Does arrogance go hand in hand with intelligence?
Sat, 2003-02-08 12:04
#1
Does arrogance go hand in hand with intelligence?
I've been watching the recent events on these threads, and I've just been wondering 'does arrogance go hand in hand with intelligence'?
It seems to me looking on that the people on the site who are most anxious to prove to others how clever they are are also the ones who show the least regard for other people. It looks like people get so caught up in wanting to win an arguement that they forget that the person they are having that arguement with is a person too.
I know that intelligent people can often feel bruised and battered by the rest of the world, a lot of them maybe got bullied at school or didn't get recognised for their intelligence. Jesus I know that I didn't, and I had a chip on my shoulder for years. But this seems to lead to a callousness, a wish to be heard that over rides any other human feelings that should be present.
It seems that the feeling that you yourself are very intelligent leads you to set yourself in opposition to everyone else, as if you feel they somehow have the ability to wipe you out by not agreeing with you. This leads to what can only describe as a kind of bullying persona, where people are going to listen whether they like it or not.
To change someone's mind about something, I think you have to collaborate with them, enter into a process of thinking with them, not shouting at them. Everyone feels the need to communicate what they think, and this kind of precious arrogance seems to take that right away, because what is important is winning the arguement, not the process of the discussion.
I really do wonder whether people who are intent showing just how clever they are actually have that much interest in other people. If someone can't recognise that other people are complicated beings who also think a lot, also have beliefs, wishes, hopes, that there is so much that lies below the surface of what they say, can we really trust their other conclusions, if they have made such a fundamental mistake?
Doesn't it make you wonder when someone finds the act of talking more valuable than the act of listening?
Liana
Argh... hen.. you cant say that!! Loveonthedole is lazy?? Thats an awful presumption... Not everyone has either the time to respond to all posts.. and unless something really strikes a chord, many people wont at all...not laziness, just life - like you cant go round listening to all, nor joining in with, every conversation in a pub...if i got disgruntled everytime someone ignored me or didnt answer me, id be in a permanent state of annoyance.
Hen
I don't think the act of not responding is lazy - that'd be crazy, as you say. What is lazy is the act of not responding followed by an attempt to write me off as 'bullying' and applying selfish motivations to all my posts. It's like flicking through a large book, looking at a few lines and saying, "Well, that's obviously a crap book. I bet the author just writes a formula for money."
Which, incidentally, is what I do on occasion in bookshops when I need to reassure myself. So I'm prone to acts of laziness as well. It doesn't mean Love is a profoundly lazy person to say that the initial post of this thread is an act of laziness akin to my own.
Hen
This is a very crude assessment. I'll deal with it later when I have time.
chant
no you won't, Hen! i'm sure Tony won't want any more contentious stuff on the forums, especially with his birthday celebrations coming up. let's all try and make it a pleasant weekend for him.
happy birthday again, Tony!
justyn_thyme
I lived in the New York City area for a long time. New Yorkers have a word which perfectly describes this kind of person: nudge, usually pronounced something like "newdj."
It has nothing to do with either intelligence or arrogance. It describes a personality type that just can't let go of an arguement, no matter what. They just go on and on and on. There is no way to refute a nudge. You can only ignore a nudge.
I rarely read a really long post on these forums, even when I'm the one who wrote it, though I will admit to making an exception for Karl and, often but not always, funky.....every rule requires a couple of exceptions to prove it.
Tony's birthday? Have a Happy One, O Great Leader! Pip Pip
Jay
Oh well!! said Chant, taking Andrea's words that were said to
me on a different issue...
Cruella_de_ville
Like a dog with a bone, the long rambling. bullying posts are best ignored. Apart from anything else they are rarely a good read and rather tedious, although as j_t said there are a few exceptions.
Dentalplan
For my part, I was willing to believe Love was preposing a genuine enquiry until she said this:
"Henstoat, I'm surprised that you automatically assume that my post was an attack on you."
Even if references to Hen were unintentional, and the timing of this post were coincidental, I cannot see that Love could seriously miss, upon a reread, that Hen could easily take it as an attack.
Perhaps it was an innocent mistake, but I am sure Love would understand if my suspicions were somewhat arroused by this.
For my part, I believe huge swarthes of people are arrogant in one sense or the other. After all, it is often implicit in accusing someone of arrogance that one is superior to them. What is different from case to case is whether one tends to identify themselves with a majority of people.
I would say it is kind of a case of individualism vs conformism, but those words are far too loaded (conformism in particular isn't really expressing what I mean at all, so don't take this as a condemnation).
Liana
*muses*
I wonder why you assume that Love is a female.... I had actually assumed Love was a HE rather than a she....
perhaps it tells us something about the way that we view feminine versus masculine discourse....
Its too late for this.... I still dont believe it was a deliberate dig, and have yet to be convinced... perhaps i have gone from the most paranoid person here to the least...
Dentalplan
Hey hey Liana, don't go all analytical on me! I think it was the name. Being called 'Love' as a short hand just automatically imagined Love as being female.
Perhaps I should clarify my position. I do not think this whole thing was created by Love as a mere attack on Hen. I think he/she/it (lets not discount the possiblity of Love being a robot here :D ) seriously means what he/she/it says. I am not accusing Love of being a troll. Yet at the same time I believe this to be an attack on Hen, or at the very least an attack on part of his character.
I think that makes sense, despite sounding a little contradictory.
I think your position is probably the best anyway, Liana, as you are giving everyone the benefit of the doubt. I can just understand where Chant is coming from, that is all.
Hen
Alright, I won't deal with it. But it's like revenge of the lazy-vegetables-who-want-everything-to-be-simple. Grr. Wait til the arguments over and then get on a psycho-analytical mile high horse about it. Feel good about the fact that you're 'above' minor issues. Lazy, lazy, lazy derision of anyone who dares to feel and think strongly about something other than themselves. Growl. Mutter.
Intent on showing how clever we are indeed. Rubbish.
Hen
OK, don't reply to that. Let's just leave it.
Liana
Well I'd like to see it addressed, as long as it doesn't drop into named insults? I think it's a genuine enquiry, as far as I can see... there's nothing wrong with most discussion on here is there. If everyone starts walking on eggshells about what they can and can't talk about, it verges on censorship... just take it easy everyone.
Jay
Although I don't think Chant needs any recusing, I good
be wrong but I think she was trying to say wrong time or
moment just for now.
I know before I write Hen that you will beleive just because
its you I am criticizing so its no good telling you its not but
you always come across as the personality type JT is
discribing in his thread.
I know debating should be just that and it can be good but
taken to far it just becomes boring good or bad and nobody
wants to listen anymore because always enough is just that
enough...
donignacio
Well, I'm not arrogant or particularly clever, but I would like everybody to know that I am the coolest person on these forums.
:8-)
See?? I gots sunglasses!
Hen
I don't think it's a genuine enquiry at all, Liana. The inquisitve tone is a thin veil to hide the strategy of attack and belittle. There's no way I can reply to a person who talks on the one hand of understanding people's complexities, and on the other dismisses everything I've said as a matter of me trying to prove how clever I am.
This is one double-edged sword I should leave in the stone.
Mr. Capfits
Where is the ubiquitous Henstoat mentioned in the original post?
Nudge, nudge, wink.
loveonthedole
Henstoat, I'm surprised that you automatically assume that my post was an attack on you.
Where I do take offence is at your almost reflex caricaturing of myself. You know nothing of me, or my life, or how I have moved in the world. I've been involved in the world of politics in a variety of ways, I've tried to change things through my job, I've helped people as much as I can. In short I am far from being passionless OR inactive. The things that I have done, though, have been through collaboration and working WITH people. There is nothing I have achieved in my life that has not been a result of discussing and thrashing out with people, from learning from, and listening to people.
I don't want everything to be nice, I want everything to be based on a mutal respect, which isn't too much to ask.
I think that there's a world of difference between discussion and argument.
Mykle
You make some good points, Love, but I think discussions only work if there are restrictions and many would scream censorship if their right to insult were withdrawn.
It’s often very difficult to differentiate between arrogance and confidence. Certainly to take an opposing view point to certain popular forum favourites requires something akin to arrogance.
It is difficult to see how an argument against the less intelligent but skilled emotional manipulators can be won without using clever arguments - and this can look as though it is merely the poster trying to show off. The tactics of supporting friends irrespective of whether they are right or wrong, of harassing the opposition using anonymous posts, using popularity to persecute and resorting to personal abuse - all conspire to deter the faint-hearted from being controversial. In deed, occasionally, the personalities are so feared that they can post extremely unpopular views and very few - if any - dare to oppose them. The irony of this is that since it is usually the arrogant who have the determination to challenge the status quo it is consequently eventually merely a matter of the arrogant replacing the arrogant and the system remains the same.
To change someone’s mind they have to be willing to listen and since the issues that usually bring the bitterest battles are emotional rather than intellectual it is extremely difficult to appeal to logic.
I agree that often the brightest people are those that are fair and opened minded and can consequently see both sides of an argument - but this very fairness tends to make it difficult to choose a side as both sides usually have their pros and cons . So perhaps a certain amount of arrogance is a fundamental prerequisite to being a successful arguer and I think that ABC threads tend to favour arguers over debaters.
justyn_thyme
There are arguers, debaters, and baiters.
The baiters want to snare the arguers, but sometimes the debaters get caught in the net as well, like dolphins with the tuna.
A successful baiter, though, can masquerade as a debater, and attract other debaters, causing enormous confusion and frustration because the debaters thought they were entering a serious discussion when in fact they were entering a net spread out for the purpose of ensnaring them.
The arguers will always rise to the bait, whether presented by a baiter or a debater.
It's not easy for an innocenty by-stander to sort all of this out. Even frequent participants can be sidetracked if not careful.
And yes, what you've all been waiting for, some baiters are so accomplished, they have risen to the exalted status of Master Baiter and make an entire career out of ...well, you know....ahem....Baiting for a Living.
Sue Lynn
The "personalities are so feared"?????
Can you keep to the point Mykle?
Jay
JT I'm intrigued.
Because I read most post mainly because I have the time
but this is about the long onces you mostly don't read only
maybe the two names you mentioned.
Now for me the reason I would stop before the end is
because it is all going way over my head and I can't write
an answer even if I wanted to. As I can't see that
happening to you I was most supprised when you admitted
to what you did.
Thinking as if it was my post because I see you as a
learned person I could! be hoping you would see it, read it
long or other wise, because looking for some guidance from
you that maybe would have come if you had read it through
to finish even if you didn't know you were doing it.
I am only using me here in the loses sence of the word but
hoping you are understanding what I am getting at.
I don't expect you to have thought of it like this but would
you change now I have put this to you knowing how your
words however unwittingly you may have writen them just
might be helping somebody.
Answers Please! JT and as it still doesen't tell me why you
stop reading long peices maybe you could enlighten me on
that even though maybe I can surmise why.
Fingers crossed.
justyn_thyme
Jay, the length of the post is not the problem....it's that most of the people who routinely write long posts haven't thought their position through well enough to make a short post...or it's just an exercise in listening to the sound of their own voice, but in writing instead of aloud.
There's a famous quotation: I didn't have time to write a short speech, so I wrote a long one.
I think that's Mark Twain, but I'm nor sure.
Again, much of it depends upon the writer. There are some people I almost never read because I've never known them to say anything worth reading, but I'm not naming names because that is just my opinion and it's not worth all that much.
Jay
Of cause I agree Jt with not naming names but don't agree
with the last line of your post and thats my!! opinion.
Thinking of myself only I love! talking and am aware that I
can go on a bit even though I do listen as well.
Now I'm confused as I love writing just as much and a lot of
the time I start to write a short peice then thoughts jump
into my head and its as if I was carrying on a conversation
with somebody and before I know its a very long peice of
proberly nothing and although I think I have just answered
my own question I'm not sure because isn't it said that story
telling is thoughts being put on to paper and doesen't that
make it conversation as well.
JT would be greatful if you could share more of your wisdom
by shedding a bit of light on what I have just said or is this
post something like you were alluding to and don't mince
words as I have two saying's,>>>>One if you can't stand
the heat get out of the kitchen,>>>>>Two its not what you
say but the way you say it>>>>>> so please feel free.
Asking questions is one of the bigest way to learn...
andrew o'donnell
I think that yes.. it's a worthwhile point love makes.. I, myself, find that I can easily get into the whole baiting thing.. especially through this medium which can seem so anonymous at first. I think there's a fine line between 'having a go' in order to get a person to think from an angle that they may have not considered and having a go because you just like having a go.
As long as a person considers this line, in their approach to others, then it can only benefit any communication that happens.
Intelligence shouldn't be a weapon in order for it to continually justify itself. Real intelligence doesn't need any kind of justification.. I find that the people who I deem most intelligent always seem to have a good balance between knowing when to speak and when to listen.. and they are good examples for me when I know I've unjustly gone off the handle with someone.
freda
I think someone can be arrogant DESPITE the fact that they're intelligent . It goes with naivete. Ideally it would be wiser to feel sorry for someone who displays arrogance but usually they manage to hurt you first.
Hen
And feeling sorry for someone is frequently a tactic of spite and derision ("I feel sorry for you, I really do") so we have to continually rethink where the social battleground ends and real discussion begins. I think we've managed very well to keep in the realms of discussion over recent threads, and Love's initial post is the first I've seen in a while that seems to move it back into the field of battle.
Liana
I disagree Hen... like Andrew, I think that Love DOES make a worthwhile point... one of the most sensible comments, so succinctly put, is Fredas, just two posts up here. I think arrogance can be a symptom of naivity, and it can also run tripping alongside shyness /social ineptitude. People who have genuine difficulties communicating could be seen to be arrogant. It is a characteristic often applied to those who have a grudge against the person they are levelling the accusation against. I know that I have been called an arrogant t_wat loads of times (usually by my ex husband)
You say that feeling sorry for someone can be a tactic of spite and derision - thats a genuinely sad view to take I think - I didnt interpret it that way at all.
I feel proud of the way that this thread has held up by the way.
Did you mean it to cause trouble Love, or is it a genuine enquiry? Show your colours!!
loveonthedole
It IS a genuine enquiry. I've been involved in enough situations that involve debating and talking about things to see how often things can break down when people focus on being right, rather than on what is best in that situation.
I don't think that Hen has answered the question, to be honest. I've known a lot of very intelligent people in my life up to this point, and I've seen that there are certain types of character which crop up again and again. I asked the question in an attempt to get EVERYONE to examine their actions. I've seen a lot of things that I've been passionate about turn to s.hit because people have focussed on personalities and being right, rather than focussing on achieving what it is possible to achieve in a certain situation.
Believe me I have a full understanding of the politics of dissent, but I also have an understanding of collective action too. The one thing that arrogance can never do is act in a common interest, because arrogance in whatever form, is the action of one against the world.
I'm certain of myself, but it doesn't mean I'm trying to make others uncertain of themselves, and it doesn't mean my ears are closed either.
chant
well, i have to agree with Henstoat. sorry, Love! as soon as i saw the title of the thread, i groaned. when i read it, it just seemed to be a veiled attack on him. and i notice that in Love's most recent communication, he seems to be expecting Hen, and Hen alone to "answer the question".
Mississippi
To be truly arrogant requires a degree of intelligence.
Without intelligence it is ignorance.
Vartis
It would have been possible to ask this question without reference to the threads. To have given any other kind of examples to highlight it would have been easy. Once it has been put in the context of the threads though then the post is making it’s business to accuse: the accusations are; ‘callousness’ and ‘precious arrogance’, a ‘bullying persona’ that shows ‘the least regard for other people’, a person that forgets that others are people and, finally, has a personality that ‘over rides any other human feelings’!
They are hardly the qualities of a warm caring human being are they?
'I want everything to be based on a mutal respect, which isn't too much to ask.'
Respect: 'regard with deference, esteem or honour; avoid degrading or insulting... refrain from offending'.
I would say that it is a great deal to ask. To have respect for ourselves, each other, the earth we live on and the cycle of life would be a big step forward in our evolution. When we look at our own behaviour we can see how difficult it is to put into practice.
I share your aspirations though Loveonthedole and hope that in our own lifetimes we we shall see respect manifested on a larger scale.
PS I liked your your diary posts a lot. Very crisp descriptions of the environment which were very enjoyable to read. Thanks.
Hen
Well, if you want an answer to the question, Love, then I'd say no. Arrogance doesn't necessarily follow from intelligence - in fact, as has been said, it's very difficult to detect where self-confidence becomes arrogance, particularly in writing. You clearly see me as arrogant, but your definition puts my motives all over the place. What makes you think that just because someone displays intelligence, their purpose is to show their intelligence? By the same logic, I could say the only point in your being on these forums is to prove you can write in English!
"I'm certain of myself, but it doesn't mean I'm trying to make others uncertain of themselves, and it doesn't mean my ears are closed either."
That's how I would describe my motivations mostly, with frequent lapses in the self-certainty part, where I will try to take time to reassess and reground myself in certainty. If I can't do that, then I'll ask questions.
Liana - I'm well aware that it is possible to feel genuinely sorry for people, but you must know that it's also used as a weapon. Have you never heard someone tell another person, who is usually quite content, "I feel sorry for you. I really do"? Usually, they are trying to say, "I wouldn't want to be you, because you disgust me, therefore if I was in your position I would hate myself." It's clearly often used to try to 'finish' an argument - to get the last word in and leave as the victor. Like calling someone 'morally bankrupt,' or saying "You just don't get it, do you?"
Liana
No Hen.. of course i know that, and i was just saying that it wasnt my first interpretation of it, thats all... "you just dont get it do you" is absolutely the laziest and most spiteful way to get at someone, agreed....
And i think Chant, that love addressed it to Hen because Hen offered to answer it initially? I dont know WHY everyone assumes that Love is talking about Hen (even Hen).. maybe I'm naive (and therefore by someones definition) arrogant?? lol)
I dunno...
Hen
Well, I came to that conclusion because I'm the boy behind most of the long posts, and Love refers to 'long, bullying posts,' because the subjects are intelligence (mine is frequently called into question when I type said posts,) and arrogance (which I will admit to sometimes, and which I am infrequently accused of,) and because it followed on from a very long run of what could be seen as prime examples of the Henstoat long post/intelligence/arrogance phenomenon. The first sentence refers to 'recent events' (which Paul and I were behind, as well as a part of.) The next talks about an anxiousness to prove how clever one is, and I've been accused of that before. Love goes on to talk about being in opposition to everyone else - and at times, I was, over the previous threads.
Earlier up the thread, 'Mr. Capfits' drives the point home. As far as the 'facts' go, the cap certainly does fit. And to bolster the facts, all the speculation about motivation and being bullied at school is negative. Aside from the idea that intelligence is automatically a good thing, Love surely has nothing positive to say about the 'type of person' he or she is assessing. It therefore looks like an attack, rather than an investigation.
freda
I wonder Hen, if you have such a profound fear and dread of laziness that you find arrogance by contrast attractive and are secretly flattered by any references to it on these threads. Perhaps you feel that the two cannot co-exist. I tell you they can.
Hen
I'm sure you're right, Freda. But I'm not flattered by references to arrogance, I promise. As an insult, I find it so hard to define that I usually decide I might as well admit to it - am I arrogant because I think I'm right about something? It's strikes me that in order to make a comment with any kind of assuredness, one has to be arrogant. The gap between arrogance, as believing oneself to have a claim to the truth, and laziness, as preferring to dismiss someone as having a faulty personality and so avoid their argument, is difficult to measure, but I would say that in replying to other people's comments and ideas I am actively avoiding laziness, while Love, who did not reply to my comments on other threads but seems to want to discuss the shortcomings of a 'type' of person, does not avoid laziness.