Simplifying Psychology

[Howard Is]

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:

Sociobiology offers a view which may explain a lot of the behaviour on your list.
Humans are primates. We are a social pack bonding animal.
Tribalism, nationalism, racism and religious intolerance look a lot like pack bonding to me.

Maybe nature is the problem ?

 

[Skwim]

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.

"Highfalutin jargon," as you put it is frequently nothing more than a shorthand way of expressing detailed or complicated ideas. Instead of saying "A mental condition in which people have an inflated sense of their own importance, a deep need for excessive attention and admiration, troubled relationships, and a lack of empathy for others." every time a psychologist wants to refer to such a mental condition, they use the word "narcissist." That you have trouble with such words is probably the same reason you likely have trouble understanding

You simply haven't bothered to learn the language of math. Ignorance is your enemy, not the shorthand others have developed to make life easier for themselves---rather than for you.

.

 

[Augustus]

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.

You can use misleading and less nuanced terminology if you like, seems a pointless quibble though.

Consequences of ‘minimal’ group affiliations in children
Three experiments (total N = 140) tested the hypothesis that 5-year-old children’s membership in randomly assigned ‘minimal’ groups would be sufficient to induce intergroup bias. Children were randomly assigned to groups and engaged in tasks involving judgments of unfamiliar ingroup or outgroup children. Despite an absence of information regarding the relative status of groups or any competitive context, ingroup preferences were observed on explicit and implicit measures of attitude and resource allocation (Experiment 1), behavioral attribution, and expectations of reciprocity, with preferences persisting when groups were not described via a noun label (Experiment 2). In addition, children systematically distorted incoming information by preferentially encoding positive information about ingroup members (Experiment 3). Implications for the developmental origins of intergroup bias are discussed.
Consequences of ‘minimal’ group affiliations in children

I don't think you answered the question.

Read again then.

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

Nope, but can't be bothered with pedantry based on mind-reading.

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

Someone may behave unethically out of loyalty to a friend, or love of family.

Someone may carry out harmful acts due to their mistaken belief they are actually helping others or at least acting in a benign manner. One major cause of the last financial crisis was adherence to flawed economic theory regarding credit-default swaps.

etc.

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

When they perceive it as being for 'the greater good'

Terrorists may be motivated by concern for the oppression of others.
Someone may vandalise a lab that tests cosmetics on animals.
Someone may shoot an abortion doctor because they consider him a mass-murderer operating with impunity
Well meaning progressives supported eugenics a century ago because the scientific consensus told them it was for the greater good.
etc.

The word would not be in common usage unless most people recognized arrogance when they see it...Whether they are correct or mistaken has no relevance to the person's attitude.

I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt that you were using a broader definition of arrogance than the norm, but seems you were not. If it's just attitude rather than consequences, then being humbly wrong can cause major harms (I thought is was for the best...), or a desire for fairness may drive misbehaviour.

One major cause of misbehaviour is 'other people were doing it', the idea that you are losing out by playing fair. This is based on a misplaced desire for equity. Also 'they started it', based on reciprocity.

 

[joe1776]

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.)

What caused the greed, the hatred, the delusion?

Greed, for example, is linked to arrogance. Highly arrogant people feel that they were born entitled to take more than their fair share of their society's benefits.. Here's a dictionary definition of "entitlement."

If someone has a sense of entitlement, that means the person believes he deserves certain privileges — and he's arrogant about it. The term "culture of entitlement" suggests that many people now have highly unreasonable expectations about what they are entitled to.

A. Hitler told the German people that since they belonged to a master race, they were entitled to take "living space" away from their neighbors to the East by force.

 

[joe1776]

"Highfalutin jargon," as you put it is frequently nothing more than a shorthand way of expressing detailed or complicated ideas. Instead of saying "A mental condition in which people have an inflated sense of their own importance, a deep need for excessive attention and admiration, troubled relationships, and a lack of empathy for others." every time a psychologist wants to refer to such a mental condition, they use the word "narcissist." That you have trouble with such words is probably the same reason you likely have trouble understanding

You simply haven't bothered to learn the language of math. Ignorance is your enemy, not the shorthand others have developed to make life easier for themselves---rather than for you.

.

You've been duped. The formula could have been made much simpler, one that everyone could understand, for example:

high arrogance = "A mental condition in which people have an inflated sense of their own importance, a deep need for excessive attention and admiration, troubled relationships, and a lack of empathy for others."

.

 

[joe1776]

Sociobiology offers a view which may explain a lot of the behaviour on your list.
Humans are primates. We are a social pack bonding animal.
Tribalism, nationalism, racism and religious intolerance look a lot like pack bonding to me.

Maybe nature is the problem ?

Since our species is at the top of the food chain, we are the biggest threat to our own survival. So, while we can see similarities between humans and other animals, I'm of the opinion that the best way to learn about human behavior is to study human behavior.

And, as I said earlier, scientists are on the right track when they look for causes which credibly explain more of the effects (behavior) we observe.

 

[joe1776]

You can use misleading and less nuanced terminology if you like, seems a pointless quibble though.

This is an unsupported claim used to support an otherwise unsupported claim.

Consequences of ‘minimal’ group affiliations in children

Does the idea that the unconscious need to feel superior to others, which causes arrogant behavior, is innate surprise you? I would expect that all unconscious needs are innate.

Someone may carry out harmful acts due to their mistaken belief they are actually helping others or at least acting in a benign manner. One major cause of the last financial crisis was adherence to flawed economic theory regarding credit-default swaps.

Such acts are not immoral. Car accidents that cause injury are not classified as crimes because they're not immoral. Causing harm was not the intent of the act.

Someone may vandalise a lab that tests cosmetics on animals.Someone may shoot an abortion doctor because they consider him a mass-murderer operating with impunity.

Over the centuries a great deal of harm has been done by arrogant people convinced that "Our morals are superior to theirs!" Arrogant Christians have made this case against atheists for centuries. At the same time, arrogant atheists brag "We're smarter than they are!" [Please note that I didn't claim that all Christians and atheists are arrogant]

Well meaning progressives supported eugenics a century ago because the scientific consensus told them it was for the greater good.

People would have to believe that they were superior to others in human worth in order to accept a belief in eugenics. That's arrogance, pure and simple.

 

[crossfire]

What caused the greed, the hatred, the delusion?

Greed, for example, is linked to arrogance. Highly arrogant people feel that they were born entitled to take more than their fair share of their society's benefits.. Here's a dictionary definition of "entitlement."

If someone has a sense of entitlement, that means the person believes he deserves certain privileges — and he's arrogant about it. The term "culture of entitlement" suggests that many people now have highly unreasonable expectations about what they are entitled to.

A. Hitler told the German people that since they belonged to a master race, they were entitled to take "living space" away from their neighbors to the East by force.

While I agree that humility is a highly desirable trait, I would say that blaming all the ills on arrogance is well, arrogant, imo. (projection.)

 

[Augustus]

This is an unsupported claim used to support an otherwise unsupported claim.

Yours was the unsupported claim, mine was backed by peer-reviewed research.

Does the idea that the unconscious need to feel superior to others, which causes arrogant behavior, is innate surprise you?

Another unsupported claim.

Why do you consider your unsupported opinion to be more probable than the scientifically supported view that in-group bias is evolutionarily advantageous? (Edge.org)

Such acts are not immoral. Car accidents that cause injury are not classified as crimes because they're not immoral. Causing harm was not the intent of the act.

That's simply not true. Many car accidents are deemed crimes even though there was no intent to cause harm if the driver was not being sufficiently careful.

Over the centuries a great deal of harm has been done by arrogant people convinced that "Our morals are superior to theirs!"

But you just said that intentions matter, not consequences.

Why is it more 'arrogant' to vandalise a lab that tests cosmetics on animals than it is to test cosmetics on animals in the first place? You are sacrificing your own welfare to protect those you deem unable to protect themselves.

This is generally considered a moral act when we also deem the oppressor to be culpable.

Would it have been arrogant and immoral to sacrifice your life to kill Hitler in 1937 for 'the greater good'?

The instinct is moral: serve the greater good. It's just a subjective value judgement whether you agree that it serves the greater good.

Christians have made this case against atheists for centuries.

If you genuinely believe in hell, then your intent may be to save people from the worst fate imaginable. You said it doesn't matter if they are correct of not.

Harms are often caused by misplaced morality, not arrogance. Just as they may be caused by loyalty, love, misinformation, equity, reciprocity and countless other things.

 

[joe1776]

While I agree that humility is a highly desirable trait, I would say that blaming all the ills on arrogance is well, arrogant, imo. (projection.)

You're mistaken. I didn't claim that ALL human misbehavior can be credibly explained with arrogance as its cause.

I wrote that it's hard to think of a kind of misbehavior that can't be credibly explained as caused by arrogance. It's possible that many exceptions exist, but my theory is holding up so far because posters, Augustus in particular, have been trying hard to prove me wrong but failing so far. So, I'm gaining confidence that I'm right in claiming that it's hard to do.

 

[joe1776]

Yours was the unsupported claim, mine was backed by peer-reviewed research.

You seem unfamiliar with the replication crisis in psychology. Here's an article on it but a web-search will turn up several better articles about a meta-analysis.
Replication Crisis | Psychology Today

Moreover, the study you offered logically supports my theory as I pointed out.

Why do you consider your unsupported opinion to be more probable than the scientifically supported view that in-group bias is evolutionarily advantageous?

My opinions are supported by logic. For example, you will not be able to logically explain how both group pride (in-group bias) and group prejudice (out-group bias) are BOTH survival advantages. If you can't do that, then human group activity is at a stalemate -- not an advantage or a disadvantage to our survival.

That's simply not true. Many car accidents are deemed crimes even though there was no intent to cause harm if the driver was not being sufficiently careful.

In the USA, the acts you describe are considered negligence which can result in loss of driving privileges, but they are not criminal. Intentional acts of road rage, where the car is used as a weapon with the intent to injure other drivers are punished as criminal acts.

But you just said that intentions matter, not consequences.

You are adding your own thoughts to my statements. I didn't say that consequences didn't matter. I said that, for the act to be immoral, the intent must be to harm.

Why is it more 'arrogant' to vandalise a lab that tests cosmetics on animals than it is to test cosmetics on animals in the first place? You are sacrificing your own welfare to protect those you deem unable to protect themselves.

I don't recall writing that it was more arrogant to vandalize a lab. Quote me please.

Would it have been arrogant and immoral to sacrifice your life to kill Hitler in 1937 for 'the greater good'?

No, this is a moral dilemma in which doing the lesser harm is morally OK. But that's not the case with the eugenicists. It's not a moral dilemma since there is no greater harm than the harm done to the innocent afflicted.

The instinct is moral: serve the greater good. It's just a subjective value judgement whether you agree that it serves the greater good.

Moral judgments are NOT subjective. The consciences (moral intuition) of unbiased minds will become the objective judgment on any specific case.

If you genuinely believe in hell, then your intent may be to save people from the worst fate imaginable. You said it doesn't matter if they are correct of not.

Are you claiming that when Christians argue that they are morally superior that they are likely doing it to persuade atheists to see the light?

Harms are often caused by misplaced morality, not arrogance. Just as they may be caused by loyalty, love, misinformation, equity, reciprocity and countless other things.

You might be right, maybe there are exceptions that I haven't thought of but, so far, you haven't produced one. Support your claim: Give me an example of how misinformation might cause an immoral act.

 

[crossfire]

You're mistaken. I didn't claim that ALL human misbehavior can be credibly explained with arrogance as its cause.

I wrote that it's hard to think of a kind of misbehavior that can't be credibly explained as caused by arrogance. It's possible that many exceptions exist, but my theory is holding up so far because posters, Augustus in particular, have been trying hard to prove me wrong but failing so far. So, I'm gaining confidence that I'm right in claiming that it's hard to do.

I gave some examples regarding narcissism upthread...not difficult at all.

 

[joe1776]

I gave some examples regarding narcissism upthread...not difficult at all.

If you offered examples of immoral acts (misbehavior) that were not caused by arrogance, I missed it. Post number please.

 

[anna.]

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.

The word psychology isn't "highfalutin jargon," it's the combination of two Greek words, psyche and logia/logos, making a pretty apt word for the study of the science of mind and behavior. Narcissist comes from the Greek again, the mythological Narcissus. While I agree that people sometimes use a "five dollar word when a 50-cent word will do" pretty much everyone has a working idea of what the words psychology and narcissist mean.

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

Greed. Lust. Wrath. Gluttony. Envy. Sloth.

 

[Howard Is]

I wrote that it's hard to think of a kind of misbehavior that can't be credibly explained as caused by arrogance. It's possible that many exceptions exist, but my theory is holding up so far because posters, Augustus in particular, have been trying hard to prove me wrong but failing so far. So, I'm gaining confidence that I'm right in claiming that it's hard to do.

I gave you a cause. Humans are primates whose psychology is based on pack bonding.

So, while we can see similarities between humans and other animals, I'm of the opinion that the best way to learn about human behavior is to study human behavior.

That is exactly what sociobiology does. Read some books.
Read “Sociobiology : The New Synthesis” by Edward O Wilson.

And, as I said earlier, scientists are on the right track when they look for causes which credibly explain more of the effects (behavior) we observe.

Once again, read E O Wilson. That is exactly what he did.

Furthermore, his work clearly demonstrates the biological basis of behaviour for all species, including human.

If this subject interests you, you would be very remiss not to read this book.

 

[Augustus]

You seem unfamiliar with the replication crisis in psychology. Here's an article on it but a web-search will turn up several better articles about a meta-analysis.
Replication Crisis | Psychology Today

Moreover, the study you offered logically supports my theory as I pointed out.

Strange that the science is always dreadfully unreliable and can be dismissed out of hand when it contradicts your ideological and emotionally based beliefs, yet you claim it to be beyond reproach when you (mistakenly) believe it supports your view (Haidt, Bloom, etc).

And no, it doesn't support your arrogance belief, you are making far stronger claims than the paper (claiming a definitive cause, rather than an observed phenomenon), yet you claim theirs to be unreliable.

Anyway, that the field overall contains many errors, doesn't mean that all psychology is false. Psychology should manifest itself in human behaviour, and any major psychological feature that was ubiquitous in the pre-modern world and is now supported by the overwhelming scientific consensus too is far more likely to be true, than the average findings in the field. Logic, my friend.

My opinions are supported by logic. For example, you will not be able to logically explain how both group pride (in-group bias) and group prejudice (out-group bias) are BOTH survival advantages. If you can't do that, then human group activity is at a stalemate -- not an advantage or a disadvantage to our survival.

The problem with this 'logic' is that it's incredibly easy to explain both in evolutionary terms.

It aids survival to promote prosocial behaviour within the group we depend on for our survival (we see this is may animals). This is obvious. Group cohesion and cooperation matters.

It also aids survival to be sceptical of outsiders for they may wish to do you harm. Again, obvious. And no, we wouldn't have evolved to exist in perfect harmony and cooperation. Hunter gatherer humans could not form large societies as they would not be able to feed them all, just as you could only graze a certain number of cattle in a field before they starve.

We didn't 'come down from the trees' with the incredibly complex conceptual, linguistic, cognitive, political, logistic, emotional and social skills necessary to enable the perfect cooperation required to make trusting strangers evolutionarily rational. Even if we did, periodic resource scarcity would still create situations in which the only option is kill or be killed.

Some more science for you to reject out of hand for ideological reasons:

Optimising human community sizes

We examine community longevity as a function of group size in three historical, small scale agricultural samples. Community sizes of 50, 150 and 500 are disproportionately more common than other sizes; they also have greater longevity. These values mirror the natural layerings in hunter-gatherer societies and contemporary personal networks. In addition, a religious ideology seems to play an important role in allowing larger communities to maintain greater cohesion for longer than a strictly secular ideology does. The differences in optimal community size may reflect the demands of different ecologies, economies and social contexts, but, as yet, we have no explanation as to why these numbers seem to function socially so much more effectively than other values.
Optimising human community sizes

I don't recall writing that it was more arrogant to vandalize a lab. Quote me please.

You replied this to the point on animal testing: "Over the centuries a great deal of harm has been done by arrogant people convinced that "Our morals are superior to theirs!"

Are you saying it's equally arrogant to test on animals, and take action to stop people to stop testing on animals?

No, this is a moral dilemma in which doing the lesser harm is morally OK. But that's not the case with the eugenicists. It's not a moral dilemma since there is no greater harm than the harm done to the innocent afflicted.

But you just said it was arrogant to want to stop people harming innocent animals for the purpose of human vanity (cosmetics).

Your 'logic' is incoherent

At what point in history did it become moral to kill Hitler? 1936? 1933? Precise answer please.

Who gets to decide on 'the lesser harm'? And who gets to decide who is innocent?

Moral judgments are NOT subjective. The consciences (moral intuition) of unbiased minds will become the objective judgment on any specific case.

Have you any evidence to support the idea that there is even such thing as an 'unbiased mind'? Do you believe you are unbiased?

There's a lot of evidence against the idea. Seeing as arrogance is a common cause of error, what makes you so sure it is not your personal arrogance that leads you to think you know better than almost everyone else: scientists and nonscientist included?

Are you claiming that when Christians argue that they are morally superior that they are likely doing it to persuade atheists to see the light?

Some are. Many people have braved great danger and undergone great hardship to 'spread the good news'.

Can someone morally and humbly try to stop someone else committing suicide? Can you morally and humbly try to stop someone attacking another person violently?

If you genuinely believe someone you like is going to hell but you could 'save' them, isn't it moral to try to do so? (you said being right doesn't matter, only good intention)

You might be right, maybe there are exceptions that I haven't thought of but, so far, you haven't produced one. Support your claim: Give me an example of how misinformation might cause an immoral act.

I've given you multiple examples for a variety of causes. 'Everyone else was doing it', 'he started it' are driven by equity and reciprocity, not 'arrogance'. Protecting your family via immoral actions is done through love, not arrogance. Loyalty to a person or cause where you sacrifice your individual well being for the good of the group is altruism, not arrogance.

On the other hand, you've offered nothing but an unsupported opinion that is contradicted by science, experience and all of human history: 'good' people do immoral things despite their good intentions.

As for misinformation:
If you believe heathens go to hell for eternal punishment, but an innocent baby would go to heaven, it becomes morally correct to kill that baby rather than let it grow up to be a heathen.

Your intentions were good, secure eternal salvation for the child and save it from a fate worse than death.

His intentions were moral, but I'd say that act was immoral because I believe he is likely misinformed, wouldn't you?

 

[joe1776]

The word psychology isn't "highfalutin jargon," it's the combination of two Greek words, psyche and logia/logos, making a pretty apt word for the study of the science of mind and behavior. Narcissist comes from the Greek again, the mythological Narcissus. While I agree that people sometimes use a "five dollar word when a 50-cent word will do" pretty much everyone has a working idea of what the words psychology and narcissist mean.

Creating jargon is necessary to describe new concepts. Human behavior and arrogance aren't new concepts. This jargon was created to impress people.

Greed. Lust. Wrath. Gluttony. Envy. Sloth.

Greed, Wrath and Envy are credibly explained with arrogance as the cause.

Arrogant people feel entitled to take a bigger share of the benefits of their society (greed).

Arrogant people need to prove themselves superior. They want to be envied and they envy others with more stuff than they have.

Arrogant people get furious when others they deem inferior don't recognize their innate superiority (wrath). However, wrath many have other causes as well.

Lust isn't misbehavior in my book. It's a natural response demonized by prudes.

As for Sloth, you'd need to give me specific examples of misbehavior. I've never been sure what range of behavior Sloth covers.

 

[crossfire]

Creating jargon is necessary to describe new concepts. Human behavior and arrogance aren't new concepts. This jargon was created to impress people.

Greed, Wrath and Envy are credibly explained with arrogance as the cause.

Arrogant people feel entitled to take a bigger share of the benefits of their society (greed).

Arrogant people need to prove themselves superior. They want to be envied and they envy others with more stuff than they have.

Arrogant people get furious when others they deem inferior don't recognize their innate superiority (wrath). However, wrath many have other causes as well.

Lust isn't misbehavior in my book. It's a natural response demonized by prudes.

As for Sloth, you'd need to give me specific examples of misbehavior. I've never been sure what range of behavior Sloth covers.

Arrogance is a dominance strategy.
Wrath is an emotional response to dislike, which may or may not have dominance as a factor.
Likewise, greed may or may not have a dominance factor to it.
And again, envy may or may not have a dominance factor to it.

 

[anna.]

Creating jargon is necessary to describe new concepts. Human behavior and arrogance aren't new concepts. This jargon was created to impress people.

"Jargon" isn't necessarily a negative, since the jargon "telephone" and "cellphone" have proven to be pretty popular with the masses. : ) So I'm gonna drop this part since we're not likely to get past our differences.

Greed, Wrath and Envy are credibly explained with arrogance as the cause.

Arrogant people feel entitled to take a bigger share of the benefits of their society (greed).

You can be arrogant and greedy at the same time, without the two being conflated as the same.

Arrogant people need to prove themselves superior. They want to be envied and they envy others with more stuff than they have.

Not all people who envy want to be envied themselves.

Is a infertile woman who envies a mother arrogant?

Arrogant people get furious when others they deem inferior don't recognize their innate superiority (wrath). However, wrath many have other causes as well.

Yes, wrath has many causes. Not all of them "credibly explained with arrogance as the cause."

Would you be angry if someone attacked your wife? children? Would you be arrogant for being angry?

Lust isn't misbehavior in my book. It's a natural response demonized by prudes.

Maybe it isn't in your book, but it is in many people's book. Because it's not in your book doesn't mean it's not a human misbehavior (not necessarily with arrogance at its root).

As for Sloth, you'd need to give me specific examples of misbehavior. I've never been sure what range of behavior Sloth covers.

Sloth (deadly sin) - Wikipedia

It can be reduced (even if imperfectly) to physical or spiritual laziness.

 

[joe1776]

Strange that the science is always dreadfully unreliable and can be dismissed out of hand when it contradicts your ideological and emotionally based beliefs, yet you claim it to be beyond reproach when you (mistakenly) believe it supports your view (Haidt, Bloom, etc).

Your opinion is noted. I obviously think it's nonsense.

And no, it doesn't support your arrogance belief, you are making far stronger claims than the paper (claiming a definitive cause, rather than an observed phenomenon), yet you claim theirs to be unreliable.

Again, your opinion is noted.

Anyway, that the field overall contains many errors, doesn't mean that all psychology is false. Psychology should manifest itself in human behaviour, and any major psychological feature that was ubiquitous in the pre-modern world and is now supported by the overwhelming scientific consensus too is far more likely to be true, than the average findings in the field. Logic, my friend.

A field that contains many errors, as you point out, cannot be trusted.

The problem with this 'logic' is that it's incredibly easy to explain both in evolutionary terms.

You made this bragging claim and then failed to comment on how group prejudice (out-group bias) causes aggression. In the 2,000 years of modern history, the wars have been caused primarily by racism, religious intolerance and nationalism and not from "resource scarcity." The most dangerous threat to the survival of our species is human aggression caused group prejudice.

Some more science for you to reject out of hand for ideological reasons: Optimising human community sizes

How is this relevant to our discussion?

Are you saying it's equally arrogant to test on animals, and take action to stop people to stop testing on animals?

I don't know how to measure the degree of arrogance based on the hypothetical you posed. I only claim that if conscience judges the specific act as wrongful, arrogance should be our prime suspect as the original cause.

At what point in history did it become moral to kill Hitler? 1936? 1933? Precise answer please.

Dumb question. A precise answer is impossible. The killing of Hitler is only moral as a post-hoc hypothetical question.

Who gets to decide on 'the lesser harm'? And who gets to decide who is innocent?

That would depend on whether one is involved with the act or part of a jury judging the one involved with the act.

Have you any evidence to support the idea that there is even such thing as an 'unbiased mind'? Do you believe you are unbiased?

This question is simply argumentative. Of course there are unbiased minds "....on any specific case."

There's a lot of evidence against the idea. Seeing as arrogance is a common cause of error, what makes you so sure it is not your personal arrogance that leads you to think you know better than almost everyone else: scientists and nonscientist included?

I'm not certain I'm right but you are giving me confidence in my theory by struggling to find even one exception.

Some are. Many people have braved great danger and undergone great hardship to 'spread the good news'.

Can someone morally and humbly try to stop someone else committing suicide? Can you morally and humbly try to stop someone attacking another person violently?

If you genuinely believe someone you like is going to hell but you could 'save' them, isn't it moral to try to do so? (you said being right doesn't matter, only good intention)

Your talent in justifying the unjustifiable is noteworthy; but when Christians claim they are morally superior to atheists, it is obviously an arrogant claim that leads to the Sanctimonious Christian negative stereotype. I imagine fair-minded Christians are embarrassed by the claim.

I've given you multiple examples for a variety of causes. 'Everyone else was doing it', 'he started it' are driven by equity and reciprocity, not 'arrogance'. Protecting your family via immoral actions is done through love, not arrogance. Loyalty to a person or cause where you sacrifice your individual well being for the good of the group is altruism, not arrogance.

On the other hand, you've offered nothing but an unsupported opinion that is contradicted by science, experience and all of human history: 'good' people do immoral things despite their good intentions.

Your opinions are noted.

As for misinformation:
If you believe heathens go to hell for eternal punishment, but an innocent baby would go to heaven, it becomes morally correct to kill that baby rather than let it grow up to be a heathen.

Your intentions were good, secure eternal salvation for the child and save it from a fate worse than death.

His intentions were moral, but I'd say that act was immoral because I believe he is likely misinformed, wouldn't you?

You frustration is showing. You had to resort to describing an abnormal act done by a Christian. You haven't described someone who is misinformed. You've described someone who is probably insane and therefor incapable of immoral intent.