Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by CoolHand on Friday October 09 2015, @01:39PM   Printer-friendly
from the know-it-all dept.

People who think they know it all—or at least, a lot—may be on to something, according to a Baylor University study.

The finding was a surprise to researchers at Baylor and the University of Mary Hardin-Baylor, who had theorized that "intellectual humility"—having an accurate or moderate view of one's intelligence and being open to criticism and ideas—would correlate with grades.

But being full of oneself when it came to rating one's intellectual arrogance—an exaggerated view of intellectual ability and knowledge—instead generally predicted academic achievement, especially on individual course work, according to the study. The research—"Contrasting self-report and consensus ratings of intellectual humility and arrogance"—is published in the Journal of Research in Personality and funded by a grant from The John Templeton Foundation.

"One possibility is that people who view themselves as intellectually arrogant know what they know and that translates to increases in academic performance," said researcher Wade C. Rowatt, Ph.D., Baylor professor of psychology and neuroscience.


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 09 2015, @01:42PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 09 2015, @01:42PM (#247389)

    "Confident people do better"? No, really?! Its likely the "intellectually humble" are constantly doubting themselves, causing them to second-guess themselves and overthink things.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Friday October 09 2015, @02:08PM

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday October 09 2015, @02:08PM (#247410) Journal

      That's how I see it. "Fortune favors the bold." Self assurance has always helped to make things go your way.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by physicsmajor on Friday October 09 2015, @03:49PM

        by physicsmajor (1471) on Friday October 09 2015, @03:49PM (#247472)

        It's probably just on tests. These individuals are more likely to confidently answer, and "going with your gut" is good test strategy.

        Those with less confidence probably second guess and talk themselves out of the right answers.

        I'd argue that in the real world the latter is more valuable than the former, especially when working with other people, and there likely isn't a large difference in true intelligence or achievement potential. But, as "smart" increasingly translates to "tests well," you get studies like this.

        • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Friday October 09 2015, @11:00PM

          by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Friday October 09 2015, @11:00PM (#247628) Homepage Journal

          I'd argue that in the real world the latter is more valuable than the former, especially when working with other people, and there likely isn't a large difference in true intelligence or achievement potential.

          An interesting point. However, I'd argue that we need both kinds of people.

          if we only had the bold, "go with your gut" kind of people, humans would likely have killed ourselves off with war and crazy risk taking. At the same time, as G.B. Shaw (correctly, IMHO) pointed out:

          The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.

          However, without the careful, more risk-averse types, we likely could never have consolidated our knowledge and technology and would still be hunter-gatherers, with agriculture being something that can only be advanced by more risk-averse types.

          --
          No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
          • (Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Saturday October 10 2015, @12:32AM

            by hemocyanin (186) on Saturday October 10 2015, @12:32AM (#247656) Journal

            I don't necessarily disagree with your main point, but I see agriculture as being more conservative than risk taking (and yes I recognize that there are various reasons for crop failure). I would guess that agriculture and hunter/gathering coexisted as a conservative strategy -- if all the deer disappear, you still have the corn -- if the corn dies in a late frost, you still have the deer. It's a strategy of NOT putting all your eggs in one basket. The risk taker would go after the singular activity that held out the most immediate promise, and risked starvation if that didn't pan out.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 09 2015, @01:47PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 09 2015, @01:47PM (#247390)

    Will psychology ever report something with some bit of substance? Medicalexpress.com is like phys.org, a clickbait "science" site churning out crappola.

  • (Score: 5, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 09 2015, @01:48PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 09 2015, @01:48PM (#247392)

    I'll wait until Mighty Buzzard or Ethanol Fueled post, since they seem to know quite a bit about everything.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 09 2015, @01:51PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 09 2015, @01:51PM (#247394)

      They can't lick AC's boots.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 09 2015, @02:02PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 09 2015, @02:02PM (#247402)

    Of course, I already knew this, because I'm great.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 09 2015, @02:07PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 09 2015, @02:07PM (#247409)

      We were going to recognize you, but we couldn't find your contact info.

      - Turing Award Committee

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 09 2015, @05:44PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 09 2015, @05:44PM (#247502)

        That's because you're not as great as me. I know my contact info, and I'm great. You don't know my contact info, and therefore you're not great. Q.E.D. Flawless logic.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 09 2015, @06:02PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 09 2015, @06:02PM (#247507)

      Those people that don't think they're great? They're losers!

  • (Score: 1, Offtopic) by sudo rm -rf on Friday October 09 2015, @02:09PM

    by sudo rm -rf (2357) on Friday October 09 2015, @02:09PM (#247412) Journal

    Willie Nelson attended Baylor. Now cue a heated discussion on what kind of music is the better one: Western or Country. In 1...2...A-one,two,three,four

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 09 2015, @02:21PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 09 2015, @02:21PM (#247424)

      That's Crazy.

    • (Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Friday October 09 2015, @06:38PM

      by nitehawk214 (1304) on Friday October 09 2015, @06:38PM (#247516)

      Here we play BOTH kinds of music. Country and Western!

      --
      "Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 09 2015, @02:15PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 09 2015, @02:15PM (#247417)

    The biggest assholes are doctorate holders. They spend their lives dedicated to one thing and somehow that makes them a master of all things.

    MDs are the absolute worst.

    • (Score: 2) by ikanreed on Friday October 09 2015, @02:53PM

      by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Friday October 09 2015, @02:53PM (#247441) Journal

      And yet, they're still better than politicians, lawyers, and judges.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 09 2015, @03:09PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 09 2015, @03:09PM (#247451)

      Ha, that's because us Doctorate holders know how smart we are, and your loathing is borne from your blatant stupidity of not being aware how ignorant you are.

      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 09 2015, @03:49PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 09 2015, @03:49PM (#247471)

        People who are legitimately intelligent realize just how much more there is know than what they have already managed to discover.

        People who have stopped learning long ago have done so because they have such a narrow vision of the world they are convinced that they've seen it all.

    • (Score: 1) by Francis on Friday October 09 2015, @03:39PM

      by Francis (5544) on Friday October 09 2015, @03:39PM (#247467)

      I know a lot of people who hold PhDs and in most cases you'd never know. They don't mention it and the only reason why I know is that my mother works with them.

      I'm guessing that there's a certain amount of selection bias going on as in many fields you're not required to hold a doctorate or use the honorific; consequently the people claiming to be Dr. so and so are probably more inclined to be arrogant. But, even within fields where having a PhD or other doctorate is the norm, you don't always have people using the title as a part of their name.

    • (Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Saturday October 10 2015, @12:37AM

      by hemocyanin (186) on Saturday October 10 2015, @12:37AM (#247657) Journal

      Dogbert, career counselor: http://dilbert.com/strip/1996-05-10 [dilbert.com]

    • (Score: 2) by art guerrilla on Saturday October 10 2015, @01:32AM

      by art guerrilla (3082) on Saturday October 10 2015, @01:32AM (#247669)

      seems appropriate to leave one of my favorite quotes here:

      An expert is someone who knows more and more about less and less, until they know absolutely everything there is to know about nothing at all !

    • (Score: 2) by Magic Oddball on Saturday October 10 2015, @06:08AM

      by Magic Oddball (3847) on Saturday October 10 2015, @06:08AM (#247711) Journal

      Not in my experience... I haven't seen/heard many of them judging the rest of humanity based on the person's interest & ability to perform in the doctorate-holder's specialty, insisting that their subject is on par with the "3 Rs" in educational importance, scorning markedly different fields of study or talents, or similar obnoxiously arrogant attitudes. The average Slashdotter, however...

  • (Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Friday October 09 2015, @02:30PM

    by MichaelDavidCrawford (2339) Subscriber Badge <mdcrawford@gmail.com> on Friday October 09 2015, @02:30PM (#247430) Homepage Journal

    My application essay to Caltech more or less said I would get the Nobel in Physics.

    --
    Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 09 2015, @03:53PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 09 2015, @03:53PM (#247477)

      well did you?

  • (Score: 2, Touché) by shrewdsheep on Friday October 09 2015, @02:56PM

    by shrewdsheep (5215) on Friday October 09 2015, @02:56PM (#247443)

    TLDR

    I think the effect to the contrary has been well established
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect [wikipedia.org]
    The Dunning-Kruger effect is also true by my personal experience. Whatever they did I suspect a flaw in their design/interpretation.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 09 2015, @03:05PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 09 2015, @03:05PM (#247448)

      Maybe there is some correlation between arrogance/confidence and "testing well"? At least some of academic performance boils down to not choking at test time...

      • (Score: 2) by Tork on Friday October 09 2015, @03:11PM

        by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Friday October 09 2015, @03:11PM (#247452)
        Maybe arrogance puts one in a position to try harrder in order to avoid humility.
        --
        🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
      • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Francis on Friday October 09 2015, @03:33PM

        by Francis (5544) on Friday October 09 2015, @03:33PM (#247463)

        I'm generally skeptical of psychological "research," but this one probably has some merit.

        As a teacher, I'd expect people that are too arrogant to know that something is too hard for them to make more progress than people who have more realistic expectations. The reason being that fear and not trying are a huge drag on learning. Even if you do get in over your head and fail, you'll still learn something. Over time that something extra adds up.

        The key though is how one reacts to the failure when it does come. If you're ascribing it to some sort of inherent weakness or inability on your own part, you're probably not going to get past that plateau. However, if you're arrogant enough to think that you'll get through it, then you have a chance of getting past it.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 09 2015, @05:00PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 09 2015, @05:00PM (#247490)

          I'm generally skeptical of psychological "research," but this one probably has some merit.

          In other words, this one seems to support what I already believe, so therefore it is probably true.

          • (Score: 1) by Francis on Friday October 09 2015, @07:40PM

            by Francis (5544) on Friday October 09 2015, @07:40PM (#247549)

            No, in other words, the findings are consistent with observable reality. You can't teach somebody who won't try. And you can't teach somebody who believes that they can't succeed. I've had numerous students like that over the years and they never succeed. I don't think I've ever seen a case of a student succeeding who really wasn't trying.

            It definitely could be confirmation bias, but that's doubtful. While you can't ensure success via positive thinking, you definitely can ensure failure via negative thinking. It's really easy to fail at things and usually quite a bit harder to succeed.

            • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Saturday October 10 2015, @07:55AM

              by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Saturday October 10 2015, @07:55AM (#247725)

              No, in other words, the findings are consistent with observable reality.

              Or at least give you the appearance of being consistent with observable reality. It's just another garbage study that tries to measure the subjective.

        • (Score: 2) by VLM on Friday October 09 2015, @07:16PM

          by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Friday October 09 2015, @07:16PM (#247534)

          I'd expect people that are too arrogant to know that something is too hard for them to make more progress than people who have more realistic expectations.

          There have been many analogies with athletics along those lines, I donno of any social sciences numbers. There isn't much difference between endurance sports like hiking, and endurance-like academics. Either you lose heart and give up along the way, or you make it, its that simple.

          • (Score: 1) by Francis on Friday October 09 2015, @07:43PM

            by Francis (5544) on Friday October 09 2015, @07:43PM (#247551)

            That wouldn't surprise me at all.

            The question in that is the same as the question in academics. Negative thinking can hinder your performance and a lack of negative thinking can allow you to hit a more natural peak. I remember playing high school football as a 5'10" 156# weakling who was also the slowest on the team. But, I was always hitting much harder than my speed or size would indicate because I wasn't crippling myself with fear.

            The really interesting question is to what extent positive thinking can boost performance above removing the handicap.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by termigator on Friday October 09 2015, @05:05PM

      by termigator (4271) on Friday October 09 2015, @05:05PM (#247491)

      Testing well does not necessarily mean one is intelligent, just that they passed some test.

      Regardless of intelligence, if you have a history of getting good grades, then you will likely be confident that you will continue to get good grades.

      I have no many people who got good grades in school, but if you asked them specific questions about subjects they got good grades in, they are clueless.

      • (Score: 1) by termigator on Friday October 09 2015, @05:09PM

        by termigator (4271) on Friday October 09 2015, @05:09PM (#247493)

        "I have known many people..."

        Tablet touch keyboards suck.

  • (Score: 4, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 09 2015, @03:11PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 09 2015, @03:11PM (#247453)

    I had absolutely NO idea when I hang out here I am among so many who obviously got outstanding grades in school.

  • (Score: 2, Touché) by nitehawk214 on Friday October 09 2015, @03:13PM

    by nitehawk214 (1304) on Friday October 09 2015, @03:13PM (#247454)

    I think they have the cause and effect backwards. I know plenty of "intellectually arrogant" people that are complete idiots.

    --
    "Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 09 2015, @03:33PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 09 2015, @03:33PM (#247464)

      I silently laugh when an arrogant know-it-all starts spewing bullshit out of his mouth. I usually set a conversation trap to make them look stupid, and they fall for it. I had one guy go over the top, saying he was so smart that he "bought an old uniform from a surplus supply store, walked onto a military air base, and took an F16 for a joy ride".

      • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday October 09 2015, @03:52PM

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday October 09 2015, @03:52PM (#247474) Journal

        I did the same thing. The wife said the paint job was ugly, didn't match the house, so I took it back to the base where I found it. Now I'm back to the plain white car, which matches the house.

      • (Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Friday October 09 2015, @06:40PM

        by nitehawk214 (1304) on Friday October 09 2015, @06:40PM (#247517)

        Often they are too stupid to realize they fell into a logic trap and too stupid to realize they look stupid.

        Much like playing chess with a pigeon...

        --
        "Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 09 2015, @04:26PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 09 2015, @04:26PM (#247483)

      I think they have the cause and effect backwards. I know plenty of "intellectually arrogant" people that are complete idiots.

      I think you are right. This study only sampled college undergrads (apparently from Baylor). That's got to bias the results of a study about academic achievement since kids who didn't have good enough grades to get into Baylor were effectively pre-screened out.

      More generally, it is an open secret that most psych studies are biased in a similar way. [nytimes.com]

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 09 2015, @11:51PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 09 2015, @11:51PM (#247644)

        Do I need to say more?

        N.B. I just got through listening to the cold opening of this week's Jimmy Dore Show. [jimmydorecomedy.com]
        Great stuff. (MP3 available shortly from that page.)

        -- gewg_

    • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Friday October 09 2015, @07:29PM

      by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Friday October 09 2015, @07:29PM (#247544) Journal

      I suspect it's a bit more subtle. There's a mixed population, some of which are very intelligent, and some of which are less intelligent. Also in the population there's an (independent?) mix of people who are arrogant and non-arrogant.

      The arrogant people are move adverse to looking bad. So that part of the population which is both intelligent and arrogant studies hard so that it won't look bad when tests are run. As a result there is a tendency for the arrogant to have better grades, even though intelligence is an independent variable.

      --
      Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
  • (Score: 4, Informative) by ledow on Friday October 09 2015, @03:55PM

    by ledow (5567) on Friday October 09 2015, @03:55PM (#247478) Homepage

    I think it has more to do with the other way round.

    If you have deep knowledge of a subject, then you KNOW if the other person is wrong or not. You know the proof, the data, the methodology, the latest research that was undertaken and came to the correct conclusion, which disproves their spouting off about whatever it is.

    If you KNOW someone is wrong, then you have a tendency to correct them. I don't see how being open to criticism is lumped into that. "I'm right, but feel free to prove me wrong" is the mantra of many a scientist - and they do indeed enjoy being proven wrong as that advances science just as much, if not more.

    If you have no idea, then of course you're open to correction and criticism, by default. Because you don't know enough to say "That's wrong" or "That's right".

    I'm one of those REALLY annoying people, however. I will absorb and research absolute trivia and then when someone says something at a party, I can't resist saying "Actually..." A lot of the time they just don't believe me, and then when they do question it, I can dig out the proof as required.

    It doesn't work in subjective arguments / opinions, but in terms of simple facts, "intellectual arrogance" is really just knowing that you're right no matter how the other person insists. It's not a character trait, as such, as actually having the proof to hand or in your head and knowing that.

    (I was once on a cruise and you get chatting to people on cruises. One guy we met claimed to have invented the game of UNO, and all kinds of whacky things. Then the subject turned to that game where you join three houses each to three utilities without crossing lines on a flat piece of paper. He tried to tell me that he'd solved it. I was expecting some clever trick, or folding the paper, or considering extra dimensions or some such but, no, he insisted he knew a way to solve it without tricks. I insisted he didn't. He said I was welcome to prove him wrong, that he couldn't do it. It was at that point that 3 years of Graph Theory courses kicked in and I whacked out a proof that he was wrong. He went very sheepish and wouldn't talk to us after that. I'd have been much more impressed by even just "Oh, and fold this here, and then write on the back and then..." then just sheer bald assertion of nonsense in an area that I happened to know very well. If it had been something I hadn't known as well, I may have taken him at his word and looked it up later. But the "intellectual arrogance" of KNOWING that he was wrong and I could prove it mathematically in front of him, that just comes from knowing better, I feel).

    • (Score: 2) by Hyperturtle on Friday October 09 2015, @05:57PM

      by Hyperturtle (2824) on Friday October 09 2015, @05:57PM (#247505)

      I mostly agree with you, except for that I have met quite a few intellectually arrogant people... that were also very wrong.

      They didn't know what they didn't know, but had quite a strong opinion about what they thought they knew-- your Uno guy was a good example of this. He was intellectually arrogant until humbled after being proven wrong.

      I also know people (and I hope to be some day!) I would consider to be intellectually superior and at ease with themselves about it.

      I don't see anything arrogant about occasionally correcting mistakes, even strongly, if the corrective action prevents some sort of harm*

      (*context depending on too many variables to list here.)

      Sometimes though, it is socially superior to allow some people to be wrong.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 09 2015, @10:46PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 09 2015, @10:46PM (#247622)

      There is a reason the guy did not come near you again. Not because you were 'right' or 'wrong'. But because you were an ass about it.

      This is a good way to go about life. https://xkcd.com/1053/ [xkcd.com]

      When you come at someone with the dick attitude they will dislike you and ignore anything you have to say. It will not mater if you are right. You will get sidelined and ignored. A better way to go about it would be to say 'check this out here is what I learned' then draw out the proof. 'but maybe you have a better way can you show me what you are doing? Because I may have been taught wrong?'. Then let him show you. You can then say 'hey I dont understand this bit here shouldnt it be xyz?'. At that point they will question what they did because they will have to explain it and they will self correct. Your attitude cut you off from someone who possibly you could have learned from or they from you.

      Also for your problem you could 'cheat'. What if you went thru the middle of one of the buildings and the endpoints were on the 'outside' of the buildings? You are not technically crossing the lines. But the problem is not exactly precise on its wording usually. If the lines go all the way to the middle then yes they must cross in a 2d plane.

      • (Score: 2) by ledow on Saturday October 10 2015, @02:33AM

        by ledow (5567) on Saturday October 10 2015, @02:33AM (#247678) Homepage

        You've assumed I was a dick about it.

        This was on the QE2. It's a fine-dining kind of cruise ship, with lots of interesting people. Met some fabulous people there. Played Scrabble against this guy and was talking to him for hours. He had all kinds of yarns, we listened to them all.

        And what I did was almost exactly what you said. I'm a mathematician. I love puzzles. I would have been greatly interested in anything, even if it was just a "puzzle trick" like going through the buildings (proving the limits of the classic node/edge problem for any number of nodes/houses, edges/lines is pretty trivial), or the paper, or some kind of jiggery-pokery with the pen.

        What happened was that I said I'd be greatly interested in that, and pressed him for a solution. He wouldn't give it, because "well, you're the mathematician", etc. so I verbally had him eliminate classes of trickery until we were both on the same page (i.e. the classic problem), then demonstrated a quick proof. And at that, he get very stroppy and stopped playing and refused to co-operate and - a few minutes later - left us still insisting he had a way.

        I didn't particularly care, there was plenty else to do and I'd have carried on listening to his tales (no matter how tall) because he was a charismatic guy, a loveable eccentric like a couple of other people in my family who I get on well with even when they're talking bollocks. He could have just changed the subject, I wouldn't have pressed him. I didn't say a word about his claim to have invented Uno 20 years ago - he actually approached us because we were playing that very game on the tables on the ship.

        But if you're going to throw a paddy, then learn to accept criticism, or change the subject so you're not being rude. Nobody cares if I'm right or he is. Not even us.

    • (Score: 1) by Francis on Saturday October 10 2015, @01:17AM

      by Francis (5544) on Saturday October 10 2015, @01:17AM (#247666)

      That supposes that the data is correct and that you're not too indoctrinated to notice if there's a problem with the data.

      Often times the Dunning-Krueger effect is what it claims to be. However, when you start talking with doctors, they often times have a severely limited capacity to comprehend what happens outside of their own field. So, you wind up with conclusions that are faulty, and only noticed by people who aren't in that specialty. There's a ton of really good work being done in the neurosciences and little of that is making it into psychology.

      Also keep in mind that most of the major advances come from people that are new to the field. It's not because of burn out, it's because they haven't invested themselves in the current dogma. They can see other possibilities and sometimes those possibilities turn out to be a useful direction to pursue.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 10 2015, @04:16PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 10 2015, @04:16PM (#247791)

        There's a ton of really good work being done in the neurosciences and little of that is making it into psychology.

        Um, neuroscience is psychology. Did you mean "pop" psychology perhaps?

  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by OrugTor on Friday October 09 2015, @04:28PM

    by OrugTor (5147) Subscriber Badge on Friday October 09 2015, @04:28PM (#247484)

    Why are we even discussing this?

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 10 2015, @07:52AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 10 2015, @07:52AM (#247723)

    This just in: Another piece of pseudoscience that asked people to subjectively rate some subjective quality of themselves and others arrogantly pretends it's scientific.

  • (Score: 2) by Yog-Yogguth on Saturday October 10 2015, @02:04PM

    by Yog-Yogguth (1862) Subscriber Badge on Saturday October 10 2015, @02:04PM (#247764) Journal

    There's a lot of arrogance that is likely to be nothing more than language and cultural artifacts; a lot of things (factual or subjective) can't be expressed without sounding at least mildly arrogant.

    Further if one makes a distinction between hubris (unfounded and overly optimistic belief of success and/or correctness) and arrogance then how much of what is left as arrogance is nothing but an awareness in individual A that individual B disagrees with individual A? All of it? Nothing but an emotion in that case.

    Everyone is arrogant, how arrogant is it then to think of only some as arrogant, and isn't it even more arrogant to accuse or complain that someone is being arrogant? Nothing but a passive-agressive version of “fuck you!”.

    Arrogant and naive, words to try to avoid using :)

    (And of course this post is arrogant, how could it not be?)

    --
    Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))