>I'm arrogant beyond belief and a self-absorbed asshole. I'm absolutely comfortable with that and feel no need to change. I can point out multiple situations in my personal life where this has been massively advantageous for my own psychology.

I'm a thief. I'm comfortable with that and feel no need to change. I can point out multiple situations where this was advantageous to me.

>By the way, some of the most valuable people in our societies are borderline horrible arrogant narcissists.

Nah, this is just the standard /r/iamverysmart drivel: you basically are so superior to everyone else that any interaction with the inferior masses leaves you so annoyed that you have to lash out like an asshole. Probably popularised by depictions of the """genius"" like Sheldon on Big Bang Theory, Zuck on Social Network, or that Steve Jobs flick.

In reality unless you truly are massively wealthy or influential nobody will stand for your bullshit. The most competent and intelligent people I've found are also nearly always the most humble and the best communicators.

Newton died with no friends, he was celibate his whole life, and he never travelled farther than about 100 miles from where he was born. He was rightly recognized for his contribution to math in his 20s, but by the time he was in his 30s he'd removed himself from the scientific community and spent all his time studying alchemy and the bible.

You believe that it was necessary for him to be a dick in the pursuit of genius; I think the outcome of his "full manifestation of the self" meant that society benefited from 10 years of his singular effort and then lost out on the next 50 years because no one would work with him, and his peers actually laughed at him for his (entirely wrong) approach to the theory of what light is. Boyle and Hooke accused him of stealing their ideas on optics.

The fact Newton was an asshole, and people let him be an asshole, robbed us all of 80% of what he might have achieved if he'd been a bit nicer.

In fact he became President of the Royal Society and Master of the Royal Mint.

He rescued the Royal Society from bankrupcty and also worked with the best equipment makers of the day to improve experimental science.

At the Mint he was responsible for the gold content of the coinage and using science and design to limit counterfeits.

There was quite a bit more than "studying alchemy and the bible" because "no one would work with him."

You're saying that if he was not the asshole that he was, he would have achieved more. I'm saying that if he pretended not to be the asshole that he was, he would have achieved nothing.

You cannot go against your own nature. It requires too much energy and does not work, it lobotomizes you.

You might be right. You might not. We have no way to know. Back in Newton's day a person could make huge leaps alone. Today I think there are few people who can make breakthroughs on their own now, or even do great work without collaborating. Maybe being an asshole was OK 400 years ago but it isn't now.

Also, suggesting it's OK to emulate Newton when you're not a genius is likely to have a worse outcome.

The point is that you should not emulate anyone and that you should be yourself, no matter what society tells you.

If you're really convinced that there's a "true" version of yourself, you should read the 70s cult classic "The Dice Man" by Luke Rhinehart. While not exactly earth-shattering prose, and while also following a general plot arc of increasingly graphic and violent sexuality, in the right setting it can be a deep reminder that there is not a single version of you. You make choices, sometimes arbitrary, sometimes circumstantial, sometimes due to other people, and those choices can illuminate entirely different aspects of who you are.

You are saying two conflicting things here:

- People should not emulate anyone.

- People should emulate you. (Think about how fundamental the change from emulating to non-emulating is for all their talking/reading/thinking patterns. I don't see how else can you reboot your personality short of emulating someone.)

You're saying that your nature predestines you to be in a particular way, and that being an asshole is just something that you are.

In reality, your way of being is shaped by your life learning, of which your way of relating to those around you is a part.

Kids come with different personalities right out of the box, ask anyone with more than one kid. You've bought into some liberal propaganda that people are fully malleable objects. We are not. It is a combination between nature and nurture. I personally believe it is significantly more "nature" in this case.

There are certain aspects of your personality, like "arrogance", that the society might find unacceptable. That doesn't mean that they are bad for you or that you can change them.

People are pretty malleable though, is the thing. We like to think otherwise because it’s cognitively simple to think people (and ourselves) are static objects as identities that don’t change over time. In fact, people are very dynamic and change dramatically over time in response to their environment, self-inflicted or not. It can be anything from sudden trauma causing drastic personality changes, puberty, or rigorous work at changing one’s maladaptive thinking patterns.

Of course they are bad: you will be shunned by peers, you will have stunted communication skills. Interpersonal relations and communication is a critical skill for any endeavor where you don't work alone (I've no idea what is it that you do).

I think he's saying that Newton should have chosen not to be an asshole.

I don't know the history, so I won't speak to whether Newton was, in fact, a jerk.

But it is possible to recognize the asshole inside yourself and change. At least, I've been doing that in the past two years.

My life has been much harder as a result, but it's also clearly benefited both me and the people around me.

> By the way, some of the most valuable people in our societies are borderline horrible arrogant narcissists.

I don't know if there is any data/research on being successful or valuable requiring an arrogant narcissistic personality. I believe it doesn't. If anything, such people became successful despite having such difficult personalities.

The "difficult" in difficult personality is not for themselves, it is for everyone else.

It is not necessity for being successful or valuable, but it is undeniable that people like that exist throughout history.

At the most fundamental level: It is arrogant to believe that from purely biological point of view, an individual would posses qualities like "arrogant" that are of no possible value.

Societies need to believe certain things to function. You cannot have a society where each individual is like Isaac Newton. I'm sure that if you asked the people that were knew him, they would say that "one is more than enough..."

>It is arrogant to believe that from purely biological point of view, an individual would posses qualities (like "arrogant") that are of no possible value

Why?

Narcissistic people are more charismatic st first. They are good at attracting attention to them and get celebrated even if they stole half the ideas.

Creating a lot and getting a lot of attention are two different things.

Isn't arrogant and narcissist describing two completely different things? Narcissism is social. You can be an arrogant asshole and become and hermit. A narcissist wouldn't choose to be a hermit, because that person feeds off interactions with others.

My problem with the idea of being "arrogant and a self-absorbed asshole" is that it smells like identity. Taking on strong identity can be a problem, as we see with identity politics. I feel a better path through life is to keep identity small and be more creative on being adaptive.

As I said in another comment, the author is going into the party in a frame of "seeking intellectual conversation." Another person at the party may have attended in the frame of "seeking a hook-up." Both may have been similarly disappointed. A better approach is to be be creative and adaptable. We have forgot how to play.

I feel that having a default frame would be problem for me. Being adaptable is just more fun. Being arrogant may be effective in certain situations, but a problem for others. One of my favorite playgrounds is the British pub cultural thing of "taking the piss." That's where someone you're talking to at the bar just starts ripping into you. I LOVE that, and I usually surprise them at being better at it than they are. An arrogant frame in this situation would leave you wide open.

Newton wasted a lot of time on pursuits such as alchemy and mapping out the geography of hell. Not to mention surely some of his contemporaries would have came across many of his discoveries- the much better socially-adjusted Leibniz did, after all.