I'm not really qualified to comment on programmers per se. But I am reminded of a personal anecdote:
In my mid-twenties, I had to have minor surgery on my face. My looks were very important to me. I thought I was quite beautiful and this was upsetting to me. I was concerned I would be disfigured but I really had to have the surgery. Trying to make my peace with it, I commented "I guess I can always have cosmetic surgery later." The surgeon was quite affronted and said "You won't need cosmetic surgery when I am done." The scar is nearly invisible -- less visible than the cyst that was removed. Even people who knew me before the surgery and know I had my face cut on have difficulty finding the scar.
I concluded that if you can bring it, maybe you aren't actually arrogant. Maybe you are just stating the facts, regardless of how it might sound to other people.
1) Maybe you missed the "maybes" in my closing remarks.
2) Being exceptionally competent puts one in a social trap. It is generally not acceptable to state that you are that good. It is also not acceptable to lie, and downplaying your competence is a form of deception (aka "lying"). So if you are that good, there is no good answer when the topic comes up.
I will also take this opportunity to note that the surgeon did not come across as arrogant until I inadvertently questioned his professional competence by trying to verbally reassure myself. And, in fact, his reaction was extremely reassuring to me. I went ahead with the surgery with much relief and trust in his ability, something I don't think I would have felt if he had instead tried to nicely address my emotional concerns about the whole thing.
I hadn't missed your maybes. You're pondering the subtleties of this argument far more intelligently than my blunt comment does. But perhaps that's because you've had time to mature and reflect on your brush with arrogance, while I am still reeling from a recent encounter ;-)
You can state the same thing different ways depending on the words you use, tone of voice, etc. Just because you are brilliant in one field doesn't give you a pass to look down on everyone else.
Just because you are brilliant in one field doesn't give you a pass to look down on everyone else.
And just because you are brilliant at something in particular does not mean you also have equally brilliant diplomatic skills so as to be able to state the fact (that you are exceptionally competent at X) without sounding arrogant. I try to cut people some slack in that regard.
I didn't read it as putting him down at all. This wasn't a competition between the patient and the surgeon about whose medical skills where the best, but about the surgeons skills against the reality of the cyst.
I didn't think (s)he was calling me brilliant but unpolished. ;-)
I took it as more of a general observation, which I agree with but I don't think it makes for some of kind of rebuttal to my conclusion, which basically amounts to: If you really are extremely good at something, asserting that you are that good is likely to sound arrogant to other people even if it is simply factual. I try to keep stuff like that in mind and not jump to conclusions about the size of a person's ego based on limited data. Other people seem to generally be very willing to jump to such conclusions on very limited data. I offer the anecdote to suggest that, if programmers are generally competent and intelligent, it won't much matter how humbly they present themselves. Their competence will rub plenty of people the wrong way, no matter how many sets of velvet gloves they have for all social occasions.
I agree with this. A lot of people probably consider me arrogant and stubborn. Honestly, I don't care though. Arrogance and stubborn are only flaws when you're wrong. On the other hand, being arrogant and stubborn about the truth is a virtue in my opinion.
I think there is a fine line between confidence and arrogance. And if you know for a fact that you are right, it can be difficult to back down, even in the face of enormous social pressure. I'm not comfortable with saying that arrogance and stubbornness about the truth is a virtue, but I would say that someone who is sincerely devoted to pursuing the truth and sharing it is at high risk of being viewed as arrogant and stubborn.
I used to frequently get accused of being an egomaniac. More recently, I am fairly frequently accused of being a liar. I have concluded that, in my case, accusations of ego indicate people think it can be done, just not necessarily by me. But accusations that I am a liar mean they don't believe it can be done at all, by anyone. Since I have, in fact, accomplished what I claim to have done, I can't bring myself to claim otherwise merely to appease the critics. I do still wrestle with the possibility of whether or not I should simply shut up about it, but that brings up the dilemma that people who are sincerely interested in the information would also be denied. So far, I have been unable to reconcile myself to that route. I still have no good answers. But I wrestle with such questions a lot.
You're probably right, but saying that stubbornness can be good is my tactic for dealing with people who think I'm stubborn. It moves the conversation from what they think of me personally to whether I'm right or wrong.
In regards to what other people accuse you of, it's usually them projecting. In other words, the person who accused you of being an egomaniac could be avoiding fears that they themselves are being an egomaniac. Or the person who calls you a liar may secretly be afraid that they're not trustworthy.
Regardless, I've found experience to be the best teacher. I've learned not to be shy when it comes time to say "I told you so". It sucks, but you leave people the option to continue to underestimate you if you don't.
I think people called me egomaniacal in part because I am a woman. I strongly suspect I would be considered more humble if I were male. They call me a liar because they find my claims threatening. If I am right, then their doctor is wrong and that has ugly, uncomfortable implications when your life (or your child's life) is on the line.
Good for you. I admire people who take responsibility that way. Our "health care system" (more properly termed "disease management industry") is so stacked against this that it requires genuine struggle. It's not surprising that you would be accused of lying, either; that's cognitive dissonance 101. Not ideal, but still a good trade.
I heard a line in a comedy the other night: "I never compromise. Because if you compromise, you're admitting you aren't right."
On the other hand, being arrogant and stubborn about the truth is a virtue in my opinion.
I take it you're not married. And if you are, please write a book about this policy and its effects if you use it frequently ;-)
Also, an issue about being stubborn about the truth is that there can be as many versions of the "truth" as there are actors in the situation. Typically people don't deliberately argue positions they think are untrue. See crime witnesses or religious people for powerful examples.
Well, I'm about as married as any gay male can be. And my boyfriend has learned to put up with it.
"Also, an issue about being stubborn about the truth is that there can be as many versions of the "truth" as there are actors in the situation."
I'd strongly disagree. Different people may have different pieces of the truth (ie the truth could be "Either person x's approach or person y's approach will work"), they might have different perspectives on the truth (ie the truth could be "person x is right about a, b, c, and d but not e while person y is right about e, f, g, and h but not i"), or they might be arguing about a subject where there is no real truth (see religious people for powerful examples). But where the truth exists it is singular.
When presented with conflicting ideas, the goal is to determine if one is correct or they both are correct. Throwing your hands in the air and saying "The truth is subjective" is a cop-out.
It's a cop-out depending on your epistemological standpoint. I'm typically an empiricist so I appreciate the sentiment, but I recognize that other viewpoints of what truth and knowledge are could have merit.
I'm not a big reader on philosophy and epistemology but merely the smorgasbord of "theories of truth" presented at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth is enough for me to shy away from asserting that "where the truth exists it is singular." I sympathize with and have held the same position, but I've seen enough to cast doubt upon my gut feelings on the matter.
Young people with a natural affinity for an in-demand skill often are. A hundred years ago you could have written this about pilots. 500 years about painters (apprentices to the great masters in the Renaissance were notorious for it).
As an aside, for every genuine Aspbergers case, there are 10 who simply think they have a god-given right to act like dicks. It's like dyslexics, you can always tell the real ones because they're quietly getting on with it, not making a huge attention-getting fuss.
It's interesting that you mention apprentices to the great masters, which squares with my experience--- the most arrogant people, or at least the most abrasive and outgoing with their arrogance, are usually the 2nd and 3rd tiers, not the top tier. There are arrogant people at the top tier, but many fewer than I would've thought. I suspect it has something to do with no longer feeling a need to prove themselves, no longer feeling in competition with people, etc. There might also be a bit of branching out into other areas later in one's career that causes them to be a bit more humble, since famous people often try to become more generalist once they've gotten famous in a specific area, and it's harder to be arrogant in a very wide area than in a niche.
Among people I interact with, there seems to be sort of a peak of arrogance among people who are very good in a narrow area in their 20s and 30s, while famous people in their 40s or 50s are often quite humble and generous in their evaluation of other people. At CS conferences, for example, you don't find folks like Donald Knuth asking pedantic dick questions very often, but you do find the "ugh how could anybody not have read [x], did you even do any research?" type attitudes from junior profs and grad students.
I agree with this, I've worked in health care and programmers have nothing on physicians when it comes to arrogance. I don't know any programmers who would coach a physician on the proper way to design a course of treatment...
I think the same rule holds with doctors as with programmers - there are tremendously arrogant people who use their position as a surrogate for competence, and there are people who really are competent and don't have much time to deal with fools.
The only way to tell the difference is to watch their results for a while.
Jacquesm mentions the "save my life" thread. Yeah. Read that. I'm one of the programmers would damn straight coach a physician on the proper way to design a course of treatment - until I know which of the above groups the physician in question falls into.
It's like dyslexics, you can always tell the real ones because they're quietly getting on with it, not making a huge attention-getting fuss.
I think a good deal of individuals that draw attention to it do so because they are generally embarrassed by some of the manifestations of this particular problem. You can have an otherwise intelligent person, who's writing can give the indication that there thoughts are somehow less valid, because there intelligence should be questioned due to gramatical errors.
I think stating it, is a way of an individual saying "hey don't discount my thoughts due to the vessel they come it"
I know for me personally, it is a source of major embarrassment and this damned iPhone keyboard only makes it dreadfully worse.
They're not really arrogant, they just come off as such. Programmers usually are pretty clever cookies and as a rule are more often right than wrong, even if the subject is not programming, that alone is enough to mark them as arrogant. We also tend to be an opinionated bunch.
Some of them compound the problem by no longer considering other people to be occasionally right and them being wrong and do cross the line in to arrogance.
It's fine as long as people agree on things but as soon as one party starts to ignore the other when they disagree then you have trouble.
For an encore, check 'mathematicians are arrogant', 'physicists are arrogant', 'surgeons are arrogant' and so on.
Anybody that has a job that requires a ton of study and a lot of brain work will tend towards this, it's human, nothing specific about programmers.
That doesn't help you when you're faced with a nice sample of a prima-donna arrogant programmer though, they do happen, just no more than in other 'brainy' professions.
as a rule are more often right than wrong, even if the subject is not programming
I would say this statement is the very height of arrogance. But this is easy to test: simply don't engage the services of any specialists for bit. Do your own plumbing, fix your own car or central heating, represent yourself in court (and tell the judge you know more than him about the law). Then see how you feel in a year.
> Do your own plumbing, fix your own car or central heating, represent yourself in court (and tell the judge you know more than him about the law). Then see how you feel in a year.
I just rebuilt a house (which obviously includes a great deal of plumbing, including a central heating system) and have swapped out the gearbox in a front-wheel drive japanese car.
If you want I can post the pictures as proof.
I am not likely to be able to get in to situation where I will have to represent myself in court.
Anything else ?
But I do know the limits of my knowledge, am quite ready to admit I'm wrong about something and do my best to learn from people with more knowledge than me about anything at all. Including lawyers (my mom happens to be one).
edit: and as an aside, if I had to be represented in court I'd be more than happy to hire a lawyer because representing yourself in court as a rule is stupid, even if you are a lawyer, let alone if you are not.
Why shouldn't it be the norm though, this reminds me of my favorite Robert Heinlein quote: "A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly".
Real world skills are important, even for mathematicians, physicists and computer programmers.
And having some real world skills only gives you more respect, not less for the people that practice those things every day.
Nothing will teach you respect for a farmer more than trying to grow your own food, and the same goes for any other variation on that theme.
Specialization is more efficient. If we all grew our own food, made our own clothes and built our own houses thee would be no time left over to train surgeons or invent computers.
Smart people are a minority and on average find themselves in a conversation with less smart people. Therefore, smart people tend to be right more often than less smart people, partly because they know more, but also because they are more aware of what they don't know and are less prone to saying wrong things. Instead, they will keep their mouth shut, hedge their words or learn about the subject first.
Jacquesm's statement in no way suggests a smart person should do his own plumbing. In fact, because a person is smart, he will be more likely to hire a professional. Or, if he does try it himself, he will succeed more often, because he gets the appropriate information and training beforehand. These arguments are actually somewhat circular, because this behavior partly defines what we perceive as 'smart people': people that succeed at what they attempt.
Smart people that know they are smart will inevitably come across as arrogant, because when they think they are right, they know chances are high they actually are right and they will not easily let an opinion drop. They know when they don't know stuff and they won't often end up having to admit they were wrong, because they weren't claiming to be right in the first place. The 'other side' doesn't see this: they only see someone that is pretty sure he is right most of the time and that hardly ever admits he was wrong.
What does this have to do with programmers? Programmers are generally perceived to be smart people and as a result programmers tend to consider themselves to be pretty smart. Unfortunately, this also holds for programmers that actually aren't all that smart and should be more modest with regards to their opinion about matters. The aggregate result of all this is that a relatively large group of programmers think too highly of themselves and that confirmation bias has led some to conclude that 'many programmers are arrogant'.
BTW, this is an explanation. I lack any solid data to back it up. It's an explanatory narrative and it may be wrong. However, if enough people think it sounds right, it's probably right. Another reason why people sometimes seem arrogant, is that they may strongly defend some position, while it never becomes clear during the discussion that they are well aware they may be wrong. If you defend a position very well, it just means that I am wrong, if I am claiming you are wrong. However, that doesn't mean that you are right. We can both be wrong, but, more importantly, we are probably both partially right.
> Smart people are a minority and on average find themselves in a conversation with less smart people.
Only assuming that all people are equally likely to interact with one another. Which I doubt is strictly true, given that those cases in which I've actually interacted with everyone from an age group (e.g. military service) are strikingly different to the daily interactions I have. I would imagine people in places where opinions actually matter (such as the workplace) mostly interact with people of somewhat similar background and smarts, though obviously with different fields of specialization.
But even within groups of more-or-less equally smart people, the choice of topics to be assertive about and the style of argument are still factors that make people seem arrogant, so I do agree with you. But I would attribute it more to choice of topic and style of argument rather than "smartness". As you said, the definition of "smart" is problematic and potentially circular.
Arrogance is about the way they deliver the feedback.
For some, diplomacy is hard since they can't understand why others fail to meet their technical/knowledge/... expectations.
At work, I'm surrounded by smart people. They often outsmart me but a common trap they fall into is not doing enough meta thinking. They seem stuck on level 1 of things.
You are describing it as a mere packaging problem but I think it goes deeper than that. I think arrogance is exemplified by being closed-minded, refusing to even consider the other persons point of view.
And once you do that you will almost always moderate your statements, whereas those that think they are structurally in the right do not feel the need to do so, they will treat the rest of the world as though they're slightly stupid children and their tone will reflect that.
Yes, agreed. While I have known some very smart people who were arrogant, I think, contrary to what a lot of people are saying here, that intelligence and arrogance are actually orthogonal. There are plenty of people in the world who are not so smart and are still arrogant. Arrogance is an emotional problem, not a natural function of intelligence.
While your definition of arrogance is not bad at all, I will offer a variation: refusing to consider the possibility that one might be wrong.
I used to be one of those smart, arrogant people myself (arguably smart, anyway; certainly arrogant). I have found the conscious practice of humility to be very valuable.
I had Thanksgiving dinner with a brain surgeon once. I said "Wow, your work must be really challenging." He laughed and said, "Yeah, people think that." He went on to tell me that although he was one of the rising stars in his specialty, the truth was his work was mind-numbingly repetitive, he was bored and wanted to find something else to do in life. The surgeries he did required a great deal of precision but zero creativity. He was envious of people who write software.
Your comment is indicative in one interesting way. The challenge of programming is incongruent with its social status. This explains a lot of dysfunction in the software world (e.g. programmers having to choose between going into management or staying low-pay/low-status), but that's another story.
The point I was trying to make was not about my literacy, but rather that I instantly recognised the character as a programmer, even though he was meant to be a physicist.
But it could have been an engineer just the same, or a person with advanced electronics experience (Hams are renowned for this sort of thing) and a myriad of other professions and activities where problem solving is the norm rather than the exception.
It's the method that matters, not the actual problem at hand.
I know a few people who really are world-class brilliant, pioneers in their fields. All of them are humble in their demeanor, they are friendly and approachable and always have time to help.
Arrogance is a sign of having led people to believe you're better than you are...
Brilliance in one domain does not equal brilliance in all domains. Often the pride of a programmer regarding his or her work gets carried over into communication with people in other domains, who may be just as brilliant in their own sphere.
> who may be just as brilliant in their own sphere.
Or they may not be. And woo to you if you come in as an outsider of that domain and you start talking sense.
That's one surefire way of being branded 'arrogant'. I had a gf that worked in genetics and I spotted an error in a draft of a paper and she got really mad with me for thinking that I could make a contribution to her work that she had studied hard for.
Turned out I was right though, and that really pissed her off, in spite of the very diplomatic delivery.
There's a lot of ways programmers can be arrogant:
* Black-and-white feedback. Software is very black and white. Your dietitian can tell you to "reduce your sugar intake" instead of telling you you're fat because you drink so much cola. There's no way to sugar coat "you pressed the wrong button, and now you have to start over", unless you want to point out that the programmer who make the stupid program must have been an idiot. Either way, you look arrogant.
* We read a lot. Hackers usually know about the Milgram experiment, how Easter Island's economy collapsed when they cut down all the trees (peak wood), and why wikipedia may or may not be accurate. People who know it all come across as arrogant.
* We speak another language. No, not C. Programmers often speak a dialect that's a bit like English, but evolved into something a little different over IRC and BBs. That language isn't always rude, but it's different, and different can often come across as rude.
* We need to be intellectually assertive. We will find out why the core got dumped, and fix it. It's our brains against the compiler. If we don't win, our programs won't work.
* Arrogant programmers are still employable. There are plenty of arrogant HR officers, secretaries, school teachers, and shop assistants; but none of them act that way on the job. Sales guys are said to be unbelievably arrogant, but you can bet they will be very polite to potential customers.
* Heck, if we get too passive aggressive when we tell the PHB he's wrong, it can end in disaster. "Getting the team onto a version control system is universally agreed to be an essential best practice. It aids communication, reduces bugs, and keeps the source code safe" just isn't strong enough. He's already heard a similar pitch from a guy selling UML code generators, and look how that turned out. A bit more drama might be needed: "We aren't using a VCS. ANYBODY knows that this is as stupid as [your analogy] to control STDs."
About the easter island, I have read an opposing theory that blames it's downfall on rats who ate the trees. Presumably the rats were imported somehow.
Would love to know what the current theory is. (The article was in some Geo or National Geographic magazine, a while after "Collapse" came out).
As a programmer and someone who has started a small SaaS software business by myself. I can related to this comment. Programmer are the doers. They often pride themselves as the ones who are actually getting things done in an technology company.
This mentality often comes off to "those who manages or lead" as arrogant, and rightfully so. Often the doers don't see the bigger picture. For example, the relationships that is required to have individuals in an organization work together as a whole.
While I don't doubt that the stereotype exists for a reason (the arrogant, maladjusted programmer) I can't really remember encountering any in all the time I've been working with other programmers (25ys). Perhaps it's more prevalent in non face to face situations like chat rooms or with the less mature.
I've seen the brilliant ones get a little frustrated with "slow" people but they weren't dickheads about it. In my personal experience, developers really go out of their way to help an enthusiastic "newbie" get up to speed.
On the other hand, I have seen situations where a newbie would ask a forum for an answer to his homework assignment and then get upset because he didn't get an immediate answer or someone pointed him to a source for his answer ("here's a link to sorting algorithms") instead of coding up the assignment for him.
> I can't really remember encountering any in all the time I've been working with other programmers
While I don't recall any such encounter with any programmer, I have observed many icon-dragging, button-clicking arrogant pricks that called themselves programmers because lave learned that clicking the third button from the second group in the toolbar turns whatever they mashed together into an executable file.
To the average user, such a beast is absolutely indistinguishable from a real programmer and, so, the confusion is understandable.
I am a programmer and have had a history of arrogance, but I now associate it with social immaturity. Humility is much more comfortable.
However, one shouldn't reject another just because they exhibit some pride. That is also arrogant. Everyone has their character flaws, and variety is the spice of life.
"The wild programmer (Scriptus exemplarus aspergerii) is generally a shy creature when in its natural habitat. While some deviant boisterous specimens do exist, they are the oddity rather than the rule.
He is content with spending his life staring at rectangular pieces of backlit canvas, and occasionally bashing on rectangular pieces of polished material. Come to think of it, most of his activities revolve around rectangles: the rectangular nutrient clumps he tends to favor eating, the rectangular primitive communication device he always carries around, the beige or black boxes he is so attached to, even organizing his workspace into cubes."
I was just chewing my favorite rectangle shaped cereal when I was reading this.
I have been called arrogant after I politely pointed out that people are driving 300mph towards a wall.
I have been called arrogant when after they crashed I politely pointed out that I warned them in time that they will crash and burn.
I have been called arrogant when I refused to clean up the mess for a 100th time - which could easily be prevented if people took a little bit of caution and tried to understand their own predicament.
I have also been called arrogant when I insisted that something has to be done YESTERDAY to systemically prevent results that have profound negative impacts.
I've found that when I don't really care about what I'm working on, I can be the most diplomatic and humble programmer around. Tabs vs. spaces? Whatever. This language over that one? No strong opinion.
But in a scenario when what I'm working on is important to me, when I've totally bought-in and care about what's going to happen, I have a much harder time with being properly diplomatic.
Specifically, when I see someone driving us toward a brick wall, I get more and more aggressive as that wall approaches and I'm ignored. When and if that collision happens, I have a hard time not saying "I told you so", if only so people will take me more seriously next time we're headed for a crash.
I once ruined a professional relationship and lost a job because (I believe) my manager couldn't stand the idea of hearing "I told you so" from me one more time.
And yes, it turns out I was right about that last thing as well.
I try to trust my comrades, but I also have to trust my instincts, and when they are at odds over high-stakes things the internal conflict becomes unbearable. Anyone have experience or advice on dealing with this?
Is it really more severe in programming than the rest of society? Most of the programmers I've met have been quite nice, the only people I can recall meeting that I actually thought "I never want to meet them again!" have been a pair of young lawyers.
Hmm... would it make more sense if the question used "... perceived as arrogant?" instead of just "arrogant?"?
(disclaimer: I am not a hard core programmer, if I were modest I would call myself a beginner)
I have been long perceived as arrogant and an aloof person, while I think I am not really one. Over time trying to analyze the root cause for this (it is a big problem as it interjects into developing personal relationships) perception and reading books and listening to audio books, I realized that there are some other aspects of me that cause this perception. some of them being:
1) Shyness (one of the reason - shy people avoid eye contact giving rise to the perception to others that they don't care about others and by default tag you as arrogant)
2) bad conversation skills - going into monologues ( when you are not into the habit of back and forth conversation style and go into monologues (being highly passionate about some topics doesn't' help either :)), the other party can think that you don't care to listen to others and can tag you as arrogant)
3) giving unsolicited advice ( I have received a hell lot of great advice over years from so many different people that is simply too valuable to put a price on. sometimes, in a misplaced and idealistic view of returning the favor, I used to go about giving unsolicited advice to friends and acquaintances, sometimes putting the value of 'enlightenment of another perspective' in others' problem solving over my relationship with them. I think it gave me lot of tags of being "arrogant", " What does he think of himself?", "he has got a chip on his shoulder" over the years and drained away many possible friendships)
Good thing I have started working on these three and hopefully should be better off in the future in the social aspects.
But coming back to the point, if the programmers that adn37 had in mind when posing this question are the shy type with poor social skills, I think it is highly possible that they may have come across as being more arrogant than they really are. Just one possibility.
Other, than that, I think the incidence of arrogance among programmers is as likely or not, as in any other professions.
Most people cannot tell the difference between arrogance and confidence. If you're confident you can't avoid people grumbling about how arrogant you are. And if you are arrogant you can't avoid women sleeping with you because you exude confidence. Although your pastor, guidance counselor and boy scout manuals will suggest the opposite, I've found it's better to err on the side of being slightly arrogant than humble. Just make sure you can back it up.
Depending on your interests and how much time you spend reading, learning and engaging you may end up being knowledgeable on a whole stack of subjects. When you interact with others without this same intensity your bound to come off arrogant.
For programmers many things are complementary, interests in Maths, Physics, Finance can easily stem from loving the numerical and mathematical aspects of programming. Effective programming also requires good communication skills and tends to require more formal written language to precisely explain more complex or abstract concepts that come with programming, this can lead to other interests to.
A bit similar to Medical experience, a deep familiarity with computer systems that many fine opaque may come across quite arrogant. Picture someone struggling with a setting and you fly by, "hot key to x menu, third tab, look for option Q, set it to baz", just seems obvious (although it took an hour of goolge-time to discover) but as you rush off the dazed user is still struggling.
Also from my experience there seems to a culture of negative motivation going on around engineers/programmers. I've seen a lot of it in open source projects and amongst engineers both professionally and in education. People berate and punish in order to make people understand what is wanted/needed, instead of engaging in teamwork and constructive feedback.
I've noticed it countless times, from underground scenes' irc chans and meetups, to the office. Each case is different, that's the beauty of it.
At least, they will judge you on ideas, not on appearance. (edit: only if they consider you worth their time, which isn't easily earned.)
So are they really to blame?
We are young, smart and arrogant. We all are. We are smarter than everybody else. The older we grow, the wiser; we use our intelligence to gain knowledge and to balance our life and make the lives easier for those around us.
We become less arrogant and more humble as we grow older.
1. If they make a mistake, don't correct them. Answer them shortly after using the correct form.
2. If you're right and they are wrong. Shut up and listen.
3. If they make you feel uncomfortable, be bold.
4. If they get emotional or unprofessional, steer the conversation into cold-blooded, calculated facts.
5. When dealing with regular Joe, don't waste time. Extract needed information and get it over with.
6. If it is a group conversation or meeting, only speak to make a point. Keep it short.
Perhaps this only applies to programmers dealing with other programmers and on occasion managers.
One thing for sure, in my line of work, dealing with people is about extracting/exchanging information. Having a personality, being emotional is pointless.
The goal is to get shit done. Leave your pride at the door.
However, in my personal life, I try not to be like a human vending machine of information.
Any person who has rational thoughts in this diplomatic world would seem arrogant to some scale.
Example,
Rational:"The education system in India is seriously broken beyond repair. Anyone who succeeds, succeeds despite the system and not because of the system."
Diplomatic:"The education system of India is not really on the right track, but we have a real flow of potential. This is evident by the number of people that succeed"
In my mid-twenties, I had to have minor surgery on my face. My looks were very important to me. I thought I was quite beautiful and this was upsetting to me. I was concerned I would be disfigured but I really had to have the surgery. Trying to make my peace with it, I commented "I guess I can always have cosmetic surgery later." The surgeon was quite affronted and said "You won't need cosmetic surgery when I am done." The scar is nearly invisible -- less visible than the cyst that was removed. Even people who knew me before the surgery and know I had my face cut on have difficulty finding the scar.
I concluded that if you can bring it, maybe you aren't actually arrogant. Maybe you are just stating the facts, regardless of how it might sound to other people.