Arrogance vs Confidence

[jughead]

Might ethical types have trouble with this if they don't "know the rules"?For ex they don't see themselves as arrogant they just don't know all the rules, and need help from their duelz. Oh and the same way for logicals not knowing ethical rules This type of "arrogance" might be a attraction mechanism for their duels, and thus actually a good defense mechanism. This could be part of the learning mechanism for each type and their values. Non dual types and especially non quadra wouldn't want to deal with this stress and just see them as "arrogant", having an "ego".

[Simon Ssmall]

Id say in terms of "Arrogance" is being used when you try to "show" your confidence. Real confidence can be seen without trying it to be highlighted. Also person can seem arrogant when he is downpalying someone else, be it justified or not or just in general negative attitude like "you don't know anything". Usually I'm being called confident, not arrogant, but in times when I was actually called arrogant it is due to the fact people missinterpret my boastfullness for something real, while I'm just beeing silly.

[1981slater]

Being confident is "good", and dumb-jealous-low IQ-moron-shiteater-neverreadabookinmylife-ultracool-knowitall people label you as arrogant if you are confident

[FDG]

Arrogance is mostly a word used by somebody that has authority over you to downplay the fact that you're more competent than them.

[strrrng]

Arrogance is not knowing when it is appropriate to be confident.

I like this. Arrogance carries a certain boundary breach on the part of the exhibitor, and it can easily undermine confidence even if the latter is present in the individual. I would still say they work as antagonists on a general level. For example, someone can be quite confident in their natural looks, but by virtue of other, deeper-rooted insecurities, may go about expressing said thing arrogantly, for some displaced gratification.

It's not always necessarily bad to be arrogant, to a degree; like situations where you are completely sure of your abilities, and can flaunt a little without sacrificing the integrity of your position – in competitive situations, it can serve as a psychological influence, i.e. how Floyd Mayweather Jr. fucks with pretty much all of his opponents' heads through insolent instigation and such.

Kill the ego and you're no longer overly hubris and arrogant. Now, what stays is "how does one live life without being intimidated and meek". My preliminary suggestions are: call 911 when required, call someone an asshole when required, go to bed when required, do everything when required. Essentially, go by-the-book. Follow the rules. Any set of rules. Be true, not to yourself, be true to your rules. Surrender yourself to them. By doing that you'll live life without being intimidated and meek because there is no such thing as a rule which makes you intimidated and week. Why is that so? Well it is because rules are not alive, they're not warmblooded beings; therefore they can't be intimidated and week. If you embrace them, same applies to you. Rules live a life of their own, if you embrace them they'll live your life too. No worry for you. No worry for rules as well, because they're not warmblooded beings, they are not worrisome. Are you a warmblooded being then? Hm??

I was trying to say something like this. I didn't. I said this instead. I'll be back, probably.

I disagree entirely. How does "killing the ego" lead to personal surrender to a rule set – let alone average societal ones? To use such requirements to guide action, presupposes an ability on the part of the subject to perfectly outline their internal system in accordance with reality, which is impossible. Sacrificing one's self to rules basically brings about an inevitable chase of illusory completion, and ultimately limits the amount of genuine, "free" experience that can be had IMO. When it comes down to it, people are the self-governing entities living their own lives, not the rules they attempt to use as beacons.

[1981slater]

Arrogance is mostly a word used by somebody that has authority over you to downplay the fact that you're more competent than them.

My man!

[Trevor]

I disagree entirely. How does "killing the ego" lead to personal surrender to a rule set – let alone average societal ones?

It doesn't. At least not that I know of.

[FDG]

My man!

Yeah!

[strrrng]

It doesn't. At least not that I know of.

So, then how does killing the ego result in a need to avoid feeling intimidated and meek? Doesn't that presume quite a bit about the human condition – even an "ego-less" one? And, consequently, how would such a feeling be extinguished by the adoption of a rule set?

[Trevor]

So, then how does killing the ego result in a need to avoid feeling intimidated and meek?

It doesn't. At least not that I know of. I have never said that it does. See

Kill the ego and you're no longer overly hubris and arrogant. Now, what stays is "how does one live life without being intimidated and meek".

.

And, consequently, how would such a feeling be extinguished by the adoption of a rule set?

It is, in its essence, a religious experience. A religious experience of such kind where you no longer live a life of your own. You're accepting a Dogma. Of course, one cannot accept dogma out of blue sky. One has to be convinced in it first. Many feelings are to be extinguished that way, although not necessarilly once and for all.
..It seems to me that one can continue to be weak and intimidated in some areas, however, not in those where Dogma operates. Accepted dogma is in a way like an Instinct. It has a life of it's own. While Instinct is evolutionary old and requires nothing extraordinaire on subject's part, dogma is relatively new and requires having faith.

[strrrng]

It doesn't. At least not that I know of. I have never said that it does. See .

Kill the ego and you're no longer overly hubris and arrogant. Now, what stays is "how does one live life without being intimidated and meek".

If what is left, after having "killed the ego," is the question: "how does one live life without being intimidated and meek," the direct implication is that such a feeling arises from killing the ego. Which is why I asked, why would such a feeling necessarily come about from said act? Your idea just seems too presumptuous to me, and makes a rather general claim about the human condition that it can't entirely justify.

It is, in its essence, a religious experience. A religious experience of such kind where you no longer live a life of your own. You're accepting a Dogma. Of course, one cannot accept dogma out of blue sky. One has to be convinced in it first. Many feelings are to be extinguished that way, although not necessarilly once and for all.

See, to me, a religious experience would entail a purging of previously held dogmas, an emotional liberation that resulted in a merging with that amorphous force which "intimidates" and prompts people to adhere to dogmas, and a more or less implicit acceptance of the limitations of dogmas in the face of this thing.

..It seems to me that one can continue to be weak and intimidated in some areas, however, not in those where Dogma operates. Accepted dogma is in a way like an Instinct. It has a life of it's own. While Instinct is evolutionary old and requires nothing extraordinaire on subject's part, dogma is relatively new and requires having faith.

I agree that it is like an instinct – how do you think religion originally came into existence? I don't think one needs some rule set in order to not feel overwhelmed by life forces, nor do I think dogma is something new. Most of the fears that are present in today's society, could be chalked up to the presence of dogmas, not the absence.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Gilly]

If you see yourself as a whole, and accept your weaknesses, vulnerabilities, and your strengths and abilities, you have no reason to be arrogant or intimidated.

What if a person honestly accepts all of these things about themselves, and realizes that they are exceptional in some way? Is that not reason enough to be arrogant, at least to some extent? Or should we all hold back for the sake of common decency or some bullshit?

[1981slater]

What if a person honestly accepts all of these things about themselves, and realizes that they are exceptional in some way? Is that not reason enough to be arrogant, at least to some extent? Or should we all hold back for the sake of common decency or some bullshit?

As Fabio said, arrogance exists only in the brain of losers...or sth like that

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Gilly]

Maybe arrogance as a persistent character trait, but as a behavioral manifestation? Everyone has there egomaniacal moments (some more than others ). Why be ashamed of them?

[1981slater]

Everyone has there egomaniacal moments (some more than others ). Why be ashamed of them?

Nietzsche said: let the superman go, or sth like that

[1981slater]

Nietzsche said: let the superman go, or sth like that

Stop being perfect, get crazy and don't talk about fight club

[strrrng]

See yourself fully, and accept it. If you see yourself as a whole, and accept your weaknesses, vulnerabilities, and your strengths and abilities, you have no reason to be arrogant or intimidated. It's the acceptance that's the hard part.

I agree about the acceptance thing leading to a more fulfilled awareness and appreciation of one's self; but I still don't think that completely precludes arrogance. Like Gilly said, if you have that awareness, and realize that you are exceptional in a given area, sometimes it's only natural to feel or express arrogance, in certain situations. Sure, you can chalk it up to some insecurity-driven social comparison, but the insecurity can't be that significant, if you're assured of your superiority. I don't know, I never had any problem haughtily toying around with people in sports that I dominated in, and I doubt it was ever produced by self-doubt or whatever.

IMO: Shows of arrogance are usually just demonstrations of insecurity. Someone doesn't want to face their weaknesses, so overblow any possible or perceived strength. And being excessively meek or easily intimidated is the opposite. Someone is afraid to embrace their strengths and abilities, and so hides under a cover of weakness/fraility.

Sort of similar to above, but I agree on the meekness thing – it's an interesting point. I've always found the "self-effacing" sort of people to be some of the most egotistical, and the ones who harmlessly project their insecurities outward for gratification, to be rather scum'ish. I'm more prone to compensate with arrogance, but also just believe that others shouldn't be burdened with your inability to fully acknowledge yourself.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

You're only better than who you're better than.

*shrug*

[Gilly]

I didn't think the question was talking about that. I thought he meant persistently arrogant. And there I think the difference between arrogance and confidence is that arrogance is unwarranted. There's absolutely nothing wrong with knowing that you're really good at something, and moments of feeling invincibly awesome aren't anything to be ashamed of either. We definitely all have those, and it can be pretty great to feel utterly unbeatable. I certainly feel like that from time to time.

But the line between confidence and arrogance as a consistent thing, I really think can be drawn with reality. If how good you actually are matches your opinion of how good you are - that's confidence. If it doesn't match - that's arrogance. And boasting is something different from either one.

Ok, so by your definition, the difference between confidence and arrogance is dependent on the personal sentiment, ie whether is merited or not, and not the outward expression?

Because I "act arrogant" sometimes; for example i have had girls who are friends of mine call me arrogant because they will compliment me on my looks or my hair and I will say something, half-serious, like "Yeah, I know I'm sexy," and then smile deviously. Apparently that is arrogant to some people? And yet I do know that I'm good looking, and I prefer to mess with people like that instead of being faux-modest or some other "normally acceptable" response to being complimented.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Apparently that is arrogant to some people? And yet I do know that I'm good looking, and I prefer to mess with people like that instead of being faux-modest or some other "normally acceptable" response to being complimented.

No offense but I never thought you were all that. *grin* I mean I guess I can see the appeal but hmm I'm more attracted to other males on the forum which I shall not name to both protect and to not rub their straight male egoness.

[Gilly]

*runs away shrieking in histrionic braindeath*

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Ezra]

Some people are born confident; those who are not and try to be so without help normally end up being arrogant. The best thing to do if you're not confident is read some self-help books written by people who are either confident, or who have themselves developed confidence (probably better since they're on the same wavelength; that is, they understand where you're coming from).

[Gilly]

Yes.

Ok. Je comprends.

That's just joking around. My mom does that a lot, saying how perfect she is, and etc. and people think she's serioius. She half-is, but it's sort of self-mocking at the same time. I do that too sometimes. Some people get that I'm just playing around, others don't at all.

Well, it's joking, sure, but I'm also serious.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Argh. I REALLY wanna tell EVERYONE how attracted I am to every male on the forum, but I'm deciding against it cause it feels 'wrong' some way or like, I'm being naked and making everybody else naked. Idk but I really want to, argggh I'm conflicted. Well my intuition is telling me something is off about it, like my honesty goes too far so I'm just gonna shut up and let you guys wonder, torturing you each time.

Fi being your 8th function sucks sometimes.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

The best thing to do if you're not confident is read some self-help books written by people who are either confident, or who have themselves developed confidence (probably better since they're on the same wavelength; that is, they understand where you're coming from).

That would just make me even less confident. I'd just naturally gain confidence completely myself , organically, not reading some words written by some douche proud of his big large confident cock slapping across my helpless gay face. Or whatever. In fact, I read books written by self-help authors precisely so I can look for emotional weak points to make them cry.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Creepy-male]

My problem is alot of the time I inhabit a sort of attitude that "No problem is too great for me not to attempt or try, and that eventually with enough time/energy/work I'll solve/overcome it" and I think alot of people see this and label it as arrogance... but to me it seems to be a healthy perception of life, belief in your ultimate failure seems to just be a self-defeating sentiment people use as an excuse for them not working towards their goals.

Also alot of times I can seem intellectually superior, but the fact is I really don't ultimately like to judge people as being inferior or superior in terms of intelligence - I prefer to believe the idea everyone has their usefulness, but I will give people a hard time if they pretend to know more than they actually know they know - which to me isn't about judging the intellect of the person, its just a matter of revealing a phony.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Jarno]

I am taking Confidence to be the "positive sense"

and

Arrogance to be the "negative sense"

Solve this problem.....

What is the dividing line, how does one live life without either being intimidated and meek or overly hubris and arrogant.

Put forth your best thoughts...

so you mean that when being confident, you run the risk of getting intimidated?
don't think so.

[Creepy-male]

so you mean that when being confident, you run the risk of getting intimidated?
don't think so.

No thats not what I mean, I mean when being humble people run the risk of being meek/intimidated. Humble being the natural counter to arrogance, and not confidence, confidence I am taking in this to mean something positive.

What if a person honestly accepts all of these things about themselves, and realizes that they are exceptional in some way? Is that not reason enough to be arrogant, at least to some extent? Or should we all hold back for the sake of common decency or some bullshit?

Well that depends on your definition of arrogance, if your assuming arrogance is acknowledging that you can be exceptional in comparison to other people in certain ways... then it would seem you are correct.

However, I personally don't view arrogance as this -- I personally view arrogance as an attitude of being inherently better than someone, like just by the fact of you being you makes you superior to everyone else in the entire world. Most of the time this is manifested as behavior in which you over-estimate your abilities without any kind of regard for skepticism.

Confidence, on the other hand, I view as a belief in your ability to perform, but with a measure of healthy skepticism in the results of your performance.

Arrogance imo is saying "I am naturally superior and therefore I anticipate my ultimate success with little effort or doubt in my abilities"

Confidence imo is saying "I believe I have the potential to excel at this, but effort is required to make it happen and failure is possible; however I accept these and do not let them deter me"

At any rate I don't think "holding back for the sake of common decency" is ultimately the way a person should live there life. I think that kind of behavior applies to people you have matured or evolved past a certain level. Doing thing out of social expectation is what most children do and is categorized by a lack and ability in individual judgment.

I didn't think the question was talking about that. I thought he meant persistently arrogant. And there I think the difference between arrogance and confidence is that arrogance is unwarranted. There's absolutely nothing wrong with knowing that you're really good at something, and moments of feeling invincibly awesome aren't anything to be ashamed of either. We definitely all have those, and it can be pretty great to feel utterly unbeatable. I certainly feel like that from time to time.

exactly I am just assuming for the sake of semantics and argument the following

Arrogance and Confidence are highly similar
Arrogance is the Negative Side of Confidence
Confidence is the Positive Side of Arrogance

I am asking for people to argue on the difference between two of these, under these assumptions.

Also I don't think that there is anything "wrong" with feeling "invincibly awesome", elated, successful, competent, masterful, etc.... or anything related to this.

Lets just say you also agree with me on this, that you don't think its wrong to feel that way.... then in that case it would be a positive thing and not a negative thing and by my fundamental assumption it would fit into the idea of confidence and not the idea of arrogance, because by definition I have arbitrarily chosen to define arrogance as inherently negative behavior.

You may have to re-read the last paragraph over a bit for it to make sense, I wrote it kind of dense and overly-logical.

Ok, so by your definition, the difference between confidence and arrogance is dependent on the personal sentiment, ie whether is merited or not, and not the outward expression?

Because I "act arrogant" sometimes; for example i have had girls who are friends of mine call me arrogant because they will compliment me on my looks or my hair and I will say something, half-serious, like "Yeah, I know I'm sexy," and then smile deviously. Apparently that is arrogant to some people? And yet I do know that I'm good looking, and I prefer to mess with people like that instead of being faux-modest or some other "normally acceptable" response to being complimented.

Yea but to me that doesn't seem to hold the weight of seriousness I am referring; I generally think of that more as playful arrogance and not really serious. I don't generally see that as negative and I feel as though by the way you've written this you also don't see it as something negative; so therefore by the fundamental assumption I made that Arrogance in this context is taken in the negative sense -- that would not be arrogance, and further I wouldn't call that confidence, that just seems like something different.

Underlying that social interaction is a deeper level of communication -- that conversation seems to be less about arrogance/confidence and more about communicating you mutual attraction for each other, the meaning of your communication is not evaluating your inherent sex appeal but rather communicating your pleasure at being perceived as attractive. That's why its not truely arrogant, but just playful arrogance, its not a matter of seriousness.

Serious arrogance would be believing your better than a person you feel is less sexy than you.

[Trevor]

...

I don't feel like talking to you anymore...I think my head might explode.

[strrrng]

Have a few drinks and let me know if you still feel the same.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

I have found that good looking/hot people have more insecurities than people who are average or not as good looking.

I don't see confident = hot really, if you are beautiful a perfect 10 I see 'suicide case waiting to happen.'

The world just isn't made for people who are beautiful, it is designed out of functional practicality, and any poor pathetic ugly sob can be trained to do whatever you can do. So what are you good for? Just a dumb sex whore that looks good and everybody wants for that one thing and they can't respect you for anything else.

[ArchonAlarion]

I had an Ne INTj engineering teacher in highschool who does not allow people to call his two little girls cute, pretty, princesses, beautiful, etc. He's training them to be fountainhead geniuses.

He also does not let them watch TV, have candy, he told them Santa Claus doesnt exist, and he tries to get them to do things on their own. He's a very sweet father though. Basically the guy is a House-like genius and wants his kids to be optimally raised.

I'd do the same if I ever have kids. Being fixated and dependent on your physical attraction is probably instilled in early childhood.

[jughead]

being physically attractive will only help them though, he should just optimize it like anything else, i know too many entps that get drunk off their ass or look like nerds.

[Creepy-male]

I look at it like the Mind/Body thing

People can develop beauty in their mind, which is perceived as genius, characterized by a strong intellect/vocabulary/creativity/wit... or something like this

People can also develop physical beauty, which is perceived as physical attractiveness, characterized usually by being healthy, athletic, and having good hygene.... and similar things.

I think both aspects are important, in other words just purely focusing on developing the mind without any regard for the body is as stupid as focusing on developing the body without any regard for the mind.

Secondarily I think both forms of beauty can fall victim to narcissism. That teacher may think he is protecting his daughters from becoming self-absorbed in their physical appearance, but his strategy for raising them could mean them becoming self-absorbed in their mental appearance -- always wanting to look smart and intelligent and intellectually superior.

Really I don't think shunning a particular aspect of life is healthy for raising kids, eventually kids should come to experience all aspects of life when they are ready to... just not before they are ready to.