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 stages of grief were developed byElisabeth Kübler-Ross in her 1969 book, On Death and Dying. They are in order: Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression, and Acceptance. The stages of grief are a staple of current psychological theory. However like all psychological theory, it is subject to much criticism and debate. One of these critiques totally refutes the entire premise of stages of grief (you can link to it here). With that in mind, the ThinkTank Panel (of One) has conducted an extensive analysis of these stages of grief and proposes the following refinements to the theory, designed to address inherent shortcomings, yet maintain the cohesion Kübler-Ross provides.
First the ThinkTank Panel (of One) would emphasize the sequential nature of the stages. It is well established that a person in the grieving process may go back and forth between stages several times before completing the process and overcoming their grief. Whether one is progressing or regressing, they will experience the stages in order, there is no skipping a stage. Just as there is no way to short cut the process there is no way to be “free fall” into a previous stage without passing through the stages in-between. For example if a person finds themselves in the 4th stage of depression and has a setback which leaves them stuck in anger, they will experience a period of bargaining, however brief, before they regress to that anger stage.
Next the ThinkTank Panel (of One) proposes some minor terminology changes to the labels of the stages of grief that are more accurate description s of the psychological mechanism at play in the various stages.
First, the term “denial “is subtly misleading as it implies the griever refuses to admit the event which caused their grief actually occurred. This is inaccurate, and dangerous as it confuses a separate, yet related psychological phenomenon that professionals treating grief must also be aware of. For example: Sally is grief stricken by the sudden passing of her mother from a sudden heart attack. Sally’s initial reaction upon hearing the news is to say “What? No. This can’t be. How can she be dead? I just spoke with her yesterday. She was fine!” While most people would call this a textbook case of denial (and it may well be accurate to depict this action as a denial), it is incorrect to assume this is the first stage of grief as Sally has not yet begun to grieve. This is an example of shock, a distinct psychological issue that if prolonged could require specific mental health intervention. . Sally will not receive this intervention if her actions are incorrectly interpreted as the normal grieving process.
More accurately the denial phase of grieving should be labeled “denial of a problem” to differentiate it from the shock induced coping mechanism of denial of the event, a form of repression. It is only when Sally tries to convince herself and others “I’m fine,” that she begins the necessary, natural grieving process.
The ThinkTank Panel (of One) considered briefly adding shock as the initial stage of grief preceding denial of a problem. However it is readily apparent that Shock is not inherent to grieving, as Sally’s mother could have died from a long battle with a terminal illness, in which case Sally would have expected her passing and would not be in shock. Yet she would still need to grieve
The bargaining stage of grief attempts to describe a state of mind in which the griever is attempting to take control of their grief so that they may dictate the terms of the grief so that they may manipulate the situation into one more acceptable . For instance; Sally’s mother with a terminal illness finds it easier to accept her impending death when she aspires to survive just long enough to see her daughter’s wedding next month. Similarly, Sally negotiates with herself that she will stop missing her mother once she fulfills her mother’s lasting wish for grandchildren, by having a baby. This leads to a year of erratic and irrational behavior, characterized by midnight calls to her physician’s residence when she could not reach him at the office as Sally obsesses over conceiving and then doubly obsesses about the prenatal health and development of her baby. In either case the griever desperately seeks continual control over something to compensate for the helplessness of their grief.
Therefore the second proposed refinement to the stages of grief is to re-label bargaining to the more apt description of desperation, as it is the desperate grasping for control which defines this phase. The bargaining merely refers to the transference of this desperation on to an object or action.
Given the new perspective due to the change from bargaining to desperation leads to the ThinkTank Panel (of One)’s 3rd proposed refinement to the stages of grief. In bargaining, the transition to depression is the idea that the grief does not keep its end of the bargain and dissipate when the griever lives up to their end of the bargain. The result is a complete loss of all hope and a deep depression. Whereas, with the new notion of desperation, there is a realization that that a person’s best efforts to exert control are in vain, which leads them to give up or surrender. Thus the ThinkTank Panel (of One) proposed that the stage of depression be re-labeled surrender.
It may sound like semantics, but the difference is the realization of one’s powerlessness is an important component to explaining how the process of grieving works. One must surrender control voluntarily before one can accept the fact that they actually have no control over a situation. And of course, acceptance is the final stage of grief.
Lastly, in light of the difference a subtle change in verbiage can have on the comprehension of the psychological processes at work, the ThinkTank Panel (of One) suggests that the 2nd stage of anger be relabeled frustration. Conceptually there is better flow between flow between Denial of Problem and Desperation with Frustration than with Anger. In psychological terms Anger implies an emotional state that can be rectified by relaxation. Frustration on the other hand implies emotional arousal in response to an obstacle that must be overcome by finding a solution, and it is the search for a solution that drives one to desperation.
So there you have it. The new ThinksIveThunk.com ThinkTank Panel (of One) approved stages of Grief are:
Denial of Problem
I remember watching "Who wants to marry a millionaire" when it originally aired on Fox 10 freaking years ago. My mom was pissed!! She said it made a mockery of marriage, and was disgusting, and made us change the channel. If I remember correctly my mom left the room and dad changed the channel back (or maybe it was me, or more likely my brother Brian), and we got to see Rick Rockwell emerge from his dark balcony and choose Darva Conger over my favorite Barker Beauty from the Price is Right (I have no proof of this but trust me, I remember that very distinctly). Needless to say mom was pissed when she came back in at the end of the show and found us watching it again. We of course augured "what's the big deal?" Mom's sticking point seemed to be that a relationship much less a marriage can't be started instantaneously with out 2 people taking lots of time to get to know each other, therefore this was about 2 people wanting to have sex and not about a life together. (Of course Rick was stonewalled on the honeymoon by Darva, citing her guilt at betraying her religious beliefs, and mom was vindicated. That is until Darva posed naked in Playboy for the $$. I don’t remember how much she was paid but it was less than a million and that apparently was more than Rick had to offer, which meant the show's title was inaccurate, Ergo, mom was right the show was a mockery, but she was wrong it wasn't about sex it was about money, which I think we all knew in the first place. But I digress.)
Of course my mom is a big fan of the Bachelor. A guy slowly eliminates one woman after another until he finds his perfect soul mate, all on national TV in front of a camera and production crew. And as disgusted as she was with who wants to marry a millionaire, she is that enthralled with the Bachelor (Of course she also is enthralled by "the Ghost Whisperer", so make of that what you will).
Now I'm here to tell you that if you’re looking for a model of how to go about finding someone to marry and spend the rest of your life with, Who wants to marry a millionaire is the way to go.
The Bachelor certainly tries to give guy every opportunity to find out all he can about these women and make an informed slowly (painfully so) thought out decision. That is good in that you can say "I didn't rush into this" but that is even a bit of a misnomer.
Basically the bad thing about the bachelor is that it perpetuates the myth that there is one special person out there for you, and the happiness in your future depends on choosing the right person. While marrying a miserable person will make you miserable yourself, there is no perfect person for anyone, and so any good persons will do nicely. The real key is your commitment to the relationship. The problem with all the emphasis on choosing "the right one" is that when things don’t go so swell, you automatically blame the current problems on "I made the wrong choice" and that is an excuse that makes divorce not only easy, but inevitable if not altogether necessary, because of course you made the wrong choice in women. It's a fatal attribution error, blame the past for the present. This is Dr Phil stuff.
John Gottman, who is a big shot marriage expert, researcher, author and former professor at the University of Washington explains finding a marriage partner like this. "You are choosing a problem you want to deal with for the rest of your life." Life is full of problems, they are unavoidable, but you can exercise some control in the type of problems you have in life.
The most recent Bachelor is a good example of this. Jake is down to Tenly and Vienna. Now most people, my wife most of all, hate Vienna and believe her to be a fake, ugly, classless, lying, gold digging slut, with a boob job. On the other hand Tenly is a sweet, loving, shy, good-natured girl, who has been hurt in the past.
OK now you’re Jake and you have to chose the problem you want to put up with for the rest of your life; Vienna might cheat on you, or Tenly's paranoia that you will cheat on her.
Macho bravado and arrogance can compensate for your own insecurity, but there’s little to nothing you can do for someone else's insecurity.
So in Dr. Gottman’s view Jake picking Vienna is not such a bad idea.
The bachelor before that is a good example of how the myth of choosing "the right one" complicates things, but also shows how well things can go if you can eliminate that myth. Jason chose Melissa and for whatever reason decides almost immediately that he made the wrong decision and goes back to Molly. Now tough luck for Melissa, but for Molly and Jason this is a god-send. Now that Jason has already plaid the "I made the wrong decision card" he is committed to Molly. Molly
took him back so quick because, 1.) It validated her telling herself and America in the limo ride to the airport that Jason made a mistake, and 2.) It shows she is not petty and vindictive. Unlike most reality TV fixups, this relationship has a chance.
Jake and Vienna have a chance too because when it comes down to it, Jake picked Vienna in his heart of hearts from the very beginning. He had to of. He had every reason to cut her at any point and he didn't. Why? Because he picked Vienna and then left it up to the rest of the girls to prove themselves better than her. That is impossible because attraction is not a conscious decision. However love and commitment are. And you will never make a commitment to someone if you put the onus on them to illicit that commitment from you. You have to give love and commitment freely. However if your attracted to someone, be it via sex, compassion, laughter or otherwise, giving them love is easy.
So when it comes down to finding someone to love, the question is not who or which one?? But it's a yes or no to whoever you’re with at the moment. When the bachelor says he is falling in love with all 3 of these girls, then he's in trouble. You see once you reach a yes, the search should be over, but the series has 12 more episodes to shoot. That means 12 more episodes of making the bachelor look for reason to doubt his decision, only to have to make an arbitrary one based on suedo-information like his families' opinion after meeting her once for dinner. (I find it funny that the families snap judgment is considered good, but the guy is supposed to agonize back and forth forever to make a good decision.)
Ultimately, a show like "Who wants to marry a millionaire" forces someone to make a decision based on instinct and attraction ( the millionaire) , and then forces the yes/ no decision on "can I live with this person" (the woman when picked and proposed to with a $35,000 ring) and then forces both people to commit right then and there. Now of course the big question is do they really mean it. And in Darva and Rick's case they didn't and you see what happened. But in a lot of the Bachelor cases, I think maybe they did mean it, but it didn’t matter because they went about it all wrong.