Arrogance, Anger and Debate

Abstract

Arrogance has widespread negative consequences for epistemic practices. Arrogant people tend to intimidate and humiliate other agents, and to ignore or dismiss their views. They have a propensity to mansplain. They are also angry. In this paper I explain why anger is a common manifestation of arrogance in order to understand the effects of arrogance on debate. I argue that superbia (which is the kind of arrogance that is my concern here) is a vice of superiority characterised by an overwhelming desire to diminish other people in order to excel and by a tendency to arrogate special entitlements for oneself, i ludi g the p i ilege of ot ha i g to justif o e s lai s.Arrogance, including intellectual arrogance, can take different forms. One kind of arrogance finds its expression in hubristic forms of hyper-autonomy. It is characterised by aloofness, and feelings of invulnerability which lead to irresponsible attitudes to risk. The behaviour of some investment managers prior to the 2008 financial crisis illustrates this form of hubristic arrogance. There is, however, a different cluster of attitudes and dispositions which are usually perceived as arrogant. These include smugness, self-importance, self-satisfaction and a thin skin. Individuals exhibiting these features tend to put other people down; they are bullies who shout, intimidate and humiliate others. They may also condescend and belittle. A paradigmatic example of this kind of person is the powerful individual who dominates discussions, reacts angrily when criticised, and rudely interrupts other people he the a e speaki g. He a d it is ost ofte a he also adopts a a iet of i ti idati g and humiliating postures to induce others to self-silence and to become excessively deferential.

An Evaluation of Arrogance Orientations of Academicians in Higher Education According to Student and Alumni Opinions

“…Based on these attitudes, it is obvious that arrogance orientations are associated with others by these people through a hierarchical superiority. According to Tanesini (2018), arrogant ones who claim the privilege of not being responsible for others do not feel obliged to explain the reasons for their decisions to others. They act as if they don't need to justify their claims.…”

Virtue Theories of Argument

“…For example, the distinction between reliabilist (broadly externalist) and responsibilist (broadly internalist) conceptions of virtue has been found a ready application (Gascón 2018b). Some epistemologists have recently proposed a shift of focus from virtues to vices; vice epistemology also has a counterpart in the study of argument (Aberdein 2016a;Kidd 2017Kidd , 2020Tanesini 2018Tanesini , 2019Tanesini , 2020Tanesini , 2021. More esoteric developments in virtue epistemology have also found application in treatments of argument, including the role of exemplars (Amaya 2013;Sato 2015;Terrill 2016;Casey and Cohen 2020) and human flourishing, or eudaimonia, as a grounding for intellectual virtues (Aberdein 2020b).…”

Analisis Faktor-Faktor yang Mendasari Perilaku Kecurangan Akademik

“…Individu yang arogan memiliki keinginan untuk selalu lebih unggul dibandingkan individu lainnya. Individu tersebut butuh pengakuan akan kemampuannya (Tanesini, 2018). Pada penelitian ini, responden penelitian mayoritas ada pada usia dewasa.…”