I don't have a Ph.D.No.
The real problem is coming in with this attitude when, in reality, you are probably underqualified for the position.
I have, however, come across some rather nasty attitudes towards people with physics/math/engineering backgrounds when they interact with scientists with non-quantitative backgrounds (think biology). I only have a B.S in physics, and there have been a LOT of positions that I've been pretty much optimally qualified for (as in, I don't think it would be possible to find someone else that matches their job requirements as closely as I did), and I wasn't even contacted for an interview. Luckily I found a supervisor that views physics positively, and the difference in how he treats me vs. co-workers (supervisors included) in previous jobs is unbelievable. I personally find it hard to believe that this attitude doesn't carry over when making hiring decisions, and I don't think you'll ever hear someone in a hiring meeting say "wtf this guy has a physics Ph.D. he's too smart for us to hire", so you kind of have to read between the lines sometimes.
Additionally, if a Ph.D. implies so much about work ethic (rather than intelligence), why is it so hard for people with intermediate or better programming skills to find a job? Shouldn't companies really really want to hire people with an excellent work ethic and solid programming skills who obviously have a capacity to learn difficult material quickly?