innes wrote:
Unfortunately in my experience, arrogance is rarely a predictor of intelligence.

The question was about preferring stupidity or arrogance. I didn't really want to get into the answer, but I tried to comment on arrogance. Implicitly it should have been evident that I think you should hire 'smart' people, and I was really thinking in terms of the IT industry (specifically programmers).

I didn't say anything about arrogance being an indicator of intelligence. I said that smart people can either be arrogant or not arrogant.

I listed some reasons why smart people might be arrogant (like honesty, or 'emotional problems'), and hinted that I wouldn't necessarily trust a smart person that didn't appear to be arrogant. I also tried to comment on why 'smart and arrogant' people can get results. Put them in a room together and they probably won't like each other very much, but you can get all sorts of valuable results.

Arrogant people get in your face and challenge you. They say: I'm am right, you are wrong. If they are also smart there is a high chance they are actually correct. If you can't understand why they are saying that then you'll probably consider their claims to 'presumptuous', or their attitude to be 'overbearing'.

My complaint was with the use of the term arrogance. I don't think that it should be considered a synonym for obnoxious.

If, for example, you consider the tone of Don's posts, I reckon you can see at least a hint of intellectual elitism and a subtle contempt for 'stupidity'. This is a sign of arrogance (the implication is other people are stupid, but I am not because I can see their stupidity). Even the author of the article that was linked to was arrogant. He says "if you don't see me handing out sample copies of our magazines on the show floor, please feel free to accuse me of arrogance". But I would say that not handing out magazines would just be complacency, not arrogance. Arrogance is beleiving that your magazines are the best (rightly or wrongly) and letting others know that this is what you think. The author then goes on to talk about himself, and how he is right, and how he sees other people fail, and how he doesn't fail, and how he's had a totally kick arse carreer, and how he's successful, and how he's learned from other totally kick arse people, etc. The entire article demonstrates his arrogance. He's not complacent though, and he may well deserve his arrogance. It is arrogance nevertheless.

innes wrote:
Arrogance is a form of laziness in interaction with others and thus is disrespectful and anti-social.

I don't agree with this. I gave my definition for arrogance. Mine was from an English dictionary.

innes wrote:
Some arrogant people think that they have earned the right to be arrogant as a result of their evident (to themselves, of course) superiority.

These people just think they are being 'honest'.

Ouch. Come on, keep the shots above the belt. I don't agree with you anyway, I don't think we share a common understanding (English perhaps?).

innes wrote:
Because of their very arrogance they cant see the arrogance of their excuses for their own arrogance.
How ironic!

Irony: incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs.

innes wrote:
Arrogant pricks. Wink

I'm glad at least you didn't say 'stupid and arrogant' pricks..

As for the cute comment about remaining silent. I think that is possibly one of the most harmful menalities that a person can have. If you don't engage in communication you won't learn or discover anything new, or even if you do, you won't be able to share it with the rest of your species. I don't think a person should be taught to fear paticipation because others might think that they are a fool. What about the little gem about being thought a fool for a minute rather than remaining a fool forever..?