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.
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.!!!!!
There is this notion of unlimited wealth that gets tossed around in financial circles. There is an unlimited amount of money to be made, all we have to do is make it. Really successful rich entrepreneur types like to say it’s like the money is out on the ground and all they have to do is pick it up.
Well that may very well be true, but there has to be a Yang to that limitless Yin. Money comes from somewhere, and I don’t mean a mint.
Money is an abstract concept that attempts to quantify value. Money is a mathematical unit of measurement, just like kilometers, seconds, watts, joules, BTUs, mpg and psi. Shopping, buying, purchasing, whatever you call it, is really just a trade or swapping of a good or service for a symbolic representation of the value thereof (money). Currency is the symbolic representation of that value.
Way back in ancient times before money was invented, people bartered. If you had sheep you’d trade a sheep to the guy who had wood, or fruit or any other thing you didn’t have because he didn’t have any sheep and was in the mood for nice big plate of mutton.
As societies developed with rules and kingdoms, kings had to have armies. If you’re an ancient king, how do you get people to fight for you? You take care of them in exchange for them doing your dirty work for you. In those times that meant giving each soldier a daily ration of grain or meat or barely or whatever the staple food was of the society. The notion was the king would take care of his troops. Well sometimes the weather wouldn’t cooperate and there were floods and droughts, and there was no staple food to pay off the soldiers. So someone got the bright idea to give the soldiers something they could trade for food, since the king didn’t have any food to give them himself. Money was born. Maybe it was a nice shiny rock, maybe it was a royal IOU. At any rate the King got out of the catering business and just issued money to his soldiers and said, sorry I’m out of food, so here take this and go see if someone will trade you some food for it.
So it’s clear to see the original if not the true notion of money is as a place holder for “goods or services due.” And “goods or services due” means a debt. For every Dollar, Euro, ruble, peso, or yen issued a debt for the same or more is also created. This gives us the following formula:
Wealth = Debt
Wealth is an accumulation of monetary value which means an uneven trade occurs at some point. In a regular purchase an item is assessed to be of a given value and then is traded for the symbolic representation of that value in currency. In a fair trade value does not change hands only the form in which that value is stored. One of the ways value is stored is as a debt. In fact, money used to be nothing but a debt for gold. Now that we have abandoned the gold standard, money is a debt for value. In order to generate wealth, a debt must be created. At some point an uneven exchange must occur, otherwise in a fair trade both sides acquire the same amount of value of which they surrendered.
The most obvious method of an uneven exchange (note that uneven does not necessarily mean unfair) resulting in a debt is interest. In order to borrow $100 at 10% interest from the bank, you have to pay them back $110. The bank accumulates $10 in wealth from the deal, while you incur a debt of $10 beyond the value of the original loan sum of $100 (more on the implications of the interplay of debt and wealth in a later post). Notice that the bank is not generating new wealth it is merely accumulating, or consolidating it from you and the rest of its lendees. Now it’s up to you to somehow take that $100 and convince someone else that its value is actually $110. This is possible because value is subjective. And as money is a symbolic representation of value, it is subjective and abstract.
So what does this all this tell us?
It explains snobbery. Rich people are snobby because they realize their accumulation of wealth is really an accumulation of value, ergo they feel they are more valuable than the rest of us.
It not only explains why a country as decadently rich in resources like the USA can be 13 trillion in debt, it actually presupposes it has to be so in order for other countries to prosper. Debt is kind of the way we share the wealth.
It explains how a dollar is a dollar is a dollar is not always a dollar. Monetary Wealth cannot be created or destroyed by producing more or less currency; it can only be accumulated and consolidated from many hands into one, through the process of debt. However value, as a subjective abstraction, is ultimately a psychological construct that can increase or decrease relative to an individual.
Economics is not a hard science. Markets are not governed by universal laws like physics. Yes, markets are influenced by supply and demand, but not exclusively. Markets are not closed systems impervious to external factors. Economic development is psychological warfare. Were this not so there would be no need for salesmen, stockbrokers, or advertising. Value only truly exists in the mind; ergo money is a psychological manipulation imposed on humanity generation upon generation.
Is healthcare a public obligation or private enterprise? I guess it depends on your perspective.
You could see the advances in medicine and technology as equipping the state with the means to protect and sustain the lives of its citizens not only from external danger like terrorist attacks but from internal dangers such as disease as well, and feel it is the government’s obligation to provide this protection, and any failure to provide such protection when that protection is possible is then seen as moral abandonment. Ultimately it is an ethical question for those in power and their responsibility to their subjects,..Ahem… constituents.
Or you could see healthcare as a personal obligation if not merely a preference of the quality and duration of one’s own life, weighing the personal co$ts and benefits of treating the illness verses the relative inconsistencies and limitations of the disease. Ultimately it is a personal choice. Freedom. Personal responsibilities for ones’ own self alone.
Which is better?
I don’t know.
But what I do know for sure is Health Insurance (and all insurance in entirety) is a private enterprise, and most certainly not a public obligation.
Which makes this notion of forcing people to buy healthcare insurance or pay the penalty (literally), kind of backwards, given that it is the centerpiece of the the plan championed by the people claiming healthcare is a public obligation.
Going one step further….
Is healthcare a right?
And if it isn’t, should it be? Ethically, it would seem hard to argue that it shouldn’t be, given the resources we know to exist.