Thread: Reason for arrogance and rudeness amongst individuals

I've been asking myself this very question for a long time, and as simple as the answer to some may be, I find it extremely difficult to grasp. What's the point in showing your so called superiority by undermining others ? It only reveals your insecurity, and ends up having a negative impact upon your ego, contrary to what you may expect. ( The bullies in school for instance end up having bad marks, not due to the popular belief of their lack of intelligence, but rather due to their insecurity) .

I continue to ask myself, why is it so hard for some to see the beauty and wonder of the universe we live in, its intricacies and infinite complexity, ending up spending their entire lives trying to impress one another in an never ending quest for dominance. I too may have an 'arrogant' feeling, as though some people may be missing the point of being alive .

---- I posed a scenario to a couple of people, as to whether they'd be willing to sacrifice themselves in order to save humanity, if it ever came to that. The answer is fairly straight forward ( one life thus saving 7 billion ). I asked ten people, and none said they'd be willing to. NONE ! And I doubt that lack of proper arithmetic skills was the cause.


Addition: I'm sorry if the following may sound arrogant, but sometimes I feel as I do know a secret that few others around me do (A secret that no one wants to hear,despite my efforts). A view of reality that puts a smile on my face, even in the worst scenarios that life may bring.

This song may describe the feeling better: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HBkZPyfp…

Remember that we are all animals, closely connected with common ancestry. We all come from similar sources. In the wild, it was generally the dominant ones who had better access to food, shelter, and mates with whom to have offspring.

The ones who did NOT show a tendency toward dominance did not have as many children. They tended to get selected against. The ones who DID show dominant tendencies were more successful in reproduction... both because members of the opposite sex chose them as preferred partners, and also because they could prevent the competition from stopping them, because... well... because they were dominant.

In short, humans are still animals, and in almost all animals (including tiny bacteria) the dominant ones generally survive better and have more offspring than the ones who are not dominant. It only seems unnecessary in our current society where dominance is not as important of a factor in survival and reproduction, but unfortunately it takes a very long time for evolution to catch up... in much the same way that we still crave fats and salts and sweets in large quantities even though we know they're bad for us and do us harm. They were previously scarce, but are now abundant, but it takes a lot of generations to select against such traits, especially when there really isn't a strong selective pressure against it.

That is indeed true, but I can't stop feeling that as a species, we evolved sufficiently enough to jump to a new stage. As opposed to humans,other animals have to resort to basic forms of evolution, simply said, pure competition amongst members of their own species, and other species as well.
On the other hand, humans live in an organized society, where evolution isn't dictated by acquiring mates, but rather by organized research.

And furthermore, this new stage shouldn't be necessarily dictated by genetics, but rather guided by society, same way it happened for the past millennia in human evolution .

I understand how you feel, but it takes quite a long time to overcome millions and millions of years of selection and genetic predisposition.

Originally Posted by inow

Remember that we are all animals, closely connected with common ancestry. We all come from similar sources. In the wild, it was generally the dominant ones who had better access to food, shelter, and mates with whom to have offspring.

The ones who did NOT show a tendency toward dominance did not have as many children. They tended to get selected against. The ones who DID show dominant tendencies were more successful in reproduction... both because members of the opposite sex chose them as preferred partners, and also because they could prevent the competition from stopping them, because... well... because they were dominant.

In short, humans are still animals, and in almost all animals (including tiny bacteria) the dominant ones generally survive better and have more offspring than the ones who are not dominant. It only seems unnecessary in our current society where dominance is not as important of a factor in survival and reproduction, but unfortunately it takes a very long time for evolution to catch up... in much the same way that we still crave fats and salts and sweets in large quantities even though we know they're bad for us and do us harm. They were previously scarce, but are now abundant, but it takes a lot of generations to select against such traits, especially when there really isn't a strong selective pressure against it.

Couldn't have addressed it better.

The truth seems unbearable sometimes...

they wouldnt get off cell phone for 5 minutes to save a bum choking on a scrap in the street

Originally Posted by moon4pie

I' I asked ten people, and none said they'd be willing to. NONE ! …

What people say when asked a hypothetical question like that has very little meaing. Place them in an emotionally charged situation where they have no doubts about the consequences then you may be surprised at the number of volunteers who step forward.

What people say when asked a hypothetical question like that has very little meaing. Place them in an emotionally charged situation where they have no doubts about the consequences then you may be surprised at the number of volunteers who step forward.

You should have faith in humanity, but you shouldn't put faith in humanity.