoples' needs and that their pronouncements must be correct because it's what they believe. "Arrogance" is a belief in one's own infalibility.

 

Arrogance isn't really an overestimation of human knowledge because we most all suffer from this.

 

Certainly as we grow older and wiser we learn that we have much less knowledge than we thought we did. As we gain knowledge we gain a new perspective.

[overtone]

 

 

Certainly as we grow older and wiser we learn that we have much less knowledge than we thought we did

We learn that there is a lot more to know - and some people do know some of it - than we imagined;

 

we also learn that our state of ignorance is often shared - and more - by others, so that the people we thought knew what they were doing did not, and despite our inadequacy to this or that demand we are sometimes the best available. Is that arrogance?

[cladking]

Is that arrogance?

 

 

I don't think so. I've admitted to knowing the extent of my ignorance in my field.

 

This might be a little arrogant.

[kristalris]

There has been experimental evidence linking knowledge to arrogance. The Dunning-Kruger effect (winning a Nobel prize in 2000) makes the observation that the more a typical person knows the less confident they are in their abilities. On a personal level I can relate to this. After university I spent 3 years working in the emergency room. I was so confident I believed the propaganda the hospital told me and I thought there was nothing I couldn’t understand. I thought I understood science and still manage to pull 12 hour shifts seeing patients. After three years I got bored and went back to university. I am now in my second year of my physics degree and I can tell you it has knocked me into shape. The mathematics behind probability has shown me how illogical I was. I am passing but I can tell you it is by no means find it easy. I would happily put my hand up and say I was arrogant back then.

 

However, we have to be careful who we brand arrogant. I have seen multiple abuses of the word. People are of the habit of using it as a cheap defence when they simply don’t like hearing what the person is saying. My mind goes back to a surgeon who I used to work with every now and again. She would comment strongly on absolutely anything even when it was clear she knew nothing about the subject she was commenting on. Needless to say she wasn’t liked at all but no one put her in her place because she had mastered this trick of labelling someone as arrogant the moment they disagreed with her. Another example is Richard Dawkings. People love to call him arrogant but all I have seen is him say he doesn’t believe in something that doesn’t have scientific proof. He doesn’t claim to know anything above what science tells us, and he doesn’t claim to know more than the people he debates with. I have never heard him claim some great ability. If someone has a different opinion on Richard I would love to hear it as I have only seen him from my point of view.

The Dunning-Kruger effect is often misused in internet fora by physicists / scientists using it to put down a perceived crank or crackpot that in their eye’s is arrogant for not spotting the own ineptitude and neither spotting the ability of the physicists concerned.

 

Mind actual competence – may - weaken the own confidence (especially true concerning perfectionists.)

 

Hereby the link to the Wikipedia page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

 

The way psychologists use this is by looking at the grammar, logical and humor skills. Comparing their self-assessment to a real test.

 

The Wikipedea page on humor is not up to scratch in reference to the relevance it has concerning the DK effect. Having humor shows the ability to use relativity, to think out of the box which will usually lead to an emotional response: laughter. In effect laughing away the induced fear created by being caught by the humor. There is correlation and a causal effect between creativity and humor. All great creative minds show this ability. It is also coupled to open mindedness. It is not really known where this resides in the brain, yet a large group believe it the whole brain is used for the process.

 

On the other hand conscientious people (Big Five personality traits) we know solve problems primarily via the pre frontal cortex. (This is known due to road accidents hitting the front window screen with the fore head. Repeatedly observed (no wonder).

 

Having a lot of knowledge provides you with the illusion that you are open minded if you score high on conscientiousness and low on openness. You then will tend to think you know how to deal with cases that science shows that a lot of data is missing and that thus requires educated guesswork due to time pressure. Also for medical doctors. I.e. evidence based medicine as it was meant by the ones who thought it up, and not the evidence based medicine such as DSM V. The latter and the use there of being inherently arrogant and far from genius.

 

The problem is that at the highest level of quick thinkers put under pressure of dire consequences when errors are made only say 10% remain able to act open minded enough to do a proper educated guess, and 90% go into scared tunnel vision of the paradigm. Only when a safe environment is created do you get conscientious people who are also high on openness to also be creative.

 

In effect you can split another 10% off being the emotionally intelligent ones. They always go for the relationship under pressure.

 

The Big Five personality traits show in all cultures and is broadly held to be correct. This thus shows that it is probably genetically based. Yet being nature or nurture leads to the same conclusion.

Under pressure you get 10% R&D minded, 80% production minded and 10% sales (relation) minded people at all levels. Open or narrow-mindedness is like a switch. It is turned on or off. When “off” and being forced to guess the production minded nearly always get it wrong. They probably get an inversion on the probability Bayes formula / algorithm in the brain. => The hilariously improbable is held to be true. Hence the running gag of Vogons citing poetry and the mortal danger that subsequently ensues. (And much more humoristic literature to that effect.)

 

It is relative in the effect that playing say football by an adult against six year olds most adults will be able to excel in all positions being the Johan Cruijff of the field. Or the relative Einstein concerning science for six year olds.

 

Conscientious people tend to be authority minded: “yes men” to the boss and authoritive to subordinates.

 

We humans in effect act like apes. Say the creative as chimpanzees the conscientious ones as gorilla’s and the emotionally intelligent as baboons. Yet most apes can switch more or less well fitting other ape costumes. So you can find a true gorilla with a well-fitting baboon suit humbly playing the creative researcher in an extremely ill-fitting chimp suit. Having a lot of book wisdom yet even without any danger or pressure making intergalacticly stupid guesses.

 

Pure chimps are arrogant idiots on production and sales issues.

Pure baboons are arrogant idiots on R&D and production issues.

Pure gorillas are arrogant idiots on sales and R&D issues.

 

MN / God clearly intended the baboons who more and more will become the natural leaders to help chimps communicate with the gorillas. Genius stems from teamwork between the 10% chimps the 80% gorillas and the 10% baboons. BTW all recognized geniuses where chimps.

Edited January 3, 2014 by kristalris

[tar]

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.