Re: Self Confidence and Empowerment vs Arrogence, an Exploration

by rombomb Mon Feb 11, 2013 11:30 am

melodiccolor wrote:I agree. Those who are arrogant are not generally open to being challenged or presented with other observations.

Note that most parents act this way with their children. Why do they do this?

Why do they assume they are right when they are presented with a critical question by their child? They often respond "you're too young to understand". Why don't they instead think, "well, I don't know the answer to my child's question so I should take this as an indication that I'm wrong, and he's right, and discuss this further with my child."

Note that assuming that one is right, due to his age, is thinking in terms of status. He thinks that his greater age gives him higher status and his child's lessor age gives him lower status. And then he decides that his idea is right *because* of his higher status, rather than because of the merit of the idea. So he's judging ideas by the source of the ideas, rather than the content and merit of the ideas.

Thinking in terms of status is a justificationist mistake.

Of course ageism isn't the only type of justificationist mistake. There's also racism, sexism, nationalism, tribalism, etc. People who think they are right because of their race, or sex, or nationality, etc. are judging by status rather than by merit.

Whats funny is that these people think they are right and their apparent reasoning for why they believe they are right involves only details that existed at their birth -- their demographics -- rather than on anything they've done since their birth.

by rombomb Mon Feb 11, 2013 11:51 am

Dreamspace wrote:
rombomb wrote:
Dreamspace wrote:If you're talking about what it is which is important to you, your values, then this is a different matter. You don't need to have any evidence to support your opinions, and you can speak quite confidently in what you think is good or motivates you.
Does a reason count as evidence (in the context of your sentence)? If so, then I disagree with you because...

Say a parent values hitting his children as a form of teaching them morals. He believes its moral/good. This is his opinion. Do you think he should not look for evidence/reasons for his view?

Now consider that he knows that some people have the opposing view that hitting children is immoral/bad. So now this person knows that there is an idea out there that contradicts his own. Should he reject that rival idea without reason (aka irrationally)? Or should he go find out the reasons for the rival idea?

By finding out the reasons for the rival idea, he'd have the opportunity to learn that the rival idea is wrong and his right, or that the rival idea is right and his wrong.

If we're going to play that game then you have to look at from the most fundamental level and consider whether or not the welfare of your child is good to begin with.

I believe that parents treating their children well is beneficial to children AND to parents. And I believe this to be true for everyone. Do you?

Dreamspace wrote:
Most parents will want the best for their children, but valuing the child's welfare is itself is subjective. If you turn outward for evidence or reason for such a moral axiom, you will find none — pure objectivity invariably leads to nihilism, as objects hold no opinions.

I don't know what you mean by "pure objectivity", so I don't know what "pure objectivity invariably leads to nihilism" means. In any case, I suggest that we don't use the words objectivity/subjectivity since we've disagreed on this and we have yet to reach agreement.

Dreamspace wrote:
The universe does not care if your son lives, dies, suffers or thrives.

The universe does not care period. Its not a person. Only people can care.

Dreamspace wrote:
Only once your values have been determined and a particular goal has been set can you begin to apply objectivity, for then you can discover what my be conducive toward such ends. You can merely calibrate an objective system to be conducive toward those ends. Science tells us how best to achieve certain effects, but we're the ones who decide whether or not such things are desirable.

Why should conscious beings not suffer? Why shouldn't they all suffer horribly?

Because its not conducive to happiness. And more importantly, someone else should not stop me from pursuing my own happiness.

Do you agree that its beneficial for me that other people refrain from infringing on my freedom to pursue my own happiness?

Do you agree that its beneficial for each individual that other people refrain from infringing on each other's freedom to pursue their own happiness?

Dreamspace wrote:
What does science have to say about ethics, really? It doesn't. It can't. Values are subjectively determined.

Science cannot answer moral questions. Scientific knowledge can only be gained by ruling out scientific theories by physical evidence. If a theory cannot, in principle, be ruled out by physical evidence, then it is not a scientific theory. This is what is meant by Popper's Line of Demarcation. But, this does not imply that only scientific knowledge is attainable. Philosophical and moral knowledge (among others) is attainable too.

by Dreamspace Mon Feb 11, 2013 12:12 pm

rombomb wrote:I don't know what you mean by "pure objectivity", so I don't know what "pure objectivity invariably leads to nihilism" means. In any case, I suggest that we don't use the words objectivity/subjectivity since we've disagreed on this and we have yet to reach agreement.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/objective

b : of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/subjective

a : characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind

Value has no objective basis. It is subjective, ethereal, intangible.

rombomb wrote:The universe does not care period. Its not a person. Only people can care.

Which is precisely why value and ethics will never, ever be objective.

rombomb wrote:Because its not conducive to happiness. And more importantly, someone else should not stop me from pursuing my own happiness.

Do you agree that its beneficial for me that other people refrain from infringing on my freedom to pursue my own happiness?

Do you agree that its beneficial for each individual that other people refrain from infringing on each other's freedom to pursue their own happiness?

Whether I do or don't is an opinion and besides the point.

rombomb wrote:Science cannot answer moral questions. Scientific knowledge can only be gained by ruling out scientific theories by physical evidence. If a theory cannot, in principle, be ruled out by physical evidence, then it is not a scientific theory. This is what is meant by Popper's Line of Demarcation. But, this does not imply that only scientific knowledge is attainable. Philosophical and moral knowledge (among others) is attainable too.

Morality is a collection of opinions, nothing more. If you consider opinions to be knowledge, that's an interesting definition. You can only have knowledge about objective matters which may pertain to morality.

by rombomb Mon Feb 11, 2013 12:28 pm

Dreamspace wrote:
rombomb wrote:Because its not conducive to happiness. And more importantly, someone else should not stop me from pursuing my own happiness.

Do you agree that its beneficial for me that other people refrain from infringing on my freedom to pursue my own happiness?

Do you agree that its beneficial for each individual that other people refrain from infringing on each other's freedom to pursue their own happiness?

Whether I do or don't is an opinion and besides the point.

Its not besides the point. The point was:

Dreamspace wrote:
If you're talking about what it is which is important to you, your values, then this is a different matter. You don't need to have any evidence to support your opinions, and you can speak quite confidently in what you think is good or motivates you.

And I said:

Say a parent values hitting his children as a form of teaching them morals. He believes its moral/good to do this. This is his opinion. Lets also say that this parent knows that some people have the opposing view that hitting children is immoral/bad. So now this person knows that there is an idea out there (in the marketplace of ideas) that contradicts his own. Should he reject that rival idea without reason (i.e. irrationally)? Or should he go find out the reasons for the rival idea? By finding out the reasons for the rival idea, he'd have the opportunity to learn that the rival idea is wrong and his right, or that the rival idea is right and his wrong.

You said that "You don't need to have any evidence[/reasons] to support your opinions[/value-judgments]", but this would lead this man to never question his value judgment of hitting his children, even in the face of rival ideas.

Do you agree that if someone applied your idea that he'd be closed-minded about his opinions/value-judgments? Do you agree that your idea has the same effect as being arrogant about one's opinions/value-judgments?

by Dreamspace Mon Feb 11, 2013 12:45 pm

I'll continue this in a different thread because the original point was lost.

by rombomb Mon Feb 11, 2013 1:11 pm

melodiccolor wrote:
Self-confidence is great as long as the person continues to be skeptical of his ideas/skills. If he crosses over to the point of no longer doubting his own ideas much, then this is arrogance.

This is a good point, it often shows in arrogance, in thinking your way of seeing things is the only correct one. It even shows in those willing to learn if they discard anything that is not in furtherance of a point of view and/or agenda.

I'm not sure how to read that. I think it reads like this:

- Some people, even those who are willing to learn, will discard anything that is not in furtherance of their point of view and/or agenda.

The problem I have with it is the "anything" part. It implies that an idea is being discarded arbitrarily/irrationally/without-reason.

Discarding ideas arbitrarily/irrationally/without-reason is bad.

by melodiccolor Mon Feb 11, 2013 4:02 pm

rombomb wrote:
melodiccolor wrote:
Self-confidence is great as long as the person continues to be skeptical of his ideas/skills. If he crosses over to the point of no longer doubting his own ideas much, then this is arrogance.

This is a good point, it often shows in arrogance, in thinking your way of seeing things is the only correct one. It even shows in those willing to learn if they discard anything that is not in furtherance of a point of view and/or agenda.

I'm not sure how to read that. I think it reads like this:

- Some people, even those who are willing to learn, will discard anything that is not in furtherance of their point of view and/or agenda.

The problem I have with it is the "anything" part. It implies that an idea is being discarded arbitrarily/irrationally/without-reason.

Discarding ideas arbitrarily/irrationally/without-reason is bad.

It is not without reason, rather it is a bias in perception in favor of a certain view. Any view can be logically justified simply by inclusion of some data while excluding other. Changing the meaning of data too can be used to support any view.

Side note: you've managed to refute every view in this thread which did not agree with your own and you've done so on every discussion thread since you've been on this board. A distinct pattern shows plainly.

by rombomb Mon Feb 11, 2013 4:29 pm

melodiccolor wrote:
rombomb wrote:
melodiccolor wrote:
Self-confidence is great as long as the person continues to be skeptical of his ideas/skills. If he crosses over to the point of no longer doubting his own ideas much, then this is arrogance.

This is a good point, it often shows in arrogance, in thinking your way of seeing things is the only correct one. It even shows in those willing to learn if they discard anything that is not in furtherance of a point of view and/or agenda.

I'm not sure how to read that. I think it reads like this:

- Some people, even those who are willing to learn, will discard anything that is not in furtherance of their point of view and/or agenda.

The problem I have with it is the "anything" part. It implies that an idea is being discarded arbitrarily/irrationally/without-reason.

Discarding ideas arbitrarily/irrationally/without-reason is bad.

It is not without reason, rather it is a bias in perception in favor of a certain view. Any view can be logically justified simply by inclusion of some data while excluding other. Changing the meaning of data too can be used to support any view.

But all data must be interpreted. Data cannot be used in absence of an interpretation. Do you agree?

And its the reasons for certain interpretations of data that people can disagree on. Do you agree?

melodiccolor wrote:
Side note: you've managed to refute every view in this thread which did not agree with your own

In other words, I've disagreed with some of the views in this thread (which is also true for every single person that read this thread) and then I went further and presented my views (which is also true for many of the other people who participated in this discussion).

melodiccolor wrote:
and you've done so on every discussion thread since you've been on this board. A distinct pattern shows plainly.

What pattern? That I disagree with other people more than other people do? Or that I disagree and post my views more often than other people do?

What do you think this pattern means? What is the significance?

by Samt03 Tue Feb 12, 2013 1:10 am

rombomb wrote:
I think melodicolor meant self-confidence and empowerment as one concept. I think she meant that a person is empowered because of confidence in himself.

BTW, I don't agree with the concept of trust:

Trusting X means not doubting X, or irrationally believing X. It means believing that X is true without reasons.

Distrusting X means irrationally believing that X is false. It means believing that X is false without reasons.

Or mel could have read my post and said what I said was okay, before you decided I was wrong?

And I agree with nothing, at all you have said. There, we are even.

I suggest for arrogance you take a look in the mirror. Till you realize what it means you'll never be open minded enough to speak to people at their level. I'm not saying anyone is below you, I'm saying your own fear of being wrong does not allow you to consider other peoples opinions may be right, ie the example of arrogance presented here. You so far that you may be wrong you can't even let simple silly posts be; you need to analyze them to an inch of their lives to figure out if there may be some hidden meaning in them. Welcome to life dude, you may be wrong at points, take the chance, expect it to happen, and stop talking down to everyone.

by Dreamspace Tue Feb 12, 2013 4:03 am

I've never found rombomb to come across as condescending, only confined to a singular vantage point and syllogistic reasoning.

by rombomb Tue Feb 12, 2013 12:09 pm

Havonej wrote:
rombomb wrote:
I think melodicolor meant self-confidence and empowerment as one concept. I think she meant that a person is empowered because of confidence in himself.

BTW, I don't agree with the concept of trust:

Trusting X means not doubting X, or irrationally believing X. It means believing that X is true without reasons.

Distrusting X means irrationally believing that X is false. It means believing that X is false without reasons.
Or mel could have read my post and said what I said was okay, before you decided I was wrong?

Yes. I don't see why it matters. Did what I did cause any harm?

If we were hanging out in person, and mel went to the bathroom, and you said something about mel's position that I thought was a misunderstanding of her position, I would say the same thing, that I think mel meant X instead of Y. Do you think I shouldn't? Why?

Havonej wrote:
And I agree with nothing, at all you have said.

Nothing in what you quoted? Or nothing in this thread?

Havonej wrote:
There, we are even.

Whats the point of saying this?

Havonej wrote:
I suggest for arrogance you take a look in the mirror. Till you realize what it means

"Look in the mirror" is a metaphor for the idea of questioning oneself. This is something I already know and already do. Do you have any suggestions of doing it better?

Havonej wrote:
you'll never be open minded enough to speak to people at their level.

Open-minded enough for what? You said "enough to speak to people at their level". I don't understand what that means. Do you mean something like "enough to learn ideas from other people"?

Havonej wrote:
I'm not saying anyone is below you, I'm saying your own fear of being wrong

AFAIK, I don't fear being wrong. Why do you think I have a fear of that?

Or do you mean "fear of being found to be wrong publicly"? If you mean this, I think that this would cause someone to hide his views from public scrutiny. And I think you'd agree that I don't mind my ideas being publicly scrutinized, considering the fact that I post my views publicly a lot.

Havonej wrote:
does not allow you to consider other peoples opinions may be right, ie the example of arrogance presented here.

But I've agreed to some of the stuff said here about arrogance. So what do you mean? Do you mean that I'm not agreeing "enough" or something?

I've also asked clarifying questions about some of the stuff said here about arrogance because I'm not sure what it means. Don't you think this is necessary to learn ideas from other posters in this forum (or any venue)?

Havonej wrote:
You so far that you may be wrong you can't even let simple silly posts be; you need to analyze them to an inch of their lives to figure out if there may be some hidden meaning in them. Welcome to life dude, you may be wrong at points,

Not "may be wrong", I'm often wrong. Which is why I post my ideas for external criticism. This allows me to let other people cover my blind spots and tell me the flaws they see. This is a very important way of improving oneself.

Havonej wrote:
take the chance, expect it to happen,

I take a chance every time I publicly post an idea of mine. And I sure do expect it. I've been doing it for 14 months now. I've posted over 4,000 posts with a ridiculously high number of mistakes. Other people have criticized many of them and I've been able to fix them.

Havonej wrote:
and stop talking down to everyone.

First I'd have to understand how it is that I'm "talking down to everyone", then I stop doing it. So what is it that you think I'm doing exactly? Do you mean disagreeing too much (how much is too much?)? Or what?

by rombomb Tue Feb 12, 2013 12:15 pm

Dreamspace wrote:I've never found rombomb to come across as condescending, only confined to a singular vantage point and syllogistic reasoning.

What vantage point is that? Does that mean that I'm being close-minded about ideas that disagree with mine? If not then what (please explain in detail)? And how do you propose that I solve this problem?

What is syllogistic reasoning? To help me understand this, can you point out a specific thing I said that shows this? Please quote me.

by Reamsie Tue Feb 12, 2013 12:46 pm

Wow I'm gone for a couple of days and geez . . .

meloddicolor wrote:What do you consider the difference is between empowered self confidence and arrogence? The two can look remarkably similar and I am not sure there is a true difference, but more of an individual bias in interpretation in many cases. Yet I can think of some instances of arrogence that shows without self confidence and empowerment. What is your take on it?

I agree that when empowered self confidence is mistaken for arrogance a lot of times it is interpretation. When one person (even if it is truly not justified) in the situation feels inferior or not in control they will defensively label the other person as arrogant.

Everyone has touched on so many good points already. Yes, self confidence is willing to listen to other thoughts. Nucky made a very good point about self confidence being willing to take responsibility for decisions and suffer the consequences of a wrong decision. Empowered self confidence gives permission to act.

Arrogance is closed off to other thought. Does not want to admit to the possibility of being wrong and will pick apart or belittle others. It will blame other factors if something goes bad, therefore avoiding or attempting to avoid consequences. I think arrogance also sometimes assumes that it whatever it is doing is "wanted" or "needed".

by melodiccolor Tue Feb 12, 2013 5:23 pm

Some good points. Empowered self confidence gives permission to act...from within and to trust in those actions.

Often those engaged in acts closed off to others for input will loudly deny it and blame everyone else too.

by Riana Wed Feb 13, 2013 8:19 pm

I've also already read a lot of good replies.

Arrogance is a form of hurt, in my eyes. The difference between arrogance and self-empowerment is that arrogance is based on a deep-seated insecurity and empowerment is based on self-confidence and a profound believe that you are worthy of good things.

Arrogant people are closed off, perhaps because they have decided that the outer world cannot be trusted, or that others are in some way lacking. This belief would in my eyes come from a protection mechanism in the psyche. Believing that other people are less saves you the trouble from having to put yourself out there, discuss, and take a honest look at criticism, which might be perceived as too threatening.

So, arrogance : closed, hurt, building walls around the heart, too insecure and unsteady sense of self to let others in

self-empowerment: openness, thriving, the self as steady source of love, believing that you have the right to express yourself and stand up for what you believe in, while criticism is looked at more objectively and not seen as a personal attack. Others do not form a threat, but are looked at compassionately, because true self-empowerment is often the result of suffering, fighting for that last straw of spirit and conciousness, so an empowered person has the wisdom of heart to recognise that others too are struggling and can be open to them without feeling that something will be lost or stolen.

by Alethia Wed Feb 13, 2013 8:34 pm

true self-empowerment is often the result of suffering, fighting for that last straw of spirit and conciousness, so an empowered person has the wisdom of heart to recognise that others too are struggling and can be open to them without feeling that something will be lost or stolen.

Yes Riana in a compassionate sense of empowerment, you can see that everyone on some level in resistance or needing to over ride another, is fighting for something in this thread..nice share Riana...

by RBM Thu Feb 14, 2013 5:26 pm

Alethia wrote: needing to over ride another,

I see this aspect a lot in some places and it's typically called 'debating'. It's a carryover from formal debates of long ago, I suspect. For some reason it carries over onto bulletin boards on the Web. I don't think it works so well on the Web, though.

I have, more than once, been in a dialog, in which the other party has taken a debate posture when I'm in an information sharing mode. I've explicitly noted this in subsequent replies in order to get feedback on whether the other participant had any interest in the information I was providing and if not than ceased the exchange.

by Alethia Thu Feb 14, 2013 6:19 pm

RBM wrote:
Alethia wrote: needing to over ride another,

I see this aspect a lot in some places and it's typically called 'debating'. It's a carryover from formal debates of long ago, I suspect. For some reason it carries over onto bulletin boards on the Web. I don't think it works so well on the Web, though.

I have, more than once, been in a dialog, in which the other party has taken a debate posture when I'm in an information sharing mode. I've explicitly noted this in subsequent replies in order to get feedback on whether the other participant had any interest in the information I was providing and if not than ceased the exchange.

Yes the exchange works in many levels RBM. It serves us all for our own interests most often, whatever that interest is, will play out accordingly... Smile

As in the case of any interaction, I suspect it continues while there is something to share at any space of sharing. Most often the mix of *intentions* conscious or not in the ongoing interaction..brings forward some interesting views...when you take all in...your own view can be totally unrelated to the information sharing and the debate, just viewing.. Surprised

by melodiccolor Thu Feb 14, 2013 8:52 pm

RBM wrote:
Alethia wrote: needing to over ride another,

I see this aspect a lot in some places and it's typically called 'debating'. It's a carryover from formal debates of long ago, I suspect. For some reason it carries over onto bulletin boards on the Web. I don't think it works so well on the Web, though.

I have, more than once, been in a dialog, in which the other party has taken a debate posture when I'm in an information sharing mode. I've explicitly noted this in subsequent replies in order to get feedback on whether the other participant had any interest in the information I was providing and if not than ceased the exchange.

Is debating another way of saying talking at one another rather than with? Yes when I find someone is doing this and has little of interest to share, I tend to wander away.

Alethia wrote:Yes the exchange works in many levels RBM. It serves us all for our own interests most often, whatever that interest is, will play out accordingly...Smile

As in the case of any interaction, I suspect it continues while there is something to share at any space of sharing. Most often the mix of *intentions* conscious or not in the ongoing interaction..brings forward some interesting views...when you take all in...your own view can be totally unrelated to the information sharing and the debate, just viewing.. Surprised Wink

True, even when there is little apparent interest in what the other is conveying, often times there is information to a bigger picture beyond the surface. It's when that has formed and the debate goes on and on and...for days, weeks, months that it seems a good idea to find ways to better spend my time. I am interested in sharing, both what I have to share and what the other has to share. Lack of reciprocation does not meet my needs.

by RBM Fri Feb 15, 2013 5:54 pm

MC wrote:Is debating another way of saying talking at one another rather than with?

Sort of.

The sort of formal debates I had in mind, had a third party to rate a winner as these events were competitions.

Online there isn't any third party or equivalent function performed by anyone.

An extreme case in point, would be to put up a block within which it was while. Some people will say the contained color is black. This is common in the behavior known as trolling.

In practice, it can be and usually is, much more nuanced.

by Bluedream Sat Feb 16, 2013 9:56 am

RBM wrote:
Alethia wrote: needing to over ride another,

I see this aspect a lot in some places and it's typically called 'debating'. It's a carryover from formal debates of long ago, I suspect. For some reason it carries over onto bulletin boards on the Web. I don't think it works so well on the Web, though.

I have, more than once, been in a dialog, in which the other party has taken a debate posture when I'm in an information sharing mode. I've explicitly noted this in subsequent replies in order to get feedback on whether the other participant had any interest in the information I was providing and if not than ceased the exchange.

Yes...that's possibly why I just don't care to 'debate' much about anything anymore on the web. It's hard enough to just drop by and read all of this...let alone get into 'philisophical arguements' about who's right...who's wrong...blah blah...
I tend to glaze over and my attention shifts to more 'visual things' that grab me. The original 'heading' gets lost in the shuffle of 'he said...she said...'
Just me.
Have fun anyway... Wink

by Dreamspace Sat Feb 16, 2013 10:46 am

Depending on the venue, online debates can actually be rather enlightening. Then again, my temperament leads me to actually enjoy having my worldview systematically broken down and challenged point by point, and disassembling and examining every aspect and considering different perspectives and addressing criticisms and contrary talking points rubs out fuzzy reasoning and really crystallizes your understanding as well as sharpens your critical reasoning skills.

I don't really get the mindset that debates are about winning so much as choosing a side somewhat arbitrarily based upon which one you feel you can best represent or is underrepresented. The only real way to 'lose' is to fail to learn anything, in which case you still probably at least had to exercise your critical thinking skills.

by Alethia Sat Feb 16, 2013 2:28 pm

Bluedream wrote:
RBM wrote:
Alethia wrote: needing to over ride another,

I see this aspect a lot in some places and it's typically called 'debating'. It's a carryover from formal debates of long ago, I suspect. For some reason it carries over onto bulletin boards on the Web. I don't think it works so well on the Web, though.

I have, more than once, been in a dialog, in which the other party has taken a debate posture when I'm in an information sharing mode. I've explicitly noted this in subsequent replies in order to get feedback on whether the other participant had any interest in the information I was providing and if not than ceased the exchange.

Yes...that's possibly why I just don't care to 'debate' much about anything anymore on the web. It's hard enough to just drop by and read all of this...let alone get into 'philisophical arguements' about who's right...who's wrong...blah blah...
I tend to glaze over and my attention shifts to more 'visual things' that grab me. The original 'heading' gets lost in the shuffle of 'he said...she said...'
Just me.
Have fun anyway...

I could really bring up a debate on this post...mr dream... Surprised

But I wont..... Self Confidence and Empowerment vs Arrogence, an Exploration - Page 2 197195

Self Confidence and Empowerment vs Arrogence, an Exploration - Page 2 418277576

by melodiccolor Sat Feb 16, 2013 4:01 pm

I guess for me, I prefer a good animated discussion where two or more persons of different views share and really listen to one another, build upon each other's views and gain valuable insights often. This is most enjoyable. Most times a consensus is reached at least in part, where the view is not where anyone started.

Debate to me is where people compete to get their point across, picking apart the others position in the process. It is less synergistic, more a battle of wits in a way. This I find little appeal in.

by Sponsored content