Now I'm not talking about the openly-arrogant individual that goes around shouting about how much better they are in comparison to other people, but the more subtle forms which is reflected in statements like "mass society is XYZ - I would not make that choice." or perhaps even choosing to hang out with certain individuals. One example: The idea of selecting friends, occasionally questioning friendships with people might be seen as being picky, and some could argue that this behaviour is being arrogant.
I've always thought there's no way I'm arrogant, but if this makes somebody arrogant, then yes I am.
So I was looking through my psychology textbooks and I stumbled across this idea that more than 70% usually believe they are above the average in intelligence and all that.
When you say "above average in intelligence and all that" do you mean as in IQ ? Makes me think they may have been looking at other areas... above average in abilities? Above average generally, or in specific areas?
I think that egocentrism applies to all human beings. We are often blind to many of our areas of less ability, or overestimate abilities that do exist. However, egocentrism is a normal stage in child development. As we age egocentrism should at least decrease.
What does this mean then for individuals who indeed are above average intelligence? This group of individuals is how frequent? Isn't it 20% of the population?
Some individuals are just naturally more self-conscious in many areas. Are these individuals more intelligent on average than the % of pop. who are overconfident?
And to answer your original question, yes, I am arrogant.
no, on the contrary, being able to entertain 2 logically opposing things is the mark of an educated mind. I just like 1984 references too much, i suppose....
here's a more sincere one:
A photon is a wave.
A photon is a particle.
A wave is not a particle.
Q:What is a photon?
according to many in academia, feynman solved this dilemma, but there's still a lot of "metaphysical remainders" if you ask me, so it's still worthy of mentioning.
and as i was trying to point it and am trying to reemphasize with this post is that whether something is logically valid is a meaningless question to ask. a logician can not logically tell you what a photon is. Logic is for philosophers and mathematicians, not metaphysicists or thinkers.