Simplifying Psychology

[joe1776]

For some reason, we humans like to pretend to know more than we really do. One way we do that is by creating highfalutin jargon. I'll start with the word 'psychology.' I find it useful to dump that word and think of the study of 'human behavior' because the task usually involves speculating on the causes of our behavior. Young students would understand the meaning of 'human behavior' without help from the dictionary.

'Narcissist' is jargon psychologists would use to describe someone who is highly arrogant. Philosophers would describe the same person as 'egotistical' and psychiatrists would use the term 'superiority complex.' The effect of this creation of jargon is that arrogance is like a career criminal with aliases allowing it to avoid easy detection. Compounding the detection problem is that there are a couple of hundred synonyms for arrogance in common usage.

Following the lead of A. Maslow and others, I asked "What unconscious need would arrogant behavior satisfy?" The need to prove oneself superior to others seems obvious. Can you see that high arrogance provides a credible explanation for the following problems which have been the cause of most wars?

nationalism (Our nation is superior to theirs!)
religious intolerance (Our religion is superior to theirs!)
racism (Our race is superior to theirs!)

Adolf Hitler used all three of the foregoing appeals to arrogance and added his Master Race theory, to incite the German people to start the Second World War in Europe.

It's difficult to think of a kind of misbehavior that can't be credibly explained by a highly arrogant attitude. Moreover, highly arrogant people see others as lesser beings which effectively blocks their ability to empathize with them. Serial killers are extremely arrogant. Arrogant slave masters saw the people they enslaved as subhuman.

Group pride, usually thought of as a virtue, is disguised arrogance. We know intuitively that the man who is extremely proud of being Irish and Catholic would be every bit as proud had he, by some twist of fate, been raised to think of himself as German and Lutheran. He thinks his groups are wonderful because they're HIS groups.

We can simplify the study of human behavior by simplifying the language we use and recognizing that the words we use to describe human behavior can be thought of a symptoms.

Can you think of types of human misbehavior that can't be credibly explained with arrogance as its cause?

 

[sealchan]

For some reason, we humans like to pretend to know more than we really do. One way we do that is by creating highfalutin jargon. I'll start with the word 'psychology.' I find it useful to dump that word and think of the study of 'human behavior' because the task usually involves speculating on the causes of our behavior. Young students would understand the meaning of 'human behavior' without help from the dictionary.

'Narcissist' is jargon psychologists would use to describe someone who is highly arrogant. Philosophers would describe the same person as 'egotistical' and psychiatrists would use the term 'superiority complex.' The effect of this creation of jargon is that arrogance is like a career criminal with aliases allowing it to avoid easy detection. Compounding the detection problem is that there are a couple of hundred synonyms for arrogance in common usage.

Following the lead of A. Maslow and others, I asked "What unconscious need would arrogant behavior satisfy?" The need to prove oneself superior to others seems obvious. Can you see that high arrogance provides a credible explanation for the following problems which have been the cause of most wars?

nationalism (Our nation is superior to theirs!)
religious intolerance (Our religion is superior to theirs!)
racism (Our race is superior to theirs!)

Adolf Hitler used all three of the foregoing appeals to arrogance and added his Master Race theory, to incite the German people to start the Second World War in Europe.

It's difficult to think of a kind of misbehavior that can't be credibly explained by a highly arrogant attitude. Moreover, highly arrogant people see others as lesser beings which effectively blocks their ability to empathize with them. Serial killers are extremely arrogant. Arrogant slave masters saw the people they enslaved as subhuman.

Group pride, usually thought of as a virtue, is disguised arrogance. We know intuitively that the man who is extremely proud of being Irish and Catholic would be every bit as proud had he, by some twist of fate, been raised to think of himself as German and Lutheran. He thinks his groups are wonderful because they're HIS groups.

We can simplify the study of human behavior by simplifying the language we use and recognizing that the words we use to describe human behavior can be thought of a symptoms.

Can you think of types of human misbehavior that can't be credibly explained with arrogance as its cause?

What is arrogance?

 

[Augustus]

Group pride, usually thought of as a virtue, is disguised arrogance. We know intuitively that the man who is extremely proud of being Irish and Catholic would be every bit as proud had he, by some twist of fate, been raised to think of himself as German and Lutheran. He thinks his groups are wonderful because they're HIS groups.

Somebody who expresses a personal preference for that which is familiar over that which is different does not necessarily think of others as 'lesser beings'. Gay pride doesn't mean you think heterosexuals are inferior, and just because you love your own family the most doesn't mean you see your friends' families as 'lesser beings'.

It's difficult to think of a kind of misbehavior that can't be credibly explained by a highly arrogant attitude. Moreover, highly arrogant people see others as lesser beings which effectively blocks their ability to empathize with them...

Can you think of types of human misbehavior that can't be credibly explained with arrogance as its cause?

Empathy actually drives much 'misbehaviour'.

If you are highly empathetic, you feel the pain of those you see as being victims of injustice. Terrorism, violent utopian radicalism, etc. can often be driven by empathy so strong it justifies tremendous self-sacrifice. Misguided though it may be, such people are often driven by a highly moral impetus.

Blaming everything on 'arrogance' might be emotionally comforting as it allows you to think that 'misbehaviour' is due to some cognitive error that can be 'fixed', rather than accepting the fact that we did not evolve to be pure, fluffy, egalitarian universalists who will create a utopian society of global harmony.

Pseudo-scientific utopianism is just a religious salvation narrative for those who see themselves as too smart to buy into traditional religious narratives. Going by your usage of the term, it's a form of 'disguised arrogance' that enables people to feel they are superior to these 'backwards' folk who cling to outdated forms on identity, and thus means they are 'on the right side of history' allowing them to think of being part of something much greater than the self.


An article on empathy and partisan bias:

How Empathic Concern Fuels Political Polarization

• ELIZABETH N. SIMAS (a1), SCOTT CLIFFORD (a1) and JUSTIN H. KIRKLAND (a2) How Empathic Concern Fuels Political Polarization | American Political Science Review | Cambridge Core
• Published online by Cambridge University Press: 31 October 2019

Abstract
Over the past two decades, there has been a marked increase in partisan social polarization, leaving scholars in search of solutions to partisan conflict. The psychology of intergroup relations identifies empathy as one of the key mechanisms that reduces intergroup conflict, and some have suggested that a lack of empathy has contributed to partisan polarization. Yet, empathy may not always live up to this promise. We argue that, in practice, the experience of empathy is biased toward one’s ingroup and can actually exacerbate political polarization. First, using a large, national sample, we demonstrate that higher levels of dispositional empathic concern are associated with higher levels of affective polarization. Second, using an experimental design, we show that individuals high in empathic concern show greater partisan bias in evaluating contentious political events. Taken together, our results suggest that, contrary to popular views, higher levels of dispositional empathy actually facilitate partisan polarization.



How Empathic Concern Fuels Political Polarization | American Political Science Review | Cambridge Core

 

[Mock Turtle]

Somebody who expresses a personal preference for that which is familiar over that which is different does not necessarily think of others as 'lesser beings'. Gay pride doesn't mean you think heterosexuals are inferior, and just because you love your own family the most doesn't mean you see your friends' families as 'lesser beings'.



Empathy actually drives much 'misbehaviour'.

If you are highly empathetic, you feel the pain of those you see as being victims of injustice. Terrorism, violent utopian radicalism, etc. can often be driven by empathy so strong it justifies tremendous self-sacrifice. Misguided though it may be, such people are often driven by a highly moral impetus.

Blaming everything on 'arrogance' might be emotionally comforting as it allows you to think that 'misbehaviour' is due to some cognitive error that can be 'fixed', rather than accepting the fact that we did not evolve to be pure, fluffy, egalitarian universalists who will create a utopian society of global harmony.

Pseudo-scientific utopianism is just a religious salvation narrative for those who see themselves as too smart to buy into traditional religious narratives. Going by your usage of the term, it's a form of 'disguised arrogance' that enables people to feel they are superior to these 'backwards' folk who cling to outdated forms on identity, and thus means they are 'on the right side of history' allowing them to think of being part of something much greater than the self.


An article on empathy and partisan bias:

How Empathic Concern Fuels Political Polarization

• ELIZABETH N. SIMAS (a1), SCOTT CLIFFORD (a1) and JUSTIN H. KIRKLAND (a2) How Empathic Concern Fuels Political Polarization | American Political Science Review | Cambridge Core
• Published online by Cambridge University Press: 31 October 2019

Abstract
Over the past two decades, there has been a marked increase in partisan social polarization, leaving scholars in search of solutions to partisan conflict. The psychology of intergroup relations identifies empathy as one of the key mechanisms that reduces intergroup conflict, and some have suggested that a lack of empathy has contributed to partisan polarization. Yet, empathy may not always live up to this promise. We argue that, in practice, the experience of empathy is biased toward one’s ingroup and can actually exacerbate political polarization. First, using a large, national sample, we demonstrate that higher levels of dispositional empathic concern are associated with higher levels of affective polarization. Second, using an experimental design, we show that individuals high in empathic concern show greater partisan bias in evaluating contentious political events. Taken together, our results suggest that, contrary to popular views, higher levels of dispositional empathy actually facilitate partisan polarization.



How Empathic Concern Fuels Political Polarization | American Political Science Review | Cambridge Core

This is much as Bloom proposed in Against Empathy isn't it? That empathy is all too often narrowly focused around those we love, our communities, and those we see as similar to ourselves. And I think he did make a good job of pointing this out.

I can't understand your antagonism towards those who seemingly can live without religions, who don't necessarily have an ideology comparable with religions, but who might want to see progress in many areas as being more preferable than just living a life dedicated to oneself or one particular belief. I suspect they don't feel at all superior to others but might hope that the divisions caused by so many religions would just go away.

Apparently you are too smart to buy into traditional religious narratives according to your tag.

 

[Augustus]

I can't understand your antagonism towards those who seemingly can live without religions, who don't necessarily have an ideology comparable with religions, but who might want to see progress in many areas as being more preferable than just living a life dedicated to oneself or one particular belief. I suspect they don't feel at all superior to others but might hope that the divisions caused by so many religions would just go away.

Apparently you are too smart to buy into traditional religious narratives according to your tag.

That's not remotely what I said though.

"Pseudo-scientific utopianism is just a religious salvation narrative for those who see themselves as too smart to buy into traditional religious narratives."

Also everyone has an ideology that is comparable with the ideological component of religion (in the sense that it is the functional equivalent and serves the same cognitive purpose: to make meaning of the world we live in)

This is much as Bloom proposed in Against Empathy isn't it? That empathy is all too often narrowly focused around those we love, our communities, and those we see as similar to ourselves. And I think he did make a good job of pointing this out.

Haven't read that, but might take a look. Thanks

Scale is an issue with empathy. We evolved in a much more simple environment and technology has vastly increased the scale of our perception. A human 100,000 years ago was only connected to a very limited part of the world, and now we are constantly connected to a huge part of it mediated by an increasingly abstract sense of identity.

The greater the level of abstraction, the more room for empathy to go 'wrong'.

 

[joe1776]

What is arrogance?

I use dictionary definitions:

having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one's own importance or abilities

 

[joe1776]

Somebody who expresses a personal preference for that which is familiar over that which is different does not necessarily think of others as 'lesser beings'.

Of course not, but your statement does not describe the typical attitude of people who strongly feel group pride, think of white supremacists, for example.

Gay pride doesn't mean you think heterosexuals are inferior, and just because you love your own family the most doesn't mean you see your friends' families as 'lesser beings'.

You're picking nits. Gay pride isn't typical of group pride because it's a group that has historically felt prejudice from heterosexuals who felt superior to them.

Empathy actually drives much 'misbehaviour'.

Empathy does not always drive good behavior. That's true. But when we only have empathy for our group, people who look like us and agree with us, isn't that a sure sign of arrogance?

 

[sealchan]

I use dictionary definitions:

having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one's own importance or abilities

What makes someone habitually arrogant as opposed to topically arrogant?

How do you help those in either circumstance?

How do you establish the difference between arrogance and frustration with those who are wilfully ignorant?

 

[joe1776]

What makes someone habitually arrogant as opposed to topically arrogant?

I think we are born genetically predisposed to a degree of arrogance, low to severe, that can't be changed. However, we can willfully reduce habitual arrogant behavior if we want to.

How do you help those in either circumstance?

Psychologists report that narcissism (high arrogance) is hard to cure. Narcissists think they know more than the therapists. Moreover, it feels good to feel superior to others. Somehow, they have to be convinced that kicking the habit is in their best interests.

How do you establish the difference between arrogance and frustration with those who are wilfully ignorant?

I'm not sure. Give me an example of someone being frustrated with the willfully ignorant.

 

[Augustus]

Of course not, but your statement does not describe the typical attitude of people who strongly feel group pride, think of white supremacists, for example.

White supremacists are not typical of people who feel group pride.

The vast majority of group pride is not group supremacist, it's people having an affinity with that which they are familiar or identify with.

If you want to make a point about group jingoism, then sure it's arrogant. But you were making a general point about group pride as you said it's usually considered a virtue, Jingoism is rarely considered a virtue by anyone other than jingoists.

Much group pride is largely aesthetic or tied to positive emotional experience.

You're picking nits. Gay pride isn't typical of group pride because it's a group that has historically felt prejudice from heterosexuals who felt superior to them.

Most of the world could claim historical prejudice against one or other group they belong to

Empathy does not always drive good behavior. That's true. But when we only have empathy for our group, people who look like us and agree with us, isn't that a sure sign of arrogance?

Like the group pride one, that's another oversimplistic representation.

Empathy may well be for a group that you don't belong to. For example, many Marxists were highly educated middle/upper middle class and were empathising with those who were seen as victims: the poor, the developing world, etc.

You keep taking the extremes and presenting them as the norm.

 

[joe1776]

White supremacists are not typical of people who feel group pride.

Not typical because their higher arrogance makes their prejudice more obvious than the arrogance of most people who feel group pride?

Will you insist that a man who is quite proud of being Irish and Catholic would not be every bit as proud had he, by some twist of fate, been raised to think of himself as German and Lutheran? And if you can't deny that, isn't it obvious that the pride has nothing to do with the intrinsic value of the group?

Empathy may well be for a group that you don't belong to. For example, many Marxists were highly educated middle/upper middle class and were empathising with those who were seen as victims: the poor, the developing world, etc.

Well, yes, of course. But your point is irrelevant since I'm haven't argued that ALL members of groups are so afflicted with arrogance that it blocks their ability to have empathy for the members of competing groups who are harmed. There were many Germans who felt empathy for the people oppressed by the highly arrogant Nazis.

 

[Augustus]

Will you insist that a man who is quite proud of being Irish and Catholic would not be every bit as proud had he, by some twist of fate, been raised to think of himself as German and Lutheran? And if you can't deny that, isn't it obvious that the pride has nothing to do with the intrinsic value of the group?

As I've said many times, of course it's not about 'intrinsic value of the group', but based on positive emotional experiences and familiarity. What I reject is your idea that it is primarily about 'arrogance' and desire to view others as inferior. Group jingoism is the minority position, yet you present it as the norm.

If someone was raised Irish then that's often why they like being Irish. If in a parallel universe they'd been German, that would be their bond of emotion and familiarity. It's precisely the point that you are proud because it is your group, but not usually because you are arrogantly under the impression that it is objectively the best.

You want to pathologise group identity, but it's just a normal part of human cognition. Some degree of group identity, group pride and in-group bias is inevitable. In moderation it is a good thing and drives pro-social behaviour.

You don't love your kids the most because they are objectively the best kids around, but because they are your kids. If in a parallel universe you had other kids, you'd love them the most too.

You may be a proud fan of your sports team, but most don't think they are objectively the best team around. You also understand that had you been born in another city, you'd be just as proud to support a different team.

etc.

Well, yes, of course. But your point is irrelevant since I'm haven't argued that ALL members of groups are so afflicted with arrogance that it blocks their ability to have empathy for the members of competing groups who are harmed. There were many Germans who felt empathy for the people oppressed by the highly arrogant Nazis.

You asked for an example of behaviour not motivated by arrogance, I gave one. It doesn't have to be always true, just sometimes.

Just as group pride can drive positive behaviour, empathy can drive negative behaviour and not just 'because arrogance'.

Human cognition is riddled with biases towards the self and the in-group which may manifest themselves in pro or antisocial ways. Even 'arrogance' can drive prosocial behaviour (you want to help someone because you think you can fix their problem better than they can).

Simplistic labelling of numerous biases as 'arrogance' obfuscates more than it illuminates due to the word's overwhelmingly negative connotations.

 

[joe1776]

As I've said many times, of course it's not about 'intrinsic value of the group', but based on positive emotional experiences and familiarity....

Scientists wisely give preference to hypotheses that explain more of the effects observed.

My arrogance theory provides a credible cause that explains both pride and prejudice of large and small groups. Your theory is somewhat plausible for small groups, like families, but not for large groups like nations, religions or races. Moreover, it offers no credible explanation for the always-present prejudice against competing groups.

Catholics in the past have felt pride for their group and prejudice against Protestants and the reverse is equally true. How would your "positive emotional experiences and familiarity" cause these effects?

You asked for an example of behaviour not motivated by arrogance, I gave one. It doesn't have to be always true, just sometimes.

No, you mis-read.I asked for examples of MIS-behavior not caused by arrogance because as I wrote "It's difficult to think of a kind of misbehavior that can't be credibly explained by a highly arrogant attitude."

Just as group pride can drive positive behaviour, empathy can drive negative behaviour and not just 'because arrogance'.

When you say that "empathy can drive negative behavior," you are omitting the proximate cause of the effect. When arrogant group members feel empathy for their own group and attack a competing group, the cause-and-effect chain is arrogance/empathy/misbehavior. It's not empathy/misbehavior. The question: Why did they have empathy for their own group? has to be answered.

... Even 'arrogance' can drive prosocial behaviour (you want to help someone because you think you can fix their problem better than they can).

Your point is irrelevant because I haven't argued that arrogance can't produce good behavior. My argument is that it's hard to think of a kind of misbehavior that cannot be credibly explained with arrogance as its cause.

 

[Augustus]

Scientists wisely give preference to hypotheses that explain more of the effects observed.

My arrogance theory provides a credible cause that explains both pride and prejudice of large and small groups. Your theory is somewhat plausible for small groups, like families, but not for large groups like nations or religions. Moreover, it offers no credible explanation for the always-present prejudice against competing groups.

Your arrogance 'theory' is unnecessary as there is already a lot of scientific research on in-out group biases that already explains it better.

Catholics in the past have felt pride for their group and prejudice against Protestants and the reverse is equally true. How would your "positive emotional experiences and familiarity" cause these effects?

Because these are what bind you to your community.

Religious identities often relate to tangible differences in the real world: ethno-linguistic, cultural, class, political, etc. that are the product of historical circumstance.

Aside form jingoistic issues, it's not simply irrational pride and arrogance, but concerns for the future of their community. As we've seen all over the world in the past few decades (Balkans, Middle East, etc), communities who have lived together in relative harmony can turn on each other when the political equilibrium is punctured (often by the adoption of democracy) that pits communities against each other in a zero-sum manner.

Somewhere like Switzerland avoids this due to decentralised political structures that mean communities aren't concerned about being governed by 'the other'.

No, you mis-read.I asked for examples of MIS-behavior not caused by arrogance because as I wrote "It's difficult to think of a kind of misbehavior that can't be credibly explained by a highly arrogant attitude."

Pointless, unbelievably pedantic quibble. As you well know, my example was misbehaviour.

When you say that "empathy can drive negative behavior," you are omitting the proximate cause of the effect. When arrogant group members feel empathy for their own group and attack a competing group, the cause-and-effect chain is arrogance/empathy/misbehavior. It's not empathy/misbehavior.

Ive already answered this and pointed out it's not about "arrogant group members [who only] feel empathy for their own group" as per example given.

It's often well meaning people who are acting out of moral impulses and are willing to sacrifice their own good for the greater good.

Your point is irrelevant because I haven't argued that arrogance can't produce good behavior. My argument is that it's hard to think of a kind of misbehavior that cannot be credibly explained with arrogance as its cause.

No it's not. It's really quite easy.

Loyalty, empathy, love, desperation, naivety, miseducation, ignorance, uncertainty, etc. all drive misbehaviour at times.

I'm not even sure how you define arrogance in a meaningful manner. "having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one's own importance or abilities" is just purely eye of the beholder.

How do you differentiate arrogance from self-confidence/belief, determination, drive or sense of purpose?

If someone undergoes great hardship in support of a cause, conducts themselves humbly and empathetically but it happens that this cause produces negative effects despite good intentions, is this 'arrogance'?

If someone conducts themselves in a manner most people would consider highly arrogant, but they are correct in all that they say and the consequences are positive, is this arrogance?

What's the difference between standing up for your group's rights and arrogance? If someone cultivates pride in an oppressed group, and leads a revolt against the oppressor, is this arrogance? Is it arrogant to want to protect a traditional way of life from being subsumed by modernity?

 

[joe1776]

Your arrogance 'theory' is unnecessary as there is already a lot of scientific research on in-out group biases that already explains it better.

That's a claim you can't support with evidence. The "in-group" theory is simply a different label for group pride and the "out-group" theory is a different label for group prejudice. What little "research" there is is mostly baloney based on baloney. But , if you think otherwise, you can post a few examples of replicated science.

Because these are what bind you to your community.

Religious identities often relate to tangible differences in the real world: ethno-linguistic, cultural, class, political, etc. that are the product of historical circumstance.

Aside form jingoistic issues, it's not simply irrational pride and arrogance, but concerns for the future of their community. As we've seen all over the world in the past few decades (Balkans, Middle East, etc), communities who have lived together in relative harmony can turn on each other when the political equilibrium is punctured (often by the adoption of democracy) that pits communities against each other in a zero-sum manner.

Somewhere like Switzerland avoids this due to decentralised political structures that mean communities aren't concerned about being governed by 'the other'.

I don't think you answered the question. Credible causes shouldn't be that difficult to explain.

Pointless, unbelievably pedantic quibble. As you well know, my example was misbehaviour.

You also gave an example of good behavior caused by arrogance which indicated that you mis-read the OP.

Ive already answered this and pointed out it's not about "arrogant group members [who only] feel empathy for their own group" as per example given.

It's often well meaning people who are acting out of moral impulses and are willing to sacrifice their own good for the greater good.

I don't understand. Your comment was to the effect that empathy causes misbehavior. How do people acting out of moral impulses misbehave?

No it's not. It's really quite easy.

Loyalty, empathy, love, desperation, naivety, miseducation, ignorance, uncertainty, etc. all drive misbehaviour at times.

Can you give some specific examples of MORAL failures caused by any of those causes?

I'm not even sure how you define arrogance in a meaningful manner. "having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one's own importance or abilities" is just purely eye of the beholder.

The word would not be in common usage unless most people recognized arrogance when they see it.

How do you differentiate arrogance from self-confidence/belief, determination, drive or sense of purpose?

That's a very good question. Even psychologists have trouble discerning arrogance from genuine self-confidence. To me, self-confident people seem to have nothing to prove, to themselves or anyone else, whereas arrogant people have a lot to prove. They need to be recognized as superior.

If someone undergoes great hardship in support of a cause, conducts themselves humbly and empathetically but it happens that this cause produces negative effects despite good intentions, is this 'arrogance'?

No. Nor have they done anything morally wrong if the harm wasn't intended.

If someone conducts themselves in a manner most people would consider highly arrogant, but they are correct in all that they say and the consequences are positive, is this arrogance?

Whether they are correct or mistaken has no relevance to the person's attitude.

What's the difference between standing up for your group's rights and arrogance? If someone cultivates pride in an oppressed group, and leads a revolt against the oppressor, is this arrogance? Is it arrogant to want to protect a traditional way of life from being subsumed by modernity?

You haven't given enough information. These acts might be motivated by arrogance and they might not be.

 

[crossfire]

Can you think of types of human misbehavior that can't be credibly explained with arrogance as its cause?

With narcissism, it is more of an Id problem than an Ego problem, so you get all kinds of confusion from the mixture of language used in different fields. Narcissists often have difficulty recognizing personal boundaries--many have difficulty discerning where their personality ends and another personality begins. Empaths will consciously recognize the boundary, whereas narcissists often do not.

 

[joe1776]

With narcissism, it is more of an Id problem than an Ego problem, so you get all kinds of confusion from the mixture of language used in different fields. Narcissists often have difficulty recognizing personal boundaries--many have difficulty discerning where their personality ends and another personality begins. Empaths will consciously recognize the boundary, whereas narcissists often do not.

You quoted me: "Can you think of types of human misbehavior that can't be credibly explained with arrogance as its cause?" And your reply was interesting, but if it answered my question, I missed the point. Please clarify.

 

[crossfire]

You quoted me: "Can you think of types of human misbehavior that can't be credibly explained with arrogance as its cause?" And your reply was interesting, but if it answered my question, I missed the point. Please clarify.

What you declare to be caused by arrogance might not necessarily be the case. If you go about trying to solve the problem in the same manner you would go about solving a problem caused by arrogance, it may not work. In fact it might even make things worse.

 

[joe1776]

What you declare to be caused by arrogance might not necessarily be the case. ....

You're right. What I'm offering, scientists would call an hypothesis, one that scientists should be testing because it provides a credible explanation for so many observed effects of human misbehavior.

For example, these four phenomena have always been thought of as four different problems, with different causes, leading to wars throughout history:

tribalism
nationalism
religious intolerance
racism

When psychologists ask racists why they hate, they get a variety of nonsensical answers because people don't know why they hate.

But if we assume that an unconscious need to feel superior to others drives arrogant behavior, we get a credible explanation that covers all four phenomena:

tribalism (Our tribe is superior to theirs!)
nationalism (Our nation is superior to theirs!)
religious intolerance (Our religion is superior to theirs!)
racism (Our race is superior to theirs!)

 

[crossfire]

You're right. What I'm offering, scientists would call an hypothesis, one that scientists should be testing because it provides a credible explanation for so many observed effects of human misbehavior.

For example, these four phenomena have always been thought of as four different problems, with different causes, leading to wars throughout history:

tribalism
nationalism
religious intolerance
racism

When psychologists ask racists why they hate, they get a variety of nonsensical answers because people don't know why they hate.

But if we assume that an unconscious need to feel superior to others drives arrogant behavior, we get a credible explanation that covers all four phenomena:

tribalism (Our tribe is superior to theirs!)
nationalism (Our nation is superior to theirs!)
religious intolerance (Our religion is superior to theirs!)
racism (Our race is superior to theirs!)

Hatred can also be caused by abuse--the abused may grow to hate their abusers. Whether the abuse was actual or if it was just perceived abuse (delusional or not) is another matter altogether.

In Buddhism, the three unwholesome roots/poisons which cause people to do harmful things are:

• Greed
• Hatred
• Delusion

When greed, hatred, or delusion overcomes a person's mind, they will lie, steal, kill, rape, etc, and tell others to do likewise, and it will spread via the local collective (political/tribal, religious, or cultural.)