If you two were friends, this might come across as playful ribbing ('taking the piss' as they say in the UK). But since I don't think you are friends, it comes across as mean, on your part. And you demonstrate (usefully, I think) the mistake of confusing complex and/or erudite speech/vocab with arrogance.
But actually, I think the "attribution of arrogance" is a post hoc rationalization. In truth, some people feel utterly threatened by complex, erudite speech. It is hard to be confronted with a person who is having a thought that, without a lifetime of reading with intellectual curiosity (and a good memory), cannot be fully appreciated.
Speaking intelligently can be (often is) like serving a plate of delicate, complex food in front of someone who isn't interested in this "pansy bullshit" and just wants a hot dog. And it hurts the same way, because what you prepared for them really is amazing, and not only is the effort not appreciated, but the recipient interprets the offer as an insult. This is a very painful experience, and you learn to take great care to learn who is expecting a gourmet conversation and who is not.
Having been through that exact situation, I can't agree enough. With time one may learn to sense if the context is right instead of suffering a blow. Unless he's ready to invest a lot to reach common ground. People do change, but it's a bet.
While I understand where you're coming from and agree to some extent, I think there is a difference between "speaking `intelligently`", "having an intelligent conversation" and "leaving a comment on the internet".
I would argue that there is no such thing as the first without the second, because you are not 'speaking `intelligently`' if there is no one who understands you and is able to make a conversant reply. In such a case you are only being arrogant.
The insecurity is strong with this one. You're projecting that the person's literary references are "name dropping things in largely irrelevant contexts". There is no basis for this assumption, other than your obvious bias to jump to the conclusion that this person is elitist and goes out of their way to seem elitist. Why? Are you sensitive that you didn't get into a school like MIT? Neither did I, but nothing he is saying comes across as even remotely elitist to me.
javajosh|10 years ago
But actually, I think the "attribution of arrogance" is a post hoc rationalization. In truth, some people feel utterly threatened by complex, erudite speech. It is hard to be confronted with a person who is having a thought that, without a lifetime of reading with intellectual curiosity (and a good memory), cannot be fully appreciated.
Speaking intelligently can be (often is) like serving a plate of delicate, complex food in front of someone who isn't interested in this "pansy bullshit" and just wants a hot dog. And it hurts the same way, because what you prepared for them really is amazing, and not only is the effort not appreciated, but the recipient interprets the offer as an insult. This is a very painful experience, and you learn to take great care to learn who is expecting a gourmet conversation and who is not.
agumonkey|10 years ago
sklogic|10 years ago
These folks got a point: http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/
sombremesa|10 years ago
I would argue that there is no such thing as the first without the second, because you are not 'speaking `intelligently`' if there is no one who understands you and is able to make a conversant reply. In such a case you are only being arrogant.
Dewie3|10 years ago
[deleted]
carc|10 years ago
You're really just coming across as a jerk.
Dewie3|10 years ago
[deleted]