Many people struggle differentiating arrogance and confidence. I thought this was a reasonable explanation of both of them.
What do you think defines each?
https://www.eyesforlies.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/black-logo-smaller.jpg00Eyes for Lieshttps://www.eyesforlies.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/black-logo-smaller.jpgEyes for Lies2014-01-22 11:54:002014-08-12 18:39:47Arrogance vs. Confidence
so the meek and self-knowing shall inherit the whole enchilada!
Chris Jeppsson says:
the difference imo is arrogance is about exuding superiority where as confidence is about trusting yourself and your capabilities regardless if it equates to you being superior or inferior. “well I suck at putting things into words but I’m sure you get what I’m tryin to say.”
Mark says:
I think it will end up having to do with some combination of chemical/location in the brain being stimulated upon thoughts of oneself.
Mark says:
Here is some stuff that has arisen before on arrogance:
You picked a good link Mark. Your first link was one of my all time favorite blog post, and I have read every one since the Tiger Woods scandal.
john says:
For me his illustrators are not insync with his words, and this comes across as insincere.
Keith D. says:
He strikes me as someone who explicitly tries to illustrate what he’s teaching as he teaches it. It wouldn’t look good if you were teaching people that, “X will improve your success at doing Y” if you weren’t doing X yourself while you were trying to accomplish Y. And because it’s a short video, you wind up expending so much effort to make sure that you’re “practicing what you preach” that you wind up not actually doing it and just going through the motions.
What’s interesting though is when you see someone like this who abruptly STOPS doing that, and then the stark contrast makes you realize that even when it’s kind of mechanical or robotic rather than authentic, that it still has a measure of its actual effect. If I can remember the TED talk I saw where a presenter actually did that, I’ll share it here to better illustrate what I mean.
I know exactly what you’re talking about though. But would you say that “insincere” is a more accurate description than “inauthentic”? Because to me what he lacks is authenticity in the way he presents himself, but his sincerity is there. I’m probably being a bit pedantic, but for me that’s the distinction.
Keith D. says:
This is the TED talk I mentioned in my other reply where the speaker abruptly changes in the middle of his presentation (he starts setting that up right around the 12 minute mark). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zpf8H_Dd40
In my opinion, both of these are rehearsed and scripted and a part of his presentation even though I think there’s some truth behind them, but both are still effective in achieving their goals of illustrating his points even though they’re over-acted and not totally sincere.
john says:
Hi Keith, maybe authentic would be a better description, however, don’t you the it’s ironic given the topic?
clownfish says:
I would have thought they are completely different. That confidence comes from an accumulation of successful experiences of relying on self when dealing with challenge or from having an area of expertise etc. And that arrogance is an attitude of how you view yourself in relation to others, consciously or unconsciously.
so the meek and self-knowing shall inherit the whole enchilada!
the difference imo is arrogance is about exuding superiority where as confidence is about trusting yourself and your capabilities regardless if it equates to you being superior or inferior. “well I suck at putting things into words but I’m sure you get what I’m tryin to say.”
I think it will end up having to do with some combination of chemical/location in the brain being stimulated upon thoughts of oneself.
Here is some stuff that has arisen before on arrogance:
Good discussion on this thread:
http://blog.eyesforlies.com/2011/03/criminals-look-different-from-non.html
In the comments section of that thread, Eyes comments on recognizing various people as arrogant. It’s toward the top of the comments section. The images she is talking about are here at the bottom of the page:
http://shell.newpaltz.edu/jsec/articles/volume5/issue1/VallaVol5Iss1.pdf
Here is also a link that arose on the blog at some point. It’s on narcissists.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/beautiful-minds/201103/do-narcissists-know-they-are-narcissists
Mark.
You picked a good link Mark. Your first link was one of my all time favorite blog post, and I have read every one since the Tiger Woods scandal.
For me his illustrators are not insync with his words, and this comes across as insincere.
He strikes me as someone who explicitly tries to illustrate what he’s teaching as he teaches it. It wouldn’t look good if you were teaching people that, “X will improve your success at doing Y” if you weren’t doing X yourself while you were trying to accomplish Y. And because it’s a short video, you wind up expending so much effort to make sure that you’re “practicing what you preach” that you wind up not actually doing it and just going through the motions.
What’s interesting though is when you see someone like this who abruptly STOPS doing that, and then the stark contrast makes you realize that even when it’s kind of mechanical or robotic rather than authentic, that it still has a measure of its actual effect. If I can remember the TED talk I saw where a presenter actually did that, I’ll share it here to better illustrate what I mean.
I know exactly what you’re talking about though. But would you say that “insincere” is a more accurate description than “inauthentic”? Because to me what he lacks is authenticity in the way he presents himself, but his sincerity is there. I’m probably being a bit pedantic, but for me that’s the distinction.
This is the TED talk I mentioned in my other reply where the speaker abruptly changes in the middle of his presentation (he starts setting that up right around the 12 minute mark). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zpf8H_Dd40
In my opinion, both of these are rehearsed and scripted and a part of his presentation even though I think there’s some truth behind them, but both are still effective in achieving their goals of illustrating his points even though they’re over-acted and not totally sincere.
Hi Keith, maybe authentic would be a better description, however, don’t you the it’s ironic given the topic?
I would have thought they are completely different. That confidence comes from an accumulation of successful experiences of relying on self when dealing with challenge or from having an area of expertise etc. And that arrogance is an attitude of how you view yourself in relation to others, consciously or unconsciously.
Great video! Very simple, great explanation.