RVbySDI
Well Known Member
Actually I think we are talking about the same thing just in different terms. I agree with your statement about arrogance not correlating with competence. That is why I wrote the equation for a safer pilot and a dangerous pilot the way I did.David Johnson said:The point is that arrogance has very little correlation to a person's competence.
competence + confidence ---> safer pilot
competence + arrogance ---> dangerous pilot
A pilot's "competence" generally will not come into question in the same manner as the question of his/her "demeanor" when evaluating whether he/she is a safe or dangerous pilot. Which is why in my equations I totally seperated the idea of "competence" (pilot's abilities) from the idea of "confidence" or "arrogance" (pilots demeanor) by the '+' symbol. By doing so I acknowledge that competence does not correlate with arrogance. Therefore, the two concepts of abilities and demeanor are both integral to making up a safe pilot but also the two concepts must be evaluated on their own merit and then compiled together to yield the final product.
I believe the ultimate issue is what constitutes arrogance as opposed to confidence. That is the distinction I am attempting to make.
Webster defines:
arrogance 1. Over convinced of one's own importance: 2. Marked by or arising from haughty self-importance.
confidence1. Trust or faith. 2. A firm belief in one's own abilities.
Without faith in our abilities (confidence), even though we may possess the abilities to perform (competence), we will not be a safe pilot. However, if we have the abilities to perform (competence) but do so with an air of inflated self-importance (arrogance) we will also end up not being a a safe pilot.
Perhaps it can be argued that this distinction between arrogance and confidence may be viewed as a matter of semantics but I think it is an important distinction.
Last edited: