Arrognace is not such a bad thing. The thinkTank Panel (of One) is actually an admireror of Arrogance. Arrogance is simply unknowingly misunderstood by millions. Meanwhile no one seems to realize that arrogance's cousin "confidence" is celebrated simply becasue it is comforting to the collective anxiety of society. Today the ThinkTank Panel (of One) will explain the subtle yet definative difference between arrogance and confidence.
Arrogance (Note the Banned Black Shoes)
There is a very specific difference between confidence and arrogance. Confidence is always based on past perfomance. You've done it before so you believe you can do it again. You have had this question before and you researched the answer to it so you are confident your answer is correct this time around. Or it may be that you have been training long and hard for a competition, and so you are confident that you are prepared and the hard work will payoff.
In contrast to confidence, which is based on a verifible past precendent, Arrogance is not based on anything what-so-ever. It is an absolute resolution or position with no factual or substantial basis. We generally admire confidence becassue it points to a legitimate cause and effect relationship that demonstrates principles we prize as a society such as; hard work leads to success, practice makes perfect, or the best predictor of future outcome is past performance. These are cornerstones of logic. They comfort us by reinforcing the notion that there are definitive patterns that rule the world. Nature is consistent and unchanging. We take comfort in that constency and reliability. In a way, confidence is an expectation that the universe is in perfect working order. It is faith confirmed by experience. It's the essence of common sense.
On the other hand, arrogance has the audacity to rebel against comon sense. To be arrognat is to say "past performance is nothing. The laws of nature as you understand them do not apply to me. The previous answers are wrong, and you are just going to have to trust me on this. "
Arrogance is not inherently bad, but it rubs people the wrong way because it demands blind faith to accept or support it's assertions. Blind faith is a precarious position to be in, and therefore we all feel threatened by arrogance, and resent those that put us in such a postion by being arrogant. But it should be noted that any kind of new discovery, any challenge to the status quo begins as arrogance. But once it is demonstrated and established it becomes confidence, because it is now based on past performnace.
The ThinksIveThunk.com ThinkTank Panel (of One) spent thousands of man hours reviewing various real life scenarios and examples to illustrate this point, and has concluded under rigorous pseudo-analysis a that (as usual) the ultimate example is Michael Jordan.
Michael Jordan took the NBA by storm during the 1984-85 season. Jordan averaged over 28 points per game as a rookie, and his arial assaults on the rim immediately garnered him a national following. Michael not only embodied arrogance in his aggressive, never back down style of play, but also rebelled agaisnt established convention with his signature Black and Red Nike Air Jordan sneakers. Who was this guy to demand the attention and admiration of fans everywhere? Who was this guy that challenged the established pecking order of superstars with out a hint of deference for who the reigning World Champions were? And so the The Black and Red colorway of the Air Jordan was banned by the NBA, and Jordan's fellow All Stars attempted to freeze him out of the All Star game becasue they all collectively and indivdually felt threatened by the arogance of Michael Jordan's unwavering assertion that he was going to dominate the entire game of basketball through shear determined force of his ultracompetitive will. Multiple early playoff exits did not deter Michael Jordan or change his stance. And so Machael Jordan not only remained the epitimy of arrogance, but appeared to be spitefully resisting conversion to confidence as he failed year after year to win a title, which only made him appear more arrogant than he was already percieved as being, if that was even possible.
But then Michael Jordan won an NBA title in 1991. And Suddenly Michael Jordan wasn't quite so arrogant. He won again in 1992 and 1993. He then retired as the Third Supremely confident Athlete of the Century with Babe Ruth and Muhamad Ali.
Then Michael Jordan decdied to play minor league baseball. A professional basketball player had never quit basketball and then become a pro baseball player before ( well it probably happened but not "everybody" knew about it). Attempting to do so challenged the assumptions of what a professional athlete should do and how they should be. Suddenly Michael Jordan was arrogant again. That was until he finally got tired of striking out and decided to return to basketball. At which point he was immediatley hailed as arrgoant again becasue he expected to come back and be as good if not better than before.
Of course after an initial disappoiting playoff loss to Orlando, Michael Jordan won three more NBA titles, and became even more supremely confident than before, because now he had more NBA championships than just about everyone but a handful of Boston Celtics players. He was hailed as confident because he now had 6 rings to back up his claims to dominate the game. His past perfomance justified his attitude and deamenor....Ergo he was confident and no longer arrogant.
That is until he came out of retirement yet again.....but we won't go there due to time constraints and it makes some members of the Think Tank Panel (of One) get a little misty eyed.
The only quasi-clearer illustration of arrogance is this post its self. This post has the audacity to proclaim the definative definition of the word arrogance with no track record of etymology, no credential as a philologist, or even a measly citation. Merely reading this post has demanded that the reader forsake all previous knowldge of dictionaries and vernacular usage of the word and demands that reader to step off a ledge of substance through a perceived veil of nothingness with only the vague hope that the Think Tank Panel (of One) will catch them on the other side. How arrogant is that? It is the very definition of arrogance!!! But if that reader takes that leap of faith and finds the Think Tank Panel (of One) is in perfect postion to catch them, they immediately will have demonstrated the truth of the matter and their step off that ledge is now a past presedent from which an on-going path of confidence can be blazed back through the veil of nothingness to truth.
The NBA has banned shoes made by Athletic Propolsion Labs. (A link to the ESPN article is here.) The article quotes the NBA as saying: "Under league rules, players may not wear any shoe during a game that creates an undue competitive advantage."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't "undue competive advantage" the whole point behind the performance athletic shoe industry?? Nike has created "technologies"such as Air, Shox, Foamposite and Zoom Air. Reebok has produced technologies such as The Pump, DMX, hexalite and even a CO2 cartridge custom fit mechanism. Adidas has The Adaprene system and the classic "Feet you Wear" campaign. The underlying appealof all these shoes and the ad compaigns used to hauk them was the competitive advantage the wearer of these shoes would have over their competition. However with all the research, development and rigorous testing on the feet of the worlds finest athletes testing, none of these shoes have ever been considered an "undue competitve advantage."
The fact that Athletic Propulsion Labs has managed to create a shoe that improves performance so much that it could potentially disrupt the fairplay dynamics of the entire league, means APL must have one hell of a shoe.
Of course a small faction of the ThinkTank Panel (Of One) sees a thinly veiled conspiracy. When it comes to basketball shoes, history shows the only marketing ploy more effective than the explicit endorsement of the world's greatest basketball player, is the explicit banning of the shoe by the NBA.
So much of life is going through the motions. We humans being are creatures of habit, we learn by routine and perfect via repetition. Consistency is a virtue we all seek, against the unpredictable chaos that surrounds us. The other virtue we seek to attain is the flip side to this coin; versatility or adaptability, the power to adjust and course-correct in the face of the chaotic onslaught of life. Between these two virtues one can sail through calm seas in record time, and then stay afloat and maintain their heading when those seas become rough. To survive and to thrive.
Well just as the seas can not be both calm and rough at the same time, so too are we human beings either in consistency thrive mode, or adapting survive mode. One can not seek to attain proficiency and perfection through continual change and adjustment, nor can one expect to find innovation repeating the same means over and over.
Now this post's painfully obvious lesson in juvenile pop psychology is probably insulting to the intelligence of most reader's but while the notion is still fresh in your mind....the ThinkTank (Panel of One) would suggest the next time you find yourself merely surviving instead of thriving or vice versa.... try closing your eyes.!!!!!