7 ms·
"You will likely have a sense of where you fall in the orbit of the group(s) you affiliate with: closer to the core or closer to the fringes of some formation.
by seven4 6y ago
"You will likely have a sense of where you fall in the orbit of the group(s) you affiliate with: closer to the core or closer to the fringes of some formation. Your feelings about IGCs will probably depend to some extent on this."
For some reason even without the context of which Group we are speaking about/or where I might fit in said group - 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.
I'm somewhat surprised by this as I see myself as somewhat rational but this leads me to think that absent other contextual clues for me at least the "default" setting is to "dislike" the contrarian and I can then be swayed by the veracity/rationale of their argument.
- mc32 6y agoWhether 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.
- seven4 6y agoYep - 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
- StandardFuture 6y agoSorry, 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.
- seven4 6y agoWith 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.
- untog 6y agoI 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.
- jeffdavis 6y agoFWIW, 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.
- Pfhreak 6y agoAnd, 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.
- coldtea 6y ago>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...
- acheron9383 6y agoContrarian 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.
- seven4 6y agoWell 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?
- watwut 6y ago> 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.
- GoblinSlayer 6y agoContext should be obvious: different people have different preferences, and due to difference in preferences, disagreement emerges.