By definition, my worldview sees me as part of a society of equals. Everyone's needs and emotions matter exactly as much as my own. If two people want a thing and neither has a greater claim on the thing (nobody needs it more), it's shared equally. Fairness and equity define everyday interactions.

The point is, while I may appear or even act arrogantly, my worldview is inherently not. Whether believing in fairness as superior over other things is arrogant in of itself is debatable, but if that is the point you are willing to make then I will leave you to it.

When I look at people that I consider arrogant then I see two kinds of people, either 1) people who think they have it all figured out and are very smug about it, or 2) people who think they deserve special treatment.

This is the kind of person who walks around and degrades others for not being as smart as them, who continuosly makes derogatory remarks and can't stop themselves from attacking other people all the time, believing themselves to be in an absolute state of infallibility and, resulting from this, making other people's lifes worse. Now, I more often than I am wishing I had to admit make the mistake of being extremely confident in my beliefs, and I do like to question other people's statements if they contradict with my perceptions, even if the person is a kind of person who is, by society, considered an authority figure. I like to choose myself whom I think of as an authority and whom I do not, and the people I then end up talking with are the kind of people I assessed as not being an authority in the field of study in question. Not that I am an authority in any field of study, but that only means that the playing field is even.

Anyway, the problem I have that makes me unsure whether I really am arrogant or not is because I do not believe to be smug about it. While I will - with confidence, sometimes warranted, sometimes not - demand explanation or justification from people who think they should not have to explain or justify things to me, I don't think I am smug about it. I do not attack people, raise doubts over someone's competence or degrade them. From my perspective, I try to make a rational point, raise an issue or point out flaws in suggested courses of actions and then, when the people whose claims I just pulled into question inevitably try to defend their claims, deliberate over the issue at hand.

Remember that in any 1-on-1 debate, you are about 50% likely to be right. Of course, this is influenced by certain factors, especially expertise/proficiency, experience and temperament in that moment. More general claims, ie. vague and unspecific, like "Communism is better than capitalism" tend to be wrong more often than claims about individual aspects of a matter, like “Saying that greed is in human nature is barely a defensible claim because most behaviors are acquired, not innate¹⁾”. Bonus points for not trying to use this fact as “proof” that communism can work, because it's not proof.
Anyhow, 50% will be barely measurable in a one-on-one that only happens once, but becomes measurable quite well indeed when one talks to the same person several times and finds out that they never cede a point, never admit to be wrong on something, always make major, generalized claims. Negative bonus points for people who refuse to defend their beliefs in the first place and instead use their “authority” and “life experience” to squash deliberation before it could ever happen. See, I don't tend to dislike authority because of capitalism or the system, but because authority tends to refuse to be accountable or doubtable.

From my perspective, the people who call me 'arrogant' are usually people that are in positions of authority, the kinds of positions that generally like to think of themselves as unaccountable, undoubtable. Now, keep in mind that I am not saying that I know that these people don't want to be doubted/questioned, but it is this one trait every person, who ever called me “arrogant”, shares. People who think they don't have to explain their ways because they have Authority or Life Experience (which assumably gives you implied authority on matters). Every single one of these people held a position of authority. Peers that called me arrogant? Ie. people that consider themselves to be on my level, who know they are answerable to the people around them. None, not a single one. Maybe they haven't told me because they don't think they are in the position to tell me about my arrogance? Not impossible, but still. The people who call me arrogant are all connected by this one feature: That they believe to have authority.

It is in fact the case that I apply to every aspect of my life the philosophy that I do not deserve special treatment. For this I use the Claim system.

But then again, maybe my perception is wrong. Maybe I am arrogant. I know I have been very aggressive in the way I present my cases and maybe that at least makes me look smug. Honestly, it probably does. Still, it doesn't feel like I am innately arrogant. It doesn't make sense with how I view myself and the world. Or maybe I am fully in denial?

No. On average, people are of average intelligence. This applies even to the nuttiest conspiracy theorist, and claiming that someone is stupid really only makes the aggressor look stupid²⁾. To think of yourself as possessing the kind of knowledge and understanding to comprehend a topic as multifaceted and complicated as human intelligence and going on to make sweeping judgements on a person you barely know (you don't even know yourself enough to make definitive claims on your intelligence) - THAT is arrogant.

This ALSO includes calling people arrogant. When someone says that someone else “is” arrogant, the truth is that they probably mean “that person is acting in a way, right now that appears arrogant to me”. To claim that one truly knows a person well enough to affirmatively be able to state such a thing should be beyond the ability of most people, myself included. That's why the heading of this section talks about “things” that are arrogant, not whether committing these things makes the individual committing them arrogant. An action can be arrogant, and everyone will engage in arrogant acitivities at some point in their life, but whether that person is inherently arrogant is a whole different question.

It has happened a few times too many that I meet people who I ended up describing as such: “You inject yourself into the life of other people and make authoritative statements about matters you know nothing about, making prescriptions, telling people what they should or shouldn't do, to people you don't know or have never even met.” Usually these would be the kind of people whose mind you cannot change, no matter what you would say. They enter a conversation with a pre-formed opinion, and they will forcibly impart it onto you. To them, the correctness of your statement isn't up for debate. While you may be looking to gain new insight by talking to another person who may have a different perspective, to them you are already wrong and need to be told that you are. To them it doesn't even matter why you are wrong, which is why when you actually push their “reasonings” they will continually fall back onto more and more questionable strings of arguments without ever actually making a concession. They are not there to deliberate over the content in question, they are there to make a statement, and you are to accept that statement as is.

This is particularly painful for me - I am a younger person, and since childhood I have essentially always been wrong. It is getting better over time, but people still see the need to continually educate me on the nature of things, using statements that indicate they are in fact the ones whose penetration of the subject at hand is extremely shallow. Treat me like an adult, will you?

In general it seems like most of the criticism against my perceived “arrogance” seems to be coming from people who 1) don't know me very much and 2) aren't the kind of people who like to have their values pulled into question. Those who call me arrogant all have in common that it is often the most opinionated people and also seem to like to insist on their “authority”, that they don't have to/don't want to justify their views.
Why is this relevant? Because nothing is holy to me. If I see something that I consider wrong, I call it out. Be it the most socially conforming things to call out, or the weirdest things, like calling out the bollock taboos around incest, I will address things and try to make cases. It's the kind of demographic that likes to go “I have life experience” and “I am an adult, I don't have to justify myself” (both appeals to authority). Life is very easy when you don't have to think about what you're doing, and I am making people think, whether they want it or not. Figure out what you want, run it full steam and then suppress the dissenters. (Outdated position, changed on Feb 12, 2024)