4 ms·

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 i

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.

seven4 6y ago
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.
untog 6y ago
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.
- seven4 6y ago
  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.
  - coldtea 6y ago
    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)
    - seven4 6y ago
      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.
      - GoblinSlayer 6y ago
        All groups you know don't have contrarian opinions? Most ideas can be questioned.
- klyrs 6y ago
  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.
xelxebar 6y ago
Your comment is a prescriptive approach to emotional analysis. The comment to which you are responding is taking a descriptive approach. Very different things.
watwut 6y ago
> 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.
- viridian 6y ago
  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.

seven4 6y ago

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.

untog 6y ago

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.

seven4 6y ago
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.
- coldtea 6y ago
  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)
  - seven4 6y ago
    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.
    - GoblinSlayer 6y ago
      All groups you know don't have contrarian opinions? Most ideas can be questioned.
klyrs 6y ago
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.

xelxebar 6y ago

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

watwut 6y ago

> 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.

viridian 6y ago
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.