How to handle aversion that derives from perceiving arrogance?

The very question of how to handle, indicates an interference in your being ,and in that very interference ,aversion arises.

Weather you perceived a person correctly or incorrectly as arrogant,is not the problem ,because thats what your being had perceived already,what your being had understood already,Its neither good nor bad,only an indication of your being's wisdom .The only problem is intervening in the development of your being.There is no need to perceive the situation correctly ,whatever was perceived by your being is the reality ,till further notice.

If no intervention occurs your being will develop naturally and act more wisely next time .

How to handle aversion that derives from perceiving arrogance?

I understood this answer as saying that there are two types of "conceit" -- conceit includes "comparing one person with another". The two types are "true conceit", and "false conceit". I'm not sure how either of these -- a right comparison or a wrong comparison -- might be a good cause for "aversion".

What he is referring to is that fact that of the nine types of conceit, only three can arise in a sotapanna

Someone with a false conceit might be difficult to relate with, though, difficult to converse with usefully.

There are also the "four great references" -- i.e. if someone says something (e.g. about dhamma, which is what tends to be the topic on this site), then you shouldn't "scorn" it -- but instead, consider and compare it.

If you were someone's teacher then perhaps you might want to help the student see "arrogance" -- there are examples in the literature of teachers doing that.

Maybe it's better if people don't try to do that on this site though, perhaps this was appropriate advice:

In general, unless you actually are the questioner's teacher, don't assume a teacher's mantle

What's the save bet here, the save way, till possible uproot the cause on an refined level?

Perhaps you're expecting a specific answer, I'm not sure which one. Perhaps it's "equanimity" in this case, remembering that "I am heir to my actions" etc.

Ven Sirs, Readers,

Arrogance is that one considers oneself better than others. If one finds this is not the case an arrogant person becomes averse. The way to overcome is as follows:

(1) “Sona, when those ascetics and brahmins, by way of form—which is impermanent, suffering,
subject to change—consider thus:
‘I am better’ (seyyo’ham asmi), or
‘I am equal [just as good]’ (sadiso’ham asmi), or
‘I am worse’ (hīno’ham asmi)—
why do they consider thus, but through not seeing things according to reality?

(2) When they, by way of feeling—which is impermanent, suffering, subject to change, consider
thus:
‘I am better’ (seyyo’ham asmi), or
‘I am equal [just as good]’ (sadiso’ham asmi), or
‘I am worse’ (hīno’ham asmi)—
why do they consider thus, but through not seeing things according to reality?

(3) When they, by way of perception—which is impermanent, suffering, subject to change,
consider thus:
‘I am better’ (seyyo’ham asmi), or
‘I am equal [just as good]’ (sadiso’ham asmi), or
‘I am worse’ (hīno’ham asmi)—
why do they consider thus, but through not seeing things according to reality?

(4) When they, by way of formations—which is impermanent, suffering, subject to change,
consider thus:
‘I am better’ (seyyo’ham asmi), or
‘I am equal [just as good]’ (sadiso’ham asmi), or
‘I am worse’ (hīno’ham asmi)—
why do they consider thus, but through not seeing things according to reality?

(5) When they, by way of consciousness—which is impermanent, suffering, subject to
change, consider thus:
‘I am better’ (seyyo’ham asmi), or
‘I am equal [just as good]’ (sadiso’ham asmi), or
‘I am worse’ (hīno’ham asmi)—
why do they consider thus, but through not seeing things according to reality?

Sona, when those ascetics and brahmins, by way of form—which is impermanent, suffering,
subject to change—do not consider thus:
‘I am better’ (seyyo’ham asmi), or
‘I am equal [just as good]’ (sadiso’ham asmi), or
‘I am worse’ (hīno’ham asmi)—
why do they not consider thus, but through seeing things according to reality?

When they, by way of feeling—which is impermanent, suffering, subject to change, do not consider thus:
‘I am better’ (seyyo’ham asmi), or
‘I am equal [just as good]’ (sadiso’ham asmi), or
‘I am worse’ (hīno’ham asmi)—
why do they not consider thus, but through seeing things according to reality?

When they, by way of perception—which is impermanent, suffering, subject to change, do not
consider thus:
‘I am better’ (seyyo’ham asmi), or
‘I am equal [just as good]’ (sadiso’ham asmi), or
‘I am worse’ (hīno’ham asmi)—
why do they not consider thus, but through seeing things according to reality?

When they, by way of formations—which is impermanent, suffering, subject to change, do not
consider thus:
‘I am better’ (seyyo’ham asmi), or
‘I am equal [just as good]’ (sadiso’ham asmi), or
‘I am worse’ (hīno’ham asmi)—
why do they not consider thus, but through seeing things according to reality?

When they, by way of consciousness—which is impermanent, suffering, subject to change, do not
consider thus:
‘I am better’ (seyyo’ham asmi), or
‘I am equal [just as good]’ (sadiso’ham asmi), or
‘I am worse’ (hīno’ham asmi)—
why do they not consider thus, but through seeing things according to reality

(1) Now, what do you think, Soṇa, is form permanent or impermanent?”
“Impermanent, bhante.”
“Is what is impermanent unsatisfactory [painful] or satisfactory [pleasurable]?”15
“Unsatisfactory, bhante.”
“Is what is impermanent, unsatisfactory and subject to change fit to be regarded thus: ‘This is mine,
this I am, this is my self.’?”16
“No, bhante.”

(2) “Now, what do you think, Soṇa, is feeling permanent or impermanent?”
“Impermanent, bhante.”
“Is what is impermanent unsatisfactory or satisfactory?”
“Unsatisfactory, bhante.”
“Is what is impermanent, unsatisfactory and subject to change fit to be regarded thus: ‘This is mine,
this I am, this is my self.’?”
“No, bhante.”

(3) “Now, what do you think, Soṇa, is perception permanent or impermanent?”
“Impermanent, bhante.”
“Is what is impermanent unsatisfactory or satisfactory?”
“Unsatisfactory, bhante.”
“Is what is impermanent, unsatisfactory and subject to change fit to be regarded thus: ‘This is mine,
this I am, this is my self.’?”
“No, bhante.”

(4) “Now, what do you think, Soṇa, are formations permanent or impermanent?”
“Impermanent, bhante.”
“Is what is impermanent unsatisfactory or satisfactory?”
“Unsatisfactory, bhante.”
“Is what is impermanent, unsatisfactory and subject to change fit to be regarded thus: ‘This is mine,
this I am, this is my self.’?”
“No, bhante.”

(5) “Now, what do you think, Soṇa, is consciousness permanent or impermanent?”
“Impermanent, bhante.”
“Is what is impermanent unsatisfactory or satisfactory?”
“Unsatisfactory, bhante.”
“Is what is impermanent, unsatisfactory and subject to change fit to be regarded thus: ‘This is mine,
this I am, this is my self.’?”
“No, bhante.”

(1) “Therefore, Soṇa, any kind of form whatsoever, whether past, future or present, internal or
external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near18—all forms should be seen as they really are
with right wisdom thus:
‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’

(2) Therefore, Soṇa, any kind of feeling whatsoever, whether past, future or present, internal or
external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near—all feelings should be seen as they really are
with right wisdom thus:
‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’

(3) Therefore, Soṇa, any kind of perception whatsoever, whether past, future or present, internal
or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near—all perceptions should be seen as they really
are with right wisdom thus:
‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’

(4) Therefore, Soṇa, any kind of formations whatsoever, whether past, future or present, internal
or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near—all formations should be seen as they really
are with right wisdom thus:
‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’

(5) Therefore, Soṇa, any kind of consciousness whatsoever, whether past, future or present,
internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near—all consciousness should be seen as
they really are with right wisdom thus:
‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’

Seeing thus, Soṇa, the learned noble disciple is revulsed [disenchanted] with form, is revulsed
with feeling, is revulsed with perception, is revulsed with formations, is revulsed with consciousness.

Through revulsion, he becomes dispassionate.
Through dispassion, his mind is liberated.
When he is liberated, there arises the knowledge: ‘Free am I!’ He understands: ‘Destroyed is birth.
The holy life has been lived. What needs to be done has been done. There is no more of this state of
being.’

(Māna) Soṇa Sutta