The virtue of arrogance - just a little bit

[Penis Drager]

Let me tell the tale of two men: Let's call them Jack and Andy because why not. Both of them begin their journey being stupid fucking children who don't know shit about shit. They inherited their views from their opinionated boomer fathers and were inundated with material that only represented those views. Let's call this view "proposition A" and the inverse to be "proposition B."

Jack is fully open minded: once he reached the age of reason, he was finally exposed to ideas that support B. After being presented a fact that shattered his belief in A, he quickly dropped it and picked up B. It is then that he is exposed to a new argument. It affirms A and discredits B. So then he forsakes his new mindset and goes back to embracing the old. He now has a new set of knowledge under his belt and goes on to debate someone who firmly supports B. This B guy then refutes A with an argument Jack has yet to be exposed to. Not knowing how to respond, he has no choice but to, once again, forsake A in favor of B. This cycle continues. He learns much on the way moving from A to B from time to time. Eventually, on his journey to adulthood and beyond, he finds that just about any argument in favor of A or B has its rebuttal and settles on the one which appears most reasonable. But that doesn't mean he'd be unwilling to change his stance the moment a new, better argument comes up. The question from there is "why should anyone give a fuck about Jack's easily changed opinion?" If I convince him today, it may very well change tomorrow and I don't want to invest the time reconverting him every time he starts saying something dumb.

Now let's talk about Andy. Same origin, but a bit more arrogant. Upon exposure to proposition B, he's gonna react like the retard he is. He'll shout down said opposition and make an ass of himself. He'll then go on "whyAisright.net" and "whyBiswrong.com" and arm himself with arguments and counterarguments in favor of A. Andy now has achieved what it would take years for Jack to accomplish. He knows the basic framework that supports A and a list of (albeit, probably strawmanned versions of) arguments in favor of B. Andy, the arrogant bastard that he is, utilized that arrogance as a means of educating himself. It took him a few hours to become your average voter. He knows not just that A is right and B is wrong, but also is armed with surface level information to stand his own in the average "point/counterpoint" style arguments that people engage in. He is an arrogant bastard, though. He may be wrong. And if he is, there is great value in converting him. If he is not so arrogant that he will never be convinced under any circumstances, that time investment may be worthwhile. Convincing him may mean finding a new, long-term ally. And if being Andy means having a head's up on Jack, the correct choice is clear.

Arrogance is usually considered an antisocial trait. And perhaps it is. But it is also useful. Carl Sagan said "keep an open mind. But not so open your brain falls out." Before this, some other guy (points for who guesses correctly) said "May reason be our guide and Will our strength. May the sacred duty that drives our actions give us perseverance and may our faith remain our supreme protection." It takes a touch of conviction to not be a fucking retard. Learning is easier when you're relying on confirmation bias.

 

[wtfNeedSignUp]

That's not fucking arrogance. It's being an idiot who just does what the TV says vs. being an autist who thinks his arguments will change anyone's opinion.

 

[Overly Serious]

You posit that there is a benefit to arrogance. This is incomplete, you have to say who that benefit is for. Lets take three different ways of assessing benefit:
1. The personal.
Who of Jack or Andy benefits the most from their personality. Does Jack advance further because he is willing to keep an open mind? In likelihood, yes. He has the capacity to adapt.
2. Political leaders.
Which of Jack or Andy's attitudes is of greatest benefit to a political leader to have in a follower? Likely Andy - his loyalty is less likely to be changed.
3. Societal.
Which society - one comprised of Jacks or one comprised of Andys, is likely to be most successful? Probably the former - political leadership cannot simply take support as a given but must actually carry out actions that benefit this society of Jacks.

You called it when you said arrogance is "useful". The question is if it's useful to the individual who is arrogant, or if it makes them useful to others.

 

[Penis Drager]

You posit that there is a benefit to arrogance. This is incomplete, you have to say who that benefit is for. Lets take three different ways of assessing benefit:
1. The personal.
Who of Jack or Andy benefits the most from their personality. Does Jack advance further because he is willing to keep an open mind? In likelihood, yes. He has the capacity to adapt.
2. Political leaders.
Which of Jack or Andy's attitudes is of greatest benefit to a political leader to have in a follower? Likely Andy - his loyalty is less likely to be changed.
3. Societal.
Which society - one comprised of Jacks or one comprised of Andys, is likely to be most successful? Probably the former - political leadership cannot simply take support as a given but must actually carry out actions that benefit this society of Jacks.

You called it when you said arrogance is "useful". The question is if it's useful to the individual who is arrogant, or if it makes them useful to others.

You're certainly asking the right questions. But you're wrong. Let me explain:
1. Jack is constantly changing his mind when new evidence comes to light. As commendable as that may seem, that means he is one who generally knows less about what he believes. Jack learns through contradiction while Andy learns through confirmation (until sufficient contradiction rears its ugly head). It's much easier to learn something you're passionate for. Try talking to your normie friends about some niche, weirdo interest you have and see how much they actually retain. I'm sure they're open minded about your opinions on the subject. But it's because they simply don't care.
2. yeh, pretty much. But a Jack makes for a great short term puppet when it comes to a particular bill or resolution. He follows what seems right at the time.
3. there's a balance to be had, for sure. Hence why we (the US) have swing states and solid states. We know how California's gonna vote. If you could change their vote it would be a huge game changer. But it would take signifigant investment to do so. Contrary to what I was saying in the OP, politicians care most about swing states because they care for short term goals that only have to last four years (if that). The bottom line is that, on the society level, things are different from the individual level. Controlling the actions of others is nigh impossible without force behind you. So the average person must look to themselves to see what works best for them.

 

[Tim Buckley]

What you described in OP is not an example of useful arrogance, its an example of being an useful idiot for another cause.

Jack and Andy are both tards unable to refute a tard argument, and being doomed to be political puppets of their jewish overlords, the only difference is that Jack is now a cuck masturbating himself at night while Tyrone fucks his girfriend and coping with Nintendo while Andy is getting cucked by a couch in middle of his failed school shooting, few seconds from eating lead himself.

Try confidence instead, and maybe read a book or something instead of being a tard.

 

[L50LasPak]

I think there is a huge fucking difference between having the resolve to stand by your beliefs even in the face of refuting evidence and outright arrogance. A stubborn person who still believes they are right in the face of conflicting evidence will, eventually be convinced once they receive enough evidence for them to change their mind. An arrogant person will never change their mind, so long as they are arrogant. Even in the face over overwhelming evidence they'll stick by their position not out of doubt in the evidence, but because they just cannot accept the fact that they are wrong.

Being stubborn in your beliefs is annoying and sometimes unpleasant for others to deal with, but it has the benefit of letting people know you're a person of your principles. Being arrogant doesn't just piss off the people around you, it blinds you to your own flaws and the flaws in your beliefs. Its a vulnerability, not an advantage. Its very easy to take advantage of an arrogant person if you know what you are doing.

 

[Lemmingwise]

Since arrogance has a negative connotation to it, it isn't sensible to use it for a positive character trait.

Your story does not at all show that B is better. After all, A will find it more easily to fit in with a large range of people. At work, romantically, with different personality types in family. The pool of people to choose from is bigger.

Also when viewed purely politically, he will find it easier to thrive no matter who is winning or laying down the law. There are advantages to being easily swayed.

Yes, someone that is fiercer has more value to convert, but how do you know you are not throwing away your time in the attempt? If it takes more time, it means there is a higher cost. It's fine if A flipflops after the vote

But finally they both do a poor job, because your thought experiment assumes that A and B are interchangeable, that it's pro-skub and anti-skub. When the idea to forbid smoking in movies, for example, has a measurable result on health. Most topics aren't arbitrary and there are always positions that are more in conflict with truth than others.

 

[Wraith]

>They inherited their views from their opinionated boomer fathers and were inundated with material that only represented those views. Let's call this view "proposition A" and the inverse to be "proposition B."
>Now let's talk about Andy. Same origin, but a bit more arrogant. Upon exposure to proposition B, he's gonna react like the retard he is. He'll shout down said opposition and make an ass of himself.
Boomers are typically garbage but these are loaded statements from the get go. Sometimes a faggot boomer is dead on right. Sometimes someone taught proposition A is also dead on right. What if the reaction wasn't with shouting? Why is the first thought that someone approached with another view or contradictory evidence or viewpoints to erupt like a faggot feminist or some black democrat? See, I can do it too and more efficiently.
This entire thread is waste and should be about the psychology of how people react to things challenging their world view. BECAUSE YOU FAGGOTS KNOW I'M A VETERAN ON THAT, RIGHT?