Comments on: Joe Collier: In defence of arrogance

By: andrew brennan

andrew brennan — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 13:34:02 +0000

Who decides should be he or she deemed responsible enough to make the decision; who has good enough reasoning skills to weigh up the relevant supporting information and arguments; and, importantly who has good enough communication skills to explain clearly why the rationale for a decision has been made. Accusations of ‘arrogance’ under such circumstances may be misplaced rebukes in the event of a conflict of opinion; such conflicts are unavoidable when working with highly complex matters. An ‘arrogant’ decision maker would be one who’s hubris did not allow for the balancing of other’s opinions or available evidence for reaching a decision. This is because he or she considers themselves so much more competant to be above the influence of cogent sources of alternative information. The inherent lack of reflectivity in the arrogant decision maker makes one a dangerous decision maker.

By: joe collier

joe collier — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 14:09:15 +0000

The key problem is - Who decides?. One person speaking from a position of ‘confidence or professional pride’(to quote Julian Sheather)can be seen by another (opposition/ lobbyist/the public etc etc) as behaving arrogantly. I, for instance, was often accused of arrogance by my fellow consultants for not accepting applications for new medicines when I was chair of the local Drugs and Therapeutics Committee. Moreover, no end of argument dissuaded them. It seems that we (doctors, and those in like positions) need to accept that we are seen as arrogant, recognise what this means, and then
justify the position we have taken. Simply to pretend that we are above arrogance is not a solution’

By: Susana

Susana — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 13:11:49 +0000

We should strive to teach all young people to be self confident without being arrogant. The first is, in my opinion, a very desirable way of being, especially when exercising professional duties. The second is an attitude to be avoided at all costs as it only alienates and offends people

By: andrew brennan

andrew brennan — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 09:14:05 +0000

I believe this argument is one of semantic meaning. People who are in the position of making complex judgements and taking important and difficult actions often need to be self-assured, able to make a decision based on complex information from a variety of different sources, provide responses and feedback that might be unwelcome or upsetting and rely on the value of experience and expertise to guide action. These virtues, however, are not synonymous with arrogance and are free from the negative connotations of the word’s accepted definition; an exaggerated sense of self importance or abilities. It is not unusual for people in positions of high status and power to erroneously assume that they have greater expertise, knowledge and skills than colleagues or, specifically in health care, the patient; there are few things worse than arrogance within professional and personal relationships to endure. The antonym of humility, in Soren Kirekgaards’ words, is where true helping begins. Humbling oneself to the person to be helped or worked with enables understanding. This process does not work through attempts to dominate that can breed contempt and poor interpersonal relations. I fear that promoting the word arrogance among young people in their professional training might result in highly problematic working practices. Let’s not redefine the word.

By: Dunk Sb shoes

Dunk Sb shoes — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 16:35:40 +0000

Thank you very much!

By: Julian Sheather

Julian Sheather — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 10:02:24 +0000

Interesting post. I would probably be tempted to leave the word alone though as I think it does quite a useful job. It clearly has its root in the verb ‘to arrogate’, which is to claim or appropriate for oneself without justification. Adjectively it therefore refers to displaying an exaggerated sense of self-worth or importance. Exaggeration is the key. The evil to which it points is the evil of misrepresentation: a tendency to present ourselves as more than we are. This tendency may be universal, although in some it is obviously more highly developed. Arrogance can therefore be usefully distinguished from confidence or professional pride, which do not seek to misrepresent. It might be interesting to consider an antonym such as humility. Some argue that this can be a form of misrepresentation, a slightly craven attempt to deny our own inevitable egotism. I guess the one benefit of humility is that, from the view point of eternity, if we don’t think too much of ourselves we are unlikely to be wrong.

By: D Marikar

D Marikar — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 07:49:26 +0000

Its all about definitions I guess, what you describe isn’t arrogance to me. The definition I hold to is along the lines that an arrogant person rejects what someone says without looking into (or even ignoring) whether its correct or not, and makes fun of people.