Why does being right = being arrogant?

by AlmostAtheist 47 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  jaguarbass

  Hello, Dave

  It's hard to get independent people to agree on anything. Its harder when your dealing with Godly spiritual matters which are non tangable and unquantifiable. When it comes to politics the politicians are operating on the premise that the average citizen voter has a 2 month memory. That probably goes for the politicians also. So in the past anything that happened more than 2 months ago didnt happen. This is the information age, but if you look at George Bush's and his wifes past, apparently it didnt happen when it came time to elect an upright moral man to be president. In spite of all the hard data on the net that the man is less than decent and honest. Back to God and spiritual matters, you cant touch the topics and you cant measure the topics. That pretty well makes the topics Bullshxt. What else can you expect when you argue bullshxt but dischord. I said Bullshxt not Bushxt although as far as I can tell they are one and the same. Before George Bush we had an electorial process in Amerika that sifted through the bull, but the Georges found away to circumvent that riging the election and calling in favors from daddys supreme court. Then there is another psychological factor, people see what they want to see. They have vested interst and motives and they are not always honest with each other or themselves. Everyone, including you and I are working an angle. That angle might change, but we see what we want to see. I realized along time ago that the truth will not be known in this dimension about something that cant be measured, observed or seen.(spiritual matters, evolution vs creation, is there a god, where did we come from, where are we going?) I call that my growing up period after my recovery from dubland . I would liken the kingdom hall to a spiritual kindergarden, and any prolonged time spent there would equal spiritual death. But then again spiritual matters are non tangable and non quantifiable so thats just my opinion. Its not like arguing how much area a yard of concrete will cover. Or how many miles your car will go on a gallon of gas. It's time spent that is idle non-productive, and idle time is the devils workshop. That could be a good thing if you percieve the Debil to be the hero in this epoch. Then again if God cant be seen, cant be measured, doesnt talk, maybe one can presume he doesnt exist. The wind can be measured. Radio waves can be broadcast and recieved, Gravity can be demonstrated. What can you do with God? Wage war?
• 

  jgnat

  Oh, *phew*, jaguarbass, I was worried I might have gotten the "last word". Thank you.

  oops
• 

  cognizant dissident

  Great question. I believe the answer is quite complex though.

  First of all, it has to do with differing perceptions. To use an example most of us are familiar with, how can two people read a Watchtower, or the Bible, or exerience the same event together in the same moment in time and space and yet come to totally different conclusions? One says, "Oh, wasn't that an upbuilding article in the Watchtower today?" Another says, "I found it depressing, I could barely sit through it." One person reads the Bible and believes, "Yes, it is the word of God!". Another says, "These are just made up stories!". They have both read the exact same words. Yet their perceptions differ because they overlay their own meanings and stories on top of the words (facts) they read or the events they experience. Yet the mind cannot conceive of its own perceptions being "wrong". They are both absolutely "right" in their own minds.

  Another example, from when I was in nursing: two women share the same hospital room at the same time, have the same nurse, receive the same food, and the same treatment. One believes she has never been treated so well and taken care of so well in her life, the other believes she has never been treated so poorly and can't wait to get out of there. The events (facts) were the same, but they have overlayed their own personal meanings and histories/stories on to their identical experiences and come to two totally opposite conclusions. They both are absolutely convinced that their perceptions are "correct".

  I think understanding the process of how we form our beliefs about what we know is "right" or "true" is key. Those who understand the process can often see how others perspectives come into being and can have compassion, empathy, and show respect for the person regardless of whether they accept that the other person's beliefs are factual/right or not.

  Arrogance, and bullying tactics in arguing, is often used both by those who are factually correct and those who may be factually wrong. It is more of a manifestation of how attached their identities and egos are to being "right". Some people have a deathly fear of being "wrong". In some instances, it is only their ego identity at stake, in other's they believe their very lives are at stake. JW's are the perfect example of this. Being "wrong" about their beliefs in God and the Bible means death at Armageddon. In other religions, being "wrong" can mean eternal damnation in a fiery hell. If I thought I was going to burn forever in hell for being "wrong" or die at Armageddon, I would be very attached to being "right" also and I was for many years!

  I think the scientific method does have advantages when gathering the facts, but that does not mean that individual scientists do not lay down their own meanings onto the facts they have gathered and that their egos are not very attached to those meanings. Perhaps they do not believe their eternal salvation is at stake, but their esteem in the eyes of their colleagues, their jobs, or even their attachment to the belief that they are a "superior", intelligent person and "superior", intelligent persons cannot be "wrong", is at stake and is still a very poweful motivator.

  So both sides can be subject to these very powerful motivations to be "right" at all costs. The "cost" is usually respecting other peoples feelings, dignity as a person, and right to hold a differing opinion or "meaning" than us. Humility is the opposite of arrogance, and means accepting that others still deserve to be treated and spoken to with respect wether they are "right" or "wrong". It also means accepting the possibility, that our own meanings and conclusions we have laid down over the facts, may also prove to be wrong some day. Bullying, name calling, insulting others in arguments has nothing to do with facts and being "right" or "wrong". It is about trying to control how other's view the facts and force them into accepting our "meanings". It is about demanding the respect and importance we believe we deserve for whatever reason. This has little to do with actual intelligence and everything to do with needing to be important and superior in the eyes of others.

  We've all seen a lot of this behaviour in the WBTS. Many have carried this trait over into this forum and will continue to do so until they can look beyond the "facts" and the "truth" and look at the process.

  Cog.
• 

  Mad

  thank you, Jgnat!
• 

  Abaddon

  Almost atheist

  You feel like saying, "Dude, get educated, THEN come talk to me!"

  Feel like? I DO say that!! And boy does it go down like a pork saucege at a Bahmitspha (sp?). I have tried everything from direct ("you are wrong, try reading up on the subject") to nicey-nicey ("that's an interesting opinion and I thought something along those lines too but then I found out that xyz"), and it makes little difference; people don't like being told they are wrong no matter what sauce you serve with it.

  But in his own way, the other guy has probably done some research too.

  He may be feeling exactly like you, wondering -- bewildered, even -- how you can possibly sit there with a straight face and claim you don't "get it".

  I like to think this but this belief is frequently shattered when I find the 'research' is mainstream journalism or lobby groups with the resultent superficial, sensationalised, or biased results. And when you point this out, do people pause and check stuff? Not nearly often enough. Normally they make any 'arrogance' on the part of the well-informed insignificant in comparion to their own; complacent ignorance is a postition as liable to arrogance as 'intellectualism'.

  I also think that the confidence of someone who has gone around the block on an issue where factual polarity is possible can be mistaken for arrogance by people who haven't done the ground work.

  jgnat

  That arrogance thing also might be related to testosterone. I notice in a fight, though I am feisty, I am no match to a bulldog male brain on the offence. He just won't stop chewing on that old bone.

  Don't bring balls into this. I know women, hell, I am marrying a woman who can go toe-to-toe with 'bulldog male brains'.

  cog dis

  Some people have a deathly fear of being "wrong".

  Yup. Contarywise, I LIKE being wrong. If I hadn't been stupendously wrong at one point in my life and embraced it and done something about it I would still be a Dubbie - and that i true for many here. Being wrong means I can learn something. I do however have high standards of proof and someone has to really prove they are right; but when they do, fine. I don't invest my ego in ignoring facts.
• 

  cognizant dissident

  Abbadon

  and it makes little difference; people don't like being told they are wrong no matter what sauce you serve with it.

  Very funny and very true! I think you just summed up my very wordy post in one line. I may steal this line from you in the future.

  I also am learning that being "wrong" is only a bad thing if we make it a bad thing. I feel very "wrong" and stupid and gullible for being fooled by watchtower beliefs for 40 years. My "ego" was very attached to believing I am intelligent and right. Actually it still it is, but I would rather be wrong than still be enslaved to that "story" any longer. Humility, and admitting the possibility that we are wrong, is the first step to being open to learning wonderful new things. There is more of this world and universe than any of us know. Being "experts" means having all the answers already. Experts have no need to look further and investigate further. Now that's arrogance!

  I agree with you about the need to question and hold "truths" that are presented to us up to a higher standard of evidence. That would go along way to eliminating many misconceptions and much ignorance in the world. I think most people trust and believe what is spoon fed to them by parents, teachers, politicians, media, and religious leaders, much to easily. Questioning and asking for further evidence and proof before we go along with other's beliefs, theories and hypotheses is NOT to be confused with arrogance. This is a sign of wisdom and greater intelligence. It can be done in a humble and respectful way also. But boy, when I do it, does it ever piss other people off! Especially my family and other JW's! Not only do other people not like to be told they are wrong, but even if you don't tell them they are wrong or try to argue to prove yourself right, but only quietly and respectfully say that you do not agree with them or are not convinced of their assertions, that can escalate their anger to mammoth levels. Truth tellers, tread carefully!

  Cog.
• 

  RAF

  CD

  that can escalate their anger to mammoth levels

  ... LOL ... I may steal this line from you in the future !!
• 

  The wanderer

  Dear Dave:
  
  First, I would like to commend you for a well written
  article. Second, and more importantly the open-mind-
  ness expressed in the article tells us about you as
  an individual.
  
  Now regarding the original question. Some individuals
  feel that because they maybe right regarding a particular
  position, that this gives them certain "bragging" rights.
  
  "Ha, Ha, I am smarter than you." This may go back to the
  schoolyard days when they wanted to impress their peers
  by saying "look guys, no hands!" when they were riding
  their bicycle.
  
  In other words, they may have something to prove.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  The Wanderer
• 

  R.Crusoe

  There're so many sound ideologies and opinions around that if you've got a healthy forum it's useful too put ideas up against each other to help explore your own truth. If you come at it from the point of view of everyone understanding your point of view without trying to turn it around, your mindset is gonna give you lots of conflicts and internal challenges. It should be far more about learning about how your own views fit into an arena full of others views. If anyone slags you off they're probably in that CONFLICT zone themselves, feeling you're having a personal jibe at their persona - even if you're not. Understanding this will help you not to take it personally when someone criticises you, compelling you to respond in kind or else withdraw into a depressed state. Better to ask them why they feel how they do and explain yourself and if they don't respond you've done all you can.
• 

  Anti-Christ

  Staying open minded is the only way to allow ourselves to progress