Contrarian thinking doesn't reflexively oppose the consensus, but rather starts with the assumption that the consensus is wrong, insufficient and or irrelevant.

Contrarian thinking doesn't reflexively oppose the consensus, but rather starts with the assumption that the consensus is wrong, insufficient and or irrelevant. In this case, the reviewer notes a seeming contradiction between Thiel's critique of higher education and his implicit acknowledgement of the value of relevant credentials on the Founders Fund website. The reviewer attributes this to a sort of subconscious hypocrisy since he assumes that Thiel takes "everything about higher education is bad" as a first principle. If he sees this rather as an initial hypothesis, it's quite easy to see how he'd conclude (in this case) that the signaling component of prestigious credentials has a value apart from the entire higher ed enterprise. It does not follow that if higher education is in a "bubble" it also has no underlying value. Both assertions could very well be true. I think both a "consensus impulse", i.e. the impulse to agree, and a "contrarian impulse", the impulse to disagree, is present in everyone to varying degrees. In most people, and in most circumstances, the former dominates for good reasons: the practical social benefits of "going along to get along" and, intellectually, the likelihood that even if not "correct", the consensus captures some underlying truths, particularly in rigorously tested domains such as science. As such, treating the consensus as your acting hypothesis is a great heuristic for success. It is precisely for this reason that opposing the consensus, even if only as a thought experiment in your own mind, is also of great value. If Einstein took Newtonian physics as unalterable doctrine, say as the Church used to view Aristotelean physics, he may have dismissed his own intuitions about relativity to his (and our) great detriment. Where exactly to draw the line and apply your reasoning is a highly subjective and particular exercise, and "think for yourself", cliched as it sounds, is seems as good a rule as any. To paraphrase Orwell, the hardest things to see are those right in front of your own nose.