Preliminary Theory of the In-Group Contrarian • Hacker News Board

Re: Preliminary Theory of the In-Group Contrarian

#21

Post by seven4 » Mon, Jun 22, 2020, 6:04 AM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #19

seven4 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 grou…

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.

Re: Preliminary Theory of the In-Group Contrarian

#22

Post by acheron9383 » Mon, Jun 22, 2020, 6:30 AM UTC

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…

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.

Re: Preliminary Theory of the In-Group Contrarian

#23

Post by seven4 » Mon, Jun 22, 2020, 6:37 AM UTC

acheron9383 wrote: post #22

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…

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 wi…

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?

Re: Preliminary Theory of the In-Group Contrarian

#24

Post by TechBro8615 » Mon, Jun 22, 2020, 6:38 AM UTC

js8 wrote: post #15

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…

This seems to presuppose that the human will successfully execute their decision, or that they will even make one. Perhaps there should be a fourth category: flail about without any decision, and then justify their behavior post-hoc to maximize their self-worth.

Re: Preliminary Theory of the In-Group Contrarian

#25

Post by watwut » Mon, Jun 22, 2020, 6:51 AM UTC

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…

> 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.

Re: Preliminary Theory of the In-Group Contrarian

#26

Post by raxxorrax » Mon, Jun 22, 2020, 6:57 AM UTC

> Of course, the majority of IGCs are low-follower anonymous accounts, and can be simply ignored

That critics are not popular is an old rule. I think you can also safely ignore people with a large following, but that is another topic.

> IGC must not just be dismissed, but destroyed

They basically put the finger where it hurts.

Re: Preliminary Theory of the In-Group Contrarian

#27

Post by paganel » Mon, Jun 22, 2020, 7:10 AM UTC

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?

For us non-US HN-ers who don't know who Candace Owens is, she seems to be a person of colour with conservative believes, this is her wiki page [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candace_Owens

Re: Preliminary Theory of the In-Group Contrarian

#28

Post by oh_sigh » Mon, Jun 22, 2020, 7:26 AM UTC

stephc_int13 wrote: post #8

"Ce qu'il y a d'enivrant dans le mauvais goût, c'est le plaisir aristocratique de déplaire" --Charles Baudelaire (Sorry for the French quote) I think that IGC tactics is also very common for the adepts of Dandyism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dandy Bourdieu also wrote a book on something tangentially related: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distinction_(book) "In a specific social field, agents are constantly caught…

It probably would have been easier to just translate the quote in your head instead of apologizing for it: "What is intoxicating about bad taste is the aristocratic pleasure of displeasing"

Re: Preliminary Theory of the In-Group Contrarian

#29

Post by oh_sigh » Mon, Jun 22, 2020, 7:31 AM UTC

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?

Candace Owens has pretty standard viewpoints for Trump-minded people. Her main differentiator that has made her popular is that she is a black woman, so it is much harder to call her racist or sexist for stating the exact same thing that, say, a white male Trump supporter would get called racist or sexist for.

So I don't think she is an IGC in any sense.

Re: Preliminary Theory of the In-Group Contrarian

#30

Post by js8 » Mon, Jun 22, 2020, 7:55 AM UTC

TechBro8615 wrote: post #24

js8 wrote: post #15

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…

This seems to presuppose that the human will successfully execute their decision, or that they will even make one. Perhaps there should be a fourth category: flail about without any decision, and then justify their behavior post-hoc to maximize their self-worth.

IMHO that's the option 1. Continue what you were doing.

Although, maybe you mean things like anxiety, something like fight/flight/freeze response. I guess you could put these sort of human defaults into a separate category.