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

31–40 of 47 posts

Re: Preliminary Theory of the In-Group Contrarian

#31

Post by watwut »

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…

> 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.

Re: Preliminary Theory of the In-Group Contrarian

#32

Post by runawaybottle »

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.

I think there’s a tinge of misanthropy in those who are comfortable being contrarian. If most people believe something, it’s probably not that right, or at the very least, needs more vetting before blanket shallow acceptance. Contrarians must first diagnose that before all else.

It’s totally a valid criticism that contrarians are distasteful for that simple reason, but the herd can be equally annoying. It’s a symbiosis.

The Joker to Batman: You complete me

We’re also very pretentious as you can see :p

Re: Preliminary Theory of the In-Group Contrarian

#33

Post by runawaybottle »

yarrel wrote: post #3

"...the way that dissent from the herding dynamics can be an effective way to game the attention economy..." , yes, go on...

When you put it that way, that validates that there is a literal shortage of counter arguments such that people can even enter the market and extract attention.

Re: Preliminary Theory of the In-Group Contrarian

#34

Post by screye »

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?

Don't think she counts as someone in the ingroup.

I would think it is more like Contrapoints, who got cancelled for being sympathetic towards certain outgroup members despite being one of the most prominent trans public faces.

or Scott Alexander of slate-star-codex whose rationalistic approach is despised by others in the left, because it often lets the data lead a person to conclusions instead of going about it the other way round. He is quite squarely part of the left, but also disliked by the left.

Stand up comedians often fall in this category. IMO, Louis CK's scorched earth cancellation was a result of him being an IGC, where folks were just waiting for a thing to come out, so he could be discredited.

Being an IGC can yield huge benefits though. But, it requires carefully planning your public persona to a T and you need to be good enough, that you can't ever be called a talentless hack who is profiteering from contrarianism.

I've seen two approaches that have worked. Either build a ton of good will (like Dave Chapelle) and then be a contrarian. At that point. Or, never pretend to be aligned with a group, build an audience that is sufficiently intellectually diverse, mix contrarian opinions with self deprecation and clearly differentiate your person from your persona. (like Bill Burr). It is incredibly important to be intellectually honest though. Because even the faintest hint of hypocrisy will get you cancelled.

Re: Preliminary Theory of the In-Group Contrarian

#36

Post by stared »

IMHO in-group contrarians:

- Someone how didn't get that all truth-seeking is a facade (no matter if it is a Catholic, feminist, communist, libertarian, etc group). So they don't get that they should pretend to search for truth while accepting the dogma (think about many religious scholars: often it is fine, or even encouraged to ask questions and have doubts, as long as you arrive at the "correct" answer).

- People who take the gamble (consciously or not) - to be the new leader or a cast-out. Again, it seems that in religion almost every single person considered a key figure falls into this category (some didn't succeed so ended up as heretics, or we don't even remember their name). Think: Moses, Jesus, Martin Luther.

From a tribalistic standpoint, it makes sense to have at the same time:

- A cohesive belief, so it is a clear distinction for who is in and who is out.

- Some route to explore other ideas. If the tribe accepts it, good. If considered it wrong, then it is much easier to banish or execute a few people, than counteract to a large fraction of the population which are slightly heretical.

Re: Preliminary Theory of the In-Group Contrarian

#37

Post by viridian »

watwut wrote: post #25
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…

> 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 o…

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.

Re: Preliminary Theory of the In-Group Contrarian

#38

Post by zzzcpan »

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…

All that in-group out-group social identity theory stuff is pseudoscience anyway. But it's not an illusion, it's just a different and just as wrong framework of ideas than what you propose. Although I like yours better, it at least doesn't label people nor puts them in buckets, embracing more complexity of behavior.

Re: Preliminary Theory of the In-Group Contrarian

#39

Post by GoblinSlayer »

seven4 wrote: post #21
coldtea wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

All groups you know don't have contrarian opinions? Most ideas can be questioned.

Re: Preliminary Theory of the In-Group Contrarian

#40

Post by GoblinSlayer »

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…

Context should be obvious: different people have different preferences, and due to difference in preferences, disagreement emerges.
Post reply on HN