...and I think one plausible explanation might go something like this (all observations prefaced 'with exceptions'/'by and large'):
The further north and west in 'Western Eurasia' one goes--let us include at least The Caucasus, Turkey and greater Arabia, maybe Iran too--the more the individual is sovereign and unattached to an indentity derived from membership of kin group(s). The result is that he has to seek social esteem through accomplishments and competence.
Conversely, in a southeasterly direction kin-group membership is much more definitive of the individual's social standing. This means that individual distinction--by the individual himself--matters much less. Now southeasterners were more bellicose than NW peoples until rather later in history. Thus they could measure their worth as individuals--and have others measure it--by their warlike attainments. Now, though, this avenue of accomplishment is closed to them.
You say (and I agree) that arrogance is a fragile product of the individual's unexamined and untested self-belief, *independent of accomplishment*. Considering this, I think the relatively intense kin-attachment of southeasterly peoples, and their continued practice of judging the individual by the standing of his kin, is a reasonable explanation for their greater arrogance.
The southeasterner doesn't *have to* distinguish himself as a person, because the respect in which he is held is contingent on the respect accorded to his kin-group, and this tends to make him more arrogant than the northwesterner. I think too that it's quite possible there has been gene-culture coevolution in this direction.
"The further north and west in 'Western Eurasia' one goes--let us include at least The Caucasus, Turkey and greater Arabia, maybe Iran too--the more the individual is sovereign and unattached to an indentity derived from membership of kin group(s). The result is that he has to seek social esteem through accomplishments and competence."
Your comment is spot on. I think not enough conversation takes place around this subject; the individualism of the West (guilt orientation) and the collectivism of the East (shame orientation).
Isn't there an expression (I think it was meant to apply only to Europe or maybe at most to 'Western Eurasia') that runs something like: 'Men get more arrogant the further east one travels'? At any rate I have certainly found this to be the case.
...and I think one plausible explanation might go something like this (all observations prefaced 'with exceptions'/'by and large'):
The further north and west in 'Western Eurasia' one goes--let us include at least The Caucasus, Turkey and greater Arabia, maybe Iran too--the more the individual is sovereign and unattached to an indentity derived from membership of kin group(s). The result is that he has to seek social esteem through accomplishments and competence.
Conversely, in a southeasterly direction kin-group membership is much more definitive of the individual's social standing. This means that individual distinction--by the individual himself--matters much less. Now southeasterners were more bellicose than NW peoples until rather later in history. Thus they could measure their worth as individuals--and have others measure it--by their warlike attainments. Now, though, this avenue of accomplishment is closed to them.
You say (and I agree) that arrogance is a fragile product of the individual's unexamined and untested self-belief, *independent of accomplishment*. Considering this, I think the relatively intense kin-attachment of southeasterly peoples, and their continued practice of judging the individual by the standing of his kin, is a reasonable explanation for their greater arrogance.
The southeasterner doesn't *have to* distinguish himself as a person, because the respect in which he is held is contingent on the respect accorded to his kin-group, and this tends to make him more arrogant than the northwesterner. I think too that it's quite possible there has been gene-culture coevolution in this direction.
"The further north and west in 'Western Eurasia' one goes--let us include at least The Caucasus, Turkey and greater Arabia, maybe Iran too--the more the individual is sovereign and unattached to an indentity derived from membership of kin group(s). The result is that he has to seek social esteem through accomplishments and competence."
Your comment is spot on. I think not enough conversation takes place around this subject; the individualism of the West (guilt orientation) and the collectivism of the East (shame orientation).
Isn't there an expression (I think it was meant to apply only to Europe or maybe at most to 'Western Eurasia') that runs something like: 'Men get more arrogant the further east one travels'? At any rate I have certainly found this to be the case.
Thank you. I hope it helps you get more value out of life
This is spot on. Thank you for adding this to comment to the original post. Brilliant!