I'm not really qualified to comment on programmers per se. But I am reminded of a personal anecdote:
In my mid-twenties, I had to have minor surgery on my face. My looks were very important to me. I thought I was quite beautiful and this was upsetting to me. I was concerned I would be disfigured but I really had to have the surgery. Trying to make my peace with it, I commented "I guess I can always have cosmetic surgery later." The surgeon was quite affronted and said "You won't need cosmetic surgery when I am done." The scar is nearly invisible -- less visible than the cyst that was removed. Even people who knew me before the surgery and know I had my face cut on have difficulty finding the scar.
I concluded that if you can bring it, maybe you aren't actually arrogant. Maybe you are just stating the facts, regardless of how it might sound to other people.
1) Maybe you missed the "maybes" in my closing remarks.
2) Being exceptionally competent puts one in a social trap. It is generally not acceptable to state that you are that good. It is also not acceptable to lie, and downplaying your competence is a form of deception (aka "lying"). So if you are that good, there is no good answer when the topic comes up.
I will also take this opportunity to note that the surgeon did not come across as arrogant until I inadvertently questioned his professional competence by trying to verbally reassure myself. And, in fact, his reaction was extremely reassuring to me. I went ahead with the surgery with much relief and trust in his ability, something I don't think I would have felt if he had instead tried to nicely address my emotional concerns about the whole thing.
I hadn't missed your maybes. You're pondering the subtleties of this argument far more intelligently than my blunt comment does. But perhaps that's because you've had time to mature and reflect on your brush with arrogance, while I am still reeling from a recent encounter ;-)
You can state the same thing different ways depending on the words you use, tone of voice, etc. Just because you are brilliant in one field doesn't give you a pass to look down on everyone else.
Just because you are brilliant in one field doesn't give you a pass to look down on everyone else.
And just because you are brilliant at something in particular does not mean you also have equally brilliant diplomatic skills so as to be able to state the fact (that you are exceptionally competent at X) without sounding arrogant. I try to cut people some slack in that regard.
I didn't read it as putting him down at all. This wasn't a competition between the patient and the surgeon about whose medical skills where the best, but about the surgeons skills against the reality of the cyst.
I didn't think (s)he was calling me brilliant but unpolished. ;-)
I took it as more of a general observation, which I agree with but I don't think it makes for some of kind of rebuttal to my conclusion, which basically amounts to: If you really are extremely good at something, asserting that you are that good is likely to sound arrogant to other people even if it is simply factual. I try to keep stuff like that in mind and not jump to conclusions about the size of a person's ego based on limited data. Other people seem to generally be very willing to jump to such conclusions on very limited data. I offer the anecdote to suggest that, if programmers are generally competent and intelligent, it won't much matter how humbly they present themselves. Their competence will rub plenty of people the wrong way, no matter how many sets of velvet gloves they have for all social occasions.
I agree with this. A lot of people probably consider me arrogant and stubborn. Honestly, I don't care though. Arrogance and stubborn are only flaws when you're wrong. On the other hand, being arrogant and stubborn about the truth is a virtue in my opinion.
I think there is a fine line between confidence and arrogance. And if you know for a fact that you are right, it can be difficult to back down, even in the face of enormous social pressure. I'm not comfortable with saying that arrogance and stubbornness about the truth is a virtue, but I would say that someone who is sincerely devoted to pursuing the truth and sharing it is at high risk of being viewed as arrogant and stubborn.
I used to frequently get accused of being an egomaniac. More recently, I am fairly frequently accused of being a liar. I have concluded that, in my case, accusations of ego indicate people think it can be done, just not necessarily by me. But accusations that I am a liar mean they don't believe it can be done at all, by anyone. Since I have, in fact, accomplished what I claim to have done, I can't bring myself to claim otherwise merely to appease the critics. I do still wrestle with the possibility of whether or not I should simply shut up about it, but that brings up the dilemma that people who are sincerely interested in the information would also be denied. So far, I have been unable to reconcile myself to that route. I still have no good answers. But I wrestle with such questions a lot.
You're probably right, but saying that stubbornness can be good is my tactic for dealing with people who think I'm stubborn. It moves the conversation from what they think of me personally to whether I'm right or wrong.
In regards to what other people accuse you of, it's usually them projecting. In other words, the person who accused you of being an egomaniac could be avoiding fears that they themselves are being an egomaniac. Or the person who calls you a liar may secretly be afraid that they're not trustworthy.
Regardless, I've found experience to be the best teacher. I've learned not to be shy when it comes time to say "I told you so". It sucks, but you leave people the option to continue to underestimate you if you don't.
I think people called me egomaniacal in part because I am a woman. I strongly suspect I would be considered more humble if I were male. They call me a liar because they find my claims threatening. If I am right, then their doctor is wrong and that has ugly, uncomfortable implications when your life (or your child's life) is on the line.
Good for you. I admire people who take responsibility that way. Our "health care system" (more properly termed "disease management industry") is so stacked against this that it requires genuine struggle. It's not surprising that you would be accused of lying, either; that's cognitive dissonance 101. Not ideal, but still a good trade.
I heard a line in a comedy the other night: "I never compromise. Because if you compromise, you're admitting you aren't right."
On the other hand, being arrogant and stubborn about the truth is a virtue in my opinion.
I take it you're not married. And if you are, please write a book about this policy and its effects if you use it frequently ;-)
Also, an issue about being stubborn about the truth is that there can be as many versions of the "truth" as there are actors in the situation. Typically people don't deliberately argue positions they think are untrue. See crime witnesses or religious people for powerful examples.
Well, I'm about as married as any gay male can be. And my boyfriend has learned to put up with it.
"Also, an issue about being stubborn about the truth is that there can be as many versions of the "truth" as there are actors in the situation."
I'd strongly disagree. Different people may have different pieces of the truth (ie the truth could be "Either person x's approach or person y's approach will work"), they might have different perspectives on the truth (ie the truth could be "person x is right about a, b, c, and d but not e while person y is right about e, f, g, and h but not i"), or they might be arguing about a subject where there is no real truth (see religious people for powerful examples). But where the truth exists it is singular.
When presented with conflicting ideas, the goal is to determine if one is correct or they both are correct. Throwing your hands in the air and saying "The truth is subjective" is a cop-out.
It's a cop-out depending on your epistemological standpoint. I'm typically an empiricist so I appreciate the sentiment, but I recognize that other viewpoints of what truth and knowledge are could have merit.
I'm not a big reader on philosophy and epistemology but merely the smorgasbord of "theories of truth" presented at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth is enough for me to shy away from asserting that "where the truth exists it is singular." I sympathize with and have held the same position, but I've seen enough to cast doubt upon my gut feelings on the matter.
In my mid-twenties, I had to have minor surgery on my face. My looks were very important to me. I thought I was quite beautiful and this was upsetting to me. I was concerned I would be disfigured but I really had to have the surgery. Trying to make my peace with it, I commented "I guess I can always have cosmetic surgery later." The surgeon was quite affronted and said "You won't need cosmetic surgery when I am done." The scar is nearly invisible -- less visible than the cyst that was removed. Even people who knew me before the surgery and know I had my face cut on have difficulty finding the scar.
I concluded that if you can bring it, maybe you aren't actually arrogant. Maybe you are just stating the facts, regardless of how it might sound to other people.