WMN: t3_1xp9br_t1_cfddpoe--TIO5

[TITLE]

I believe that arrogance and confidence are the same thing. CMV

[LXXXVI]

TL;DR: Arrogance == confidence, and you get called one or the other depending on the caller's own confidence level (lower or equal/higher). CMV As said in the title, I believe that, objectively, arrogance and confidence are the same thing, and that whether someone is perceived as either arrogant or confident only depends on how confident the observer him-/herself is and on whether or not the observer likes the person in question. Put simply: Observer has lower confidence: person perceived as arrogant Observer has equal/higher confidence: person perceived as confident Basically, I believe that people never perceive anyone with a lower level of confidence as arrogant. You can pity or laugh at them for thinking they're better than others, while you know they're not, but I can't imagine thinking they're arrogant. I will admit that this is based in a large part on my personal experience - I know many people who keep saying that everyone thinks they're arrogant, and I would say that they're just really confident. Same goes for me. I've only ever been called arrogant by people with low(er) confidence and confident by those with a high(er) confidence level.

[swearrengen]

To be confident is to have a feeling or belief that you can succeed in something - you are good, or good at it, or can do it. Confidence is an evaluation of your ability. To be arrogant is to not only have a feeling or belief that you can succeed in something and that you are good and able - but that you are *better and superior* at it. Arrogance is an evaluation of the **relative superiority** of your ability (to the task or to another person) that elicits a sensation of disgust, disdain or scorn for the inferior - it's a derivation of confidence with an extra ingredient of "looking down upon the inferior with disdain" that makes the sensation feel different from confidence alone. Both confidence and arrogance might be deserved or undeserved, well founded or misplaced!

[void_er]

No. Arrogance is confidence without proof. Example: You have to do project X. If you performed X before, or you did something similar, or you have a good record of doing projects in the same general category with X, then it is confidence. If you think you can do X, eventually, (eventually - because you have no experience) you can still be confident. But if you think you can do X in (and do it very well in a short time) that is arrogance.

[LXXXVI]

What about if "the same general category" is "doing stuff you never even heard about"? This would pretty much cancel out the definition of arrogance.

[void_er]

[STA-CITE]> What about if "the same general category" is "doing stuff you never even heard about"? [END-CITE]Then you are good at the category "Everything". And everything falls into "Everything".

[Eh_Priori]

I have fairly low confidence yet I can recognize and respect individuals such as George Clooney for having high confidence, not arrogance. In fact I think the consistency with which people such as Clooney are described as confident rather than arrogant demonstrates that you are wrong. If confidence and arrogance were the same attribute viewed differently by people with different levels of that attribute we would expect most people to be frequently called both confident and arrogant, and highly confident individuals like Clooney would almost exclusively be called arrogant.

[LXXXVI]

Good example. However this could just mean that there's another element that decides, which term is used. What would happen if a random fan ran into Clooney on the street and tried to talk to him and Clooney would just move past him and ignore him because [insert legit reason]? Isn't it likely that this fan might then be hurt enough to insist Clooney is an arrogant ass? However if Clooney did that to, say, Brad Pitt, the latter would likely not take it as harshly and change his opinion from confident to arrogant. Could the difference between arrogant and confident also include whether or not we like the person, not just whether or not they're more or less confident than ourselves?

[Eh_Priori]

[STA-CITE]> Isn't it likely that this fan might then be hurt enough to insist Clooney is an arrogant ass? However if Clooney did that to, say, Brad Pitt, the latter would likely not take it as harshly and change his opinion from confident to arrogant. [END-CITE]Wouldn't Pitt be more likely to interpret that action as arrogant? After all, they actually know each other and in fact I think they are friends. On the other hand its considered perfectly acceptable to not respond to strangers on the street. I don't even think people interpret this as a confident or arrogant action, if anything the times I've done it have been from shyness or laziness. [STA-CITE]> Could the difference between arrogant and confident also include whether or not we like the person, not just whether or not they're more or less confident than ourselves? [END-CITE]I agree with this, in fact I think this is probably one of the dominant factors in disputes over whether an action or person is confident or arrogant, however I still think confidence and arrogance refer to discrete things. For example I most people will agree that some of Harry Potter's actions demonstrate confidence, and some demonstrate arrogance. Thus whether we view someones actions as confident or arrogant doesn't just come down to our view of that person, instead there is some difference between the actions of Harry that we consider confident and the actions of Harry that we consider arrogant.

[LXXXVI]

Hmm, actually I just named Pitt because he was the first that came to mind. But considering Pitt has some of the same experiences as Clooney, if nothing else, he can probably empathize and understand why Clooney would behave like that. As for the fan on the street - if they are emotionally invested in their approaching Clooney, they could be hurt by his ignoring them, even though it's an irrational reaction, hence feeling Clooney was/is arrogant. But yes, it is very relative and subject to many variables. As for HP, since I read all the books and saw all the movies, do you have anything specific in mind?

[kennybossum]

You've lost the distinction between objective and subjective but let me start with definitions since the words have meanings. Arrogance - objectively, this is a person who offends others because they are overly confident for what they have. The arrogant person appears showy and without any foundation for their inflated self esteem. Subjectively, the arrogant person is almost always trying to overcompensate for a LACK of confidence, overly reliant on one or two positive traits to whitewash the inadequacies of their lives. Confidence- objectively, this is a person that instills a feeling of calm in the outside observer. Outsiders see the confident person and recognize that there is a balanced individual with proper self-appraisal standing before them. Subjectively, a confident person isn't trying to latch on to one or two positive traits to puff their ego - they have done a full self-assessment and undertaken to believe in themselves or their abilities relative to the challenge they face. The distinction between the two may be indiscernible to the outside observer or it may be false bravado that is misunderstood by the subjective assessor but it is rarely, if ever, missed by both.

[LXXXVI]

But whether or not they're overly confident is a subjective judgment of the observer. From your descriptions of arrogance and confidence, I would conclude that the only difference is in how much the person lets their opinion of self show to the outside. Would you say that if the world's best [insert-profession] dismisses a random person's wrong opinion about something related to that profession, are they being a confident asshole or arrogant?

[kennybossum]

Whether or not they are an asshole or not isn't really the distinguishing factor between the two in the objective view. A confident person can still be an asshole. The arrogant person is almost always an asshole. Objectively, confident people tend to inspire confidence or calm or security in others. Subjectively, the real distinction lies within. The world's best Architect, if he is confident, knows his design is good and bases it on his understanding of the totality of his abilities. The world's best Musician, if he is arrogant, knows his music is good and bases it on the foundation that he must over compensate for other areas where he is not satisfactory.

[LXXXVI]

Hmm, this is an interesting path we're taking now. Going by this, we could say that the difference lies in whether or not someone feels they must compensate for some inadequacy, correct? But is it not possible that this architect would also come across as arrogant, e.g. when simply (legitimately) dismissing a novice architects plan as bad (without explanation for a legitimate reason - e.g. he's in a hurry - which would, however, be unknown to the novice)?

[tableman]

Here you go OP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connotation

[BarvoDelancy]

The distinction here is about how you treat other people. Confidence = I think I'm great. Arrogance = I think I'm better than you. The neat thing about confidence is that you can be stoic or reserved and remain confident. Nobody has to know you are confident unless they ask. Arrogance means that at some point you've put yourself above someone else, or been perceived to do as such. Sure, you could be right here. The people who accuse you of arrogance could be very insecure and just intimidated by your own confidence. But some basic social graces can alleviate that. You can be confident and humble. And more importantly, the content of your post is arrogant. What you're doing is when accused of a negative quality, you've made that out to be a case where you are superior to another person in some what (self-image) and that any perceived wrongdoing on your part is simply their own flaws manifesting. You're fine - they're the problem. How is that not arrogant?

[thiazzi1]

Arrogance is where you think you're superior to others, confidence is just thinking you're pretty good. I agree that people *misuse* "arrogant" to insult people who are actually just confident, but they're not *actually* the same thing.

[ralph-j]

If I personally saw my brother buy a chocolate bar, I would be 100% confident that it happened. How would that be arrogant?

[k4m414]

I think the simplest way to describe it, is an arrogant person is only happy in being right if the other person is wrong. Simply knowing the correct answer is not enough, they have to prove that you DON'T know it, therefore making them bigger, better, more intelligent, etc. Their self worth and value is only in purposefully making you lower than them, by pointing out your flaws and their good qualities. Whereas: a confident person knows the correct answer, and that is good enough for them. There is a sense of "humbleness and modesty" that is tied in with simply being confident. After a test, they don't run over to you and ask what score you think you got just so they can say "well I think I got a 100." So if a person has low confidence, I think a truly confident person would be sensitive to that. Instead of using their low confidence to make themselves feel better, they would want to help the person and bring them up to their level of confidence, so they could share things more easily. If you aren't an arrogant ass, there's nothing worse than rambling off your list of achievements to someone you know is doing worse than you. It just feels bad. If you are an arrogant ass, nothing feels better. Another point then, I think confident people surround themselves with other confident people to create a healthy network of support, whereas arrogant people surround themselves by insecure people in order to make themselves feel better.

[LXXXVI]

Hmm, I don't know, what you call arrogant I'd call simply an ass (which you did too). What about when there's a debate about something between two people, one is right and knows he's right and won't stop pressing their point. The other (who is wrong in this case but doesn't know he's wrong) will likely perceive the first as being arrogant, even though the first is right and could simply be confident and not ready to yield for peace's sake?

[k4m414]

Well being arrogant has a negative connotation by definition, so yes, arrogant people are asses, haha. In the case of a debate I suppose a confident person would just use research to prove their point, if they were right, and an arrogant person wouldn't. Then I guess I would also tie in being ignorant with being arrogant. And if a confident person is wrong, they can accept being wrong, whereas an arrogant person would hate being wrong about the topic and then revert to personal attacks.

[LXXXVI]

But there are times when even the best research doesn't convince. You can give the best research on [insert favorite falsely controversial topic like vaccinations, evolution etc.] and some people just won't listen. They will still consider you an arrogant ass who always just wants to be right, even though you're clearly wrong (in their opinion). Your "side" would call you confident. The other "side" would call you arrogant. This is why I think that both are pretty much the same and the only difference is on how you're perceived by someone else.

[k4m414]

No, even if you're basing the perception solely on the isolated case of a debate, there's still a difference in the way an arrogant person and a confident person argue their points. Again, if you're confident in your position then there would be no need to attack a person personally, bring up issues unrelated to the topic, and belittle them in order to prove your point. An arrogant person would do those things, and that's the difference between to confident people arguing their point and two arrogant people arguing their point.

[LXXXVI]

If you look at evolution vs creationism debates, you will see that many people simply quoting scientific research are considered arrogant by the creationist side, even though they never use ANY logical fallacies, especially not ad hominems. Some people will call others arrogant simply for not changing their (correct) opinion.

[k4m414]

Some people will call others a lot of things. That doesn't mean it's true. You said that you believe that arrogance and confidence are the same thing, is that or is that not what you think? We could go back and forth about what "other" people will say or do or think forever and ever, because yes people will always think that confidence is arrogance if the "arrogant" person in question does not agree with their point, but we're trying to change YOUR view. Do you understand the difference between confidence and arrogance, or not?

[LXXXVI]

I only debate what other's would say because almost all examples of an arrogant person includes a second person that decides whether or not the former is arrogant.

[JCQ]

Arrogance is confidence that is misplaced or unjustified. If an amateur boxer said he could beat Mike Tyson, his statement would be an expression of confidence. However, it is the fact that this confidence is unjustified - because there's no way in hell this guy can actually beat Mike Tyson - that also makes the statement an expression of arrogance. If we reversed the roles and had Mike Tyson say he could beat the amateur, this would be an expression of Mike Tyson's confidence in his abilities, but because he has all sorts of medals and belts to support his confidence, it is not an expression of arrogance. However, it would also be *arrogance* if Mike Tyson asserted that his *confidence* in his abilities -or his ability in itself- made him a superior person than the boxer, as boxing ability, success, fame, and wealth are all poor metrics to measure one's worth with. Furthermore it is *arrogant* to appear overly confident about one's abilities. If someone doesn't revise for a test because they feel confident in their intelligence and then failed it, they would have failed due to arrogance. Arrogance means different things to different people, but it is essentially the antithesis of being humble. However, it is possible to be confident in one's value and abilities while still remaining humble and remembering that *you're just not that special*.

[LXXXVI]

∆ [STA-CITE]> If someone doesn't revise for a test because they feel confident in their intelligence and then failed it, they would have failed due to arrogance. [END-CITE]Partial CMV - you convinced me that objectively speaking confidence and arrogance are not the same. I'm still not sure that subjectively speaking (from the POV of another person) they aren't. To take your example: That boxer just may be the next champ and able to beat Tyson, but because he's still a nobody, he would be perceived as arrogant, even though he is just being (legitimately) confident.

[JCQ]

Yeah, ultimately the differences between abstracts such as arrogance and ignorance are a lot more nuanced than the differences between concrete nouns such as a table and a chair. However, because the English Language is anarchical and subjective and there are no fixed rules or supreme bodies to dictate what words mean *no words* have an absolute, objective meaning. The semantic meaning of a word is ultimately decided by the speaker, so you are just as right in your assertion that they mean the same thing as I am in mine. The greatest power language gives us is the ability to manipulate it: take "freedom", "hero" and "justice". They can have their meanings completely warped by a speaker because ultimately they have no meaning other than the meaning *we* place in them.

[DeltaBot]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/JCQ. ^[[History](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/JCQ)] ^[[Wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltabot)][[Code](https://github.com/alexames/DeltaBot)][[Subreddit](http://www.reddit.com/r/DeltaBot/)]