Meeting on confidence versus arrogance

We had our Ideas Cafe meeting Wednesday night on confidence versus arrogance.  It was an interesting discussion even though we found ourselves using the two words as if they are easily separated and defined. 

But they are not. 

Instead of using these two words to describe behavior and attitude,  it seems that these two words are used to substantiate one's admiration or dislike of another individual.

In other words, you like a person or agree with his approach, he seems confident to you.  If you don't like the person, arrogance is a word you reach for easily to explain your dislike.

On pushing further to separate the two words,  some differences do appear.

The feeling and apprehension one feels about a pending project can span from fear of failure, uncertain,  confident, to overconfident.

This feeling is based on ones assessment and may not include important unknowns so it cannot be truly assessed until after the fact.  Even then, luck may be a factor that can skew the conclusion.

This feeling is affected by one's previous experience in life, traumas, successes, and what one thinks of one's own abilities.

Arrogance is connected to a tendency to be confident or more, and also to feeling superior to others, tendency to belittle others to gain more glory.

A lack of empathy for others is another trait for arrogant people.

Since it is impossible to determine what the real level of confidence should be at anytime, this judgment is very subjective.  Hindsight is a much better judge and arrogance is often pinned on those who did not achieve their targets.

Leaders by necessity have to be confident to lead, and appear arrogant to those who don't agree. 

Humble enough to listen, confident to lead, respectful in disagreement with dissenters.  Is this really possible and will some still think this leader does not have enough vision to lead and too arrogant to change his mind?

Some examples discussed during the cafe was interesting.

The great boxer Mohammed Ali can easily be considered arrogant the way he proclaim himself to be the greatest and how he taut his opponents.  Yet most people do not think ill of him and consider it to be part of the boxing game rather than real arrogance.

Great political leaders in history like Napoleon and Churchill can easily be considered brilliantly confident or arrogant depending on which side you are on and what the outcome turned out to be or may have been otherwise.


Then there is the example of the doctor who sticks to his craft, be as efficient as he can to see as many patients as possible in order to do the most good to as many patients as he can. 

To some of us, he is a model of efficiency, dispensing health care to the best of his ability.

To others, he is a hurried physician with little empathy for his patients. Arrogance is often used in this context.

Are we heartless technocrats for just being utilitarian or are we selfish softies wanting more of the doctor's time at the expense of other patients?

Is the observer the real issue with deciding whether there is arrogance?