Contrarian almost seems too vague a term. In conversations I've run into people assuming a wide variety of roles. One is the polite interviewer who presses gently at the weak points of someone's statement, usually this person extends a lot of benefit of doubt, and is genuinely curious about the topic. The other is someone who is almost always engaged in some sort of argumentative point scoring. Attacking arguments with pedantry and too much emphasis on semantics, or always trying to one-up others with a string of "um actually..."s. The former person is usually great to talk to, they help you get your point across better. The latter is deeply frustrating since they are almost always engaged in linguistic gymnastics to deliberately miss the point. It feels rare that someone of the interviewer category would identify themselves as the "contrarian" though, and someone playing the um actually guy probably delights in the label. The most annoying part about the eager contrarian is they purposely muddy the water, nobody gains anything, and the conversation becomes unfulfilling.

Well said. I can't help the feeling that i encounter more "eager contrarians" both in real life and online (moreso online). Perhaps the way social media is though - pays to be adversarial?

> linguistic gymnastics to deliberately miss the point [...] The most annoying part about the eager contrarian is they purposely muddy the water, nobody gains anything, and the conversation becomes unfulfilling.

Yep.

FWIW, I had almost the opposite reaction. I favored this contrarian, also without context.

I was not terribly surprised that I felt this way, but I did try to suppress the feeling, because without context, it's not very rational.

The orthodox member will help reach consensus faster and improve decisiveness, but risks making wrong and/or extreme decisions.

A contrarian adds intellectual value and nuance to a decision, but can cause indecision/inaction.

And, I'll add, no small amount of social frustration. Persistently being contrary in social settings is a path to being unwelcome at social events.

There's a fine line between challenging ideas and sea lioning.

Whether it exists in online communities or IRL IGC are important in order to keep ideology honest, even if the IGC is dishonest.

It’s important that the ideas that convince people into following some behavior have the ideas checked for errors.

Yep - I can definitely agree with the need for checks/balances.

I was just fascinated to find this implicit bias in my "starting point" and wondered if others had a similar or different experience

>the term "In Group Contrarian" makes me bristle immediately against said contrarian... I wonder if this reaction is specific to me or if its more general. To brisle against a person who identifies (or in this case is identified) as "contrarian" absent the necessary context (perhaps because absent context...the "contrarian" is describing themself as contrarian just for the sake of it). Fun semantic games.

Usually the IGC doesn't label themselves as a contrarian, they merely are contrarian (but also, in group, e.g. contrarian but sharing the groups premises and ideas as a starting point).

But regardless of that, IGC sounds better than In-Group conformant...

Context should be obvious: different people have different preferences, and due to difference in preferences, disagreement emerges.

Sorry, but to be honest, I find that reaction rather disturbing and I hope other people do not share it.

My initial reaction to hearing someone as contrarian is not to assume they are right, wrong, pretentious, self-righteous, or whatever ... but, rather to be curious and intrigued that maybe this person carries some valid criticisms of my or others commonly held ideas and beliefs.

I find it makes life much more intellectually gratifying, and I am genuinely put off when I see people in intellectual communities (like software, etc.) not naturally having this instinct towards people who hold contrary views.

It is usually not a bad thing for someone to think differently from yourself or others. In fact, almost all (if not all) ideas have some valid criticisms and counter-arguments or examples. I personally find that it makes for a much more intellectually honest view of the world to consider them.

With all due respect - I think you've oversimplified a bit. It goes without saying that "intellectual curiosity to opposing ideas is good". I think anyone would agree contrary views should be treated with intellectual fairness/intrigue - but that's separate from instinctive reactions and I think it's unrealistic to believe people won't have a range of emotions on any given day for n number of reasons.

I was quite surprised to note it myself but just trying to be honest about an unexpected self-observation rather than offer what i think i should feel. Importantly the reaction was in reference to the Contrarian Sans Context (i.e. contrarian for sake of contrarianism; context is everything).

What's more if there are only three default settings to the contrarian (simplifying here - for/against/neutral)... it follows that some sample of any population will begin at each of those defaults and it is unlikely that everyone assumes a neutral position even if that's taken to be favorable. Admittedly it is difficult to discern right now whether this is a localised (in time) reaction for me or if there's something more fixed there.

It could be contended that a mix of default positions (For/against as well as neutral) to the IGC is in fact "normal" - rather than to prescribe that everyone should be neutral and that is always preferable. For example across a population if people assume different starting positions then we could see a variety of responses and perhaps more dynamic conversation at the extremes/edges.

I think there’s a difference: I too enjoy conversation with people who think differently than myself and with whom I disagree. But a self described contrarian may well hold those opinions simply because they are contrary, not because it’s something they actually truly believe. That is rarely a satisfying conversation.

Lifetime contrarian here. Contrarianness for its own sake is a child's game.

I tend to see multiple sides to things when others seem to agree that there's only one side to see. I'm the person who talks about the elephant in the room. In a professional context, that means putting my neck on the line; be bloody sure that I'm speaking up about something I believe, not just taking the piss.

Amen.

I like the role of "advocatus diaboli" (the devil's advocate).

Not for the mere sake of argument, but because I find elements of truth in all sides, and want to balance the sheepish behavior of most groups to fully side with one side.

To the group-mind this makes it appear like you are contrarian for the sake of it and contradictory, e.g. "but you where anti-colonialist in yesterday's argument, why are you pro-west today" or "you like Apple and MS, why do you say OSS is good now?" and so on...

But that's just judging each case both on its own merits and in general context and thinking for yourself - not just taking some given side...

I think there’s a tinge of misanthropy in those who are comfortable being contrarian. If most people believe something, it’s probably not that right, or at the very least, needs more vetting before blanket shallow acceptance. Contrarians must first diagnose that before all else.

It’s totally a valid criticism that contrarians are distasteful for that simple reason, but the herd can be equally annoying. It’s a symbiosis.

The Joker to Batman: You complete me

We’re also very pretentious as you can see :p

I agree, Batman is an excellent example of a misanthropic, pretentious contrarian ;)

Not the hero you want, but the hero you deserve.

Best cheesy outro ever: https://youtu.be/6c_H45kt1_8

Greatest in group contrarian ever?

Thanks for clarifying. Exactly what i was getting at - my "default state" was based on the Contrarian sans context (i.e. for the sake of it). Think it's an interesting thought exercise.

Well, but the IGC is not contrarian without context.

It's an In Group Contrarian -- so contrarian in the context of the group.

This means that

(a) they are not just contrarian for the sake of it (then they would be contrarian to the ideas of every group, not just one)

(b) they are not opposed to everything the group believes (in that case they wouldn't be in-group contrarians, but mere ideological enemies of the group)

(c) they share some beliefs and core tenets of the group (hence the in-group qualifier)

Agree - original comment was on the meta not the specific.

So where there is no specific group or context in which to place said "contrarian" - just a description of what was felt/instinctive. Would change immediately once we get into a specific example.

All groups you know don't have contrarian opinions? Most ideas can be questioned.

> but, rather to be curious and intrigued that maybe this person carries some valid criticisms of my or others commonly held ideas and beliefs.

My association were colleges who try to "win" over others without regard to what is actual truth. It is less about what really is and more about winning.

Uncharitable listening, changing topic subtly, emotional based "arguments" like implying you are stupid if you tell this or that, blowing out of proportion innocent mistake someone else did. Forcing others to redefine redefine redefine and then ignoring standard definition.

Downright making stuff up and pretending expertise they dont have.

It is about rhetoric tricks, it is not about having actual criticism.

In my experience, the rhetorical behavior you describe is far more common of the deep swollen center mass of the in group, than those on the peripheral edge. Those are the idea-carriers who have every incentive to preserve the ideological hedgemon, and so they do what they are incentivized to do: protect the orthodoxy by any means required.

Your comment is a prescriptive approach to emotional analysis. The comment to which you are responding is taking a descriptive approach.

Very different things.