'Arrogance' is more often than not mostly a matter of perception. Truly arrogant people can seem nice - so we generally don't want to ascribe negative qualities

'Arrogance' is more often than not mostly a matter of perception. Truly arrogant people can seem nice - so we generally don't want to ascribe negative qualities like 'arrogant' to them. 'Real arrogance', and even greed, backstabbing - those can also done by people who seem to be well liked. 'Perceptive arrogance' I think is mostly a matter of posture, demeanour and communication. If you smile, let other people talk, have an easygoing manner, and are agreeable, you will not be perceived as 'arrogant' even though you may have all of the qualities of a truly arrogant person. I don't think 'perceived arrogance' has anything to do with actually humility or gauge of one's own abilities, or of one's sense of self importance in the group. If you're terse, blunt, dour or gregarious ... it can be perceived as arrogant. 'Real arrogance' i.e. the notion that one's thoughts and ideals matter more than others etc. I think is not even correlated with posture and communication style. The most successful people in the corporate world are pure political players, and have never cared about outcomes, doing a good job - anything. All they care about is perception and their careers. But they are actually nice enough, generally charismatic. Actually caring caring about a product can simply cause contention, and possibly give the perception of arrogance. I prefer to consider arrogance in terms of measured behaviours, outcomes etc.. Glib political climbers to me are arrogant. Anyone actually trying to 'do a good job' and stepping on toes is just a bad communicator.