"Well that's true Woody. You've got an excellent point, that was a great movie. On the other hand, which one of us is sleeping with a woman he met in college and which one is sleeping with a woman he used to feed strained peas to? I'm just saying your judgement isn't exactly irrefutable."
Or even if he's not going to argue the point he can get a dig in. "You're right Woody. When you're right you're right. I won't tell you how to write your screenplay and you won't tell me how to raise my step-daughter."
I think part of the reason that Americans tend to compare themself to the best of the best, rather than merely good people with whom they might have more in common, is because we tend to see things in black and white. It's strongest in the political realm where partisanship has gotten out of control. People who don't like Bush not only don't like them, they hate him as a stupid evil mongrel of darkness. I don't blame them, I count myself among that group, but it's certainly an exageration. Likewise many people who support Bush believe that he's the second coming or even better because Jesus had all that pesky no-killing and respect the poor bullshit. The truth is always somewhere in between the extremes, but that's an area few people are willing to occupy. It's a choice between atrocious and wonderful.
It's not just politics either. One of the most egregious example has to be the sports-commentary world, where people are predicting championships before the season has even started. They ask each other "Who's going to win tonight" and make outrageous guarantees. The truth is that nobody knows how a game, let alone a season, will turn out until it's played. There are injuries and breakout stars and lucky bounces of the ball. The persistance in trying to deal with certainties irritates me but I think I understand it. People like controversy, people like solid and clear ideas. Saying "Well I think the As have around a 73% chance to win this one, unless there's a strong breeze in from the left side of the outfield in which case it will neutralize their power a little and flip the advantage to the Braves" is much less compelling than saying "The As are going to win tonight, they're just the superior team and it's not even going to be a contest."
It doesn't matter when it's sports, but it matters very much in areas like politics and science. Those are realms where everything we deal with IS uncertainty and where claims made too strongly are not much better than lies. Economics is a realm where they do this a lot, declaring that a certain policy will have a certain result on areas as diverse as GDP, wages, and advertising. The truth is nobody knows. Rational choice theory is based on the assumption that humans always act to maximize their pleasure, and even with adjustments for varying ideas of the good life and the fact that people don't have perfect knowledge it still doesn't come close to predicting true human behavior. Even so, you don't hear economists say "Well I think that if we do X there is a decent chance of some gains in area Y."
So if you have a problem or a flaw it's got to be a problem or flaw inherent to the writing process, exemplified by the use of Shakespeare as the standard and the attribution of said problem to the Bard. It can't just be yours. That'd be too nuanced.
Personally, I'm going to start comparing myself to Po Bronson.