Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Preliminary Theory of the In-Group Contrarian

outsidertheory.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 47 posts

Re: Preliminary Theory of the In-Group Contrarian

#11

Post by jeffdavis »

seven4 wrote: post #2

"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 c…

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.

Re: Preliminary Theory of the In-Group Contrarian

#12

Post by klyrs »

untog wrote: post #9
StandardFuture wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 inte…

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.

Re: Preliminary Theory of the In-Group Contrarian

#13

Post by xelxebar »

StandardFuture wrote: post #6
seven4 wrote: post #2

"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 c…

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 inte…

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

Very different things.

Re: Preliminary Theory of the In-Group Contrarian

#15

Post by js8 »

There is this idea (I got it from Paul Ormerod's Butterfly Economics, but I suspect it's older) that there are 3 types of (economic) decisions that humans can make in any given situation:

1. Do whatever you were doing in the past and worked well for you.

2. Copy what other people are doing and it seems to work well for them.

3. Try to figure out what is the best decision yourself.

I think different people (heck, even same people at different situations) have different propensity to choose one of these options. And it makes sense, to save option 3 only for special occasions.

But what if the group orthodoxy is just an illusion created by all the people who choose option 1 and 2? And the contrarian happens ad hoc, by being the person who for whatever reason chooses option 3?

Re: Preliminary Theory of the In-Group Contrarian

#16

Post by Pfhreak »

jeffdavis wrote: post #11
seven4 wrote: post #2

"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 c…

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,…

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.

Re: Preliminary Theory of the In-Group Contrarian

#17

Post by seven4 »

throwaway6274 wrote: post #14

Ok, clearly this was posted as a veiled reference to something occurring in current events. I’ll take a guess at the intended subject: Candace Owens?

As a counter-point to this being a "veiled reference" - Your comment that the article is a reference to something that's happening in the world could conceivably apply at any given point in time.

There will always be contentious ideas - the meta of an "in-group contrarian" transcends the current social narrative.

Re: Preliminary Theory of the In-Group Contrarian

#18

Post by coldtea »

seven4 wrote: post #2

"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 c…

>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...

Re: Preliminary Theory of the In-Group Contrarian

#19

Post by coldtea »

seven4 wrote: post #10
untog wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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)

Re: Preliminary Theory of the In-Group Contrarian

#20

Post by coldtea »

klyrs wrote: post #12
untog wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Post reply on HN