Heh, reminds me of something I posted last year, Hitting the Sweet Spot:

I started thinking about that sweet spot between humility and confidence. It happens when you are confident enough that you slightly overestimate your abilities, driving you to do succeed at things that you couldn’t before; but humble enough that you avoid those really stupid mistakes.

i think the arrogance of the ipod is in its interoperability — the same arrogance deeply embedded in all of apple’s products. its the arrogance that makes sure they are always a niche player. as it is a part of the company across all product lines, it probably comes from the executive (i.e. steve’s contribution).

i’m not buying the humility and arrogance argument. i vote for humility and confidence. the confidence to disagree with everyone when you think you’re right, but the humility to admit you’re wrong when you’re wrong, and to know that there is always more to learn.

thought-provoking post. thanks.

I think maybe the term arrogance is off.

From http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/arrogance

: an attitude of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner or in presumptuous claims or assumptions

I think maybe another word or two says it better. How about:

* Vision
* Confidence
* Commitment

??

I think the world has seen terrible damage from arrogance. I’m not sure I’d be advocating for a heck of a lot more of it.

I agree with Kid, I think Confidence is the more appropriate term for this discussion. In this industry I deal with both sides of the coin everyday. I think there is a time and a place for everything. Both humility and confidence are acceptable in certain situations. Those who I look up to have the foresight judgment and timing to exhibit the right trait at the right time.

I think Shirky (and pundits/gurus who say similar things) are just playing with a very basic human paradox. Hanging on vs. letting go, willpower vs. receptivity, free will vs. determinism, belief vs. faith, conscious vs. subconscious, etc.

In many variations of the paradox, people don’t even realize there is a paradox (I’m talking about normal people, not philosophers). Then, when they detect a distinction, people at first want to take sides and declare one side or the other to be “right”. Next, getting more sophisticated, people try to say that it’s a yin/yang “balance”. Finally, they use the paradox as the basis for a complex set of rules about when and where each pole should dominate — they try to come up with the proper recipe for combining the states.

The only real benefit I can see of such compulsions, is that the talk tends to shake people out of their current frames of mind and makes way for new attitudes to form. That’s why poetry and love songs are primarily based on this family of paradox.

I like to call it conviction.

When designing with conviction (confidence, arrogance, whatever you prefer), I tend not to waste time thinking about what will please my audience. Instead, I design until I have something that is what I want, and it isn’t until then that I reflect on how the vision will relate to the audience. This allows me to build a strong base for a concept and then make refinements and upgrades afterwards.

Designing this way doesn’t mean you will end up with sites that others can’t relate to. What means is that you won’t waste as much time and inevitably end up with more designs you’re proud of. This may all sound like fluff but a simple state of mind can carry you a long way and produce sometimes surprisingly good results.

You’d be surprised as to how similar we all think when it comes to designing. The difference is some communicate it better than others.

You guys make some excellent points. I agree with those who say that “arrogant” is the operative word here, as it seems to mean something different to everyone. As Kid points out, there are other facets to arrogance that are at play.

I think it’s a great question, though. It’s better than most navel-gazing.

Discussions of humility within the realm of design accept the premise that design is subjective. It is not. Art is emotive and therefore subjective. Design serves different masters than emotion first—it must function and it must communicate. If design does not accomplish these goals first, then *objectively* it fails. The arrogance that people talk about receiving from good designers is simply the fact that those designers understand that design is objective and not subjective, and they have the wherewithal to discuss it as such; in other words, they know the right decisions to make. Humility in that particular context is easily attainable.

“If I had asked my customers what they wanted, they would have said a faster horse.” – Henry Ford