Guilty. And your point? Then again, it may be my definition of the word. To me arrogant means a high degree of confidence in… (fill in the blank). It may or may not be in reference to self, I would argue that the highest form of arrogance has little or nothing to do with self. However, I realize that most would follow Webster’s definition instead, which relates to ‘haughty’, overbearing, superiority attitude. And I accept that my definition does not fall in Webster’s so I guess I’ll have to rescind my initial declaration.
So what does one call a person who is comfortably confident? Perhaps I need to define this as well. A comfortably confident person doesn’t need to ‘prove’ their position, they are open to discussion and differing views, they have substance (evidence) to support their position, they are able to listen and they are able to articulate their position. Assured is the word that describes a person who is comfortably confident.
The two words, arrogant and assured, describe two very different and distinct positions. One is essentially bravado and the other is essentially confident which means that the latter can be misinterpreted, especially by someone who isn’t confident in their stand. The ‘truth’ that I’ve learned is that one is rarely threatened by a contrary view if one is confident in your own stand and the foundation for it. An opposing view is considered as a way to refine one’s stand and not an attack.
Your warnings that you may be moving from assured to arrogant is whether you are listening to the other position, whether you are willing to consider a position other than yours, whether you feel you have to defend your position instead of simply presenting it with its rationale. Becoming arrogant is self defeating because if you really believed what you were saying you’d want others to seriously consider it. Presenting your position in a haughty manner or with a superiority attitude will be off-putting. If your position has value then it doesn’t need protecting, it needs presenting.
