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

41–47 of 47 posts

Re: Preliminary Theory of the In-Group Contrarian

#41

Post by jcahill »

>We can now return to the concept of the In-Group Contrarian (hereafter IGC). Anyone who has observed social media platforms, especially Twitter, will know the type. This is the person who, precisely when mimetic snowballing is in progress, attempts to apply the brakes. What’s important is that this figure is not simply an outsider to the group, in which case they could probably be ignored, but instead claims to share the group’s goals, beliefs, etc and merely objects to some aspect of this manifestation of them. The appearance of this figure is as predictable as the mimetic snowballing itself.

This account casts assent and dissent as quasi-deterministic duals of each other. It is overdetermined as a result.

Re: Preliminary Theory of the In-Group Contrarian

#42

Post by raxxorrax »

screye wrote: post #34
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…

I don't understand the association of being contrarian and having no talent. Or do you mean the knee-jerk reaction to it? Because I would classify the most eccentric artists to be very contrarian with unlimited baskets of critique.

There is a large portion of philosophy that ponders the question if criticism can be a creative endeavor. I am firmly in the camp that believes it is indeed with no restriction.

Re: Preliminary Theory of the In-Group Contrarian

#43

Post by screye »

raxxorrax wrote: post #42
screye wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I don't understand the association of being contrarian and having no talent. Or do you mean the knee-jerk reaction to it? Because I would classify the most eccentric artists to be very contrarian with unlimited baskets of critique. There is a large portion of philosophy that ponders the question if criticism can be a creative endeavor. I am firmly in the camp that believes it is indeed with no restriction.

> being contrarian and having no talent

I meant that if you are a contrarian then the majority will dismiss you as an opportunist who is using their contrarian position to gain popularity, that they would have otherwise been unable to attain.

Their implication being, that the contrarian lacks the talent to make it without the additional attention brought by being the contrarian. I wasn't stating a truth, but rather the perception and resulting reaction from the 'hivemind'.

> There is a large portion of philosophy that ponders the question if criticism can be a creative endeavor. I am firmly in the camp that believes it is indeed with no restriction.

I am totally with you on that. I am sorry if the original comment came across as being demeaning towards contrarians.

Re: Preliminary Theory of the In-Group Contrarian

#44

Post by gwern »

This seems wildly overthought and an unnecessary invocation of Girard. Everything about in-group contrarians appears more parsimoniously explained by simply observing that groups must be ambivalent about 'loyal oppositions' because 1. such people need to be kinda jerks or autistic personalities to overcome the extremely powerful social pressures towards conformity and express criticisms where they are not wanted; and 2. while they are 'traitors to the cause' in the short run by giving the enemies ammunition & splintering the group costing it momentum, in the long run they are critical to a healthy movement in keeping it honest & prepared for its enemies' arguments & innovations.

Re: Preliminary Theory of the In-Group Contrarian

#45

Post by klyrs »

runawaybottle wrote: post #32
klyrs wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 symbios…

I agree, Batman is an excellent example of a misanthropic, pretentious contrarian ;)

Re: Preliminary Theory of the In-Group Contrarian

#46

Post by throwaway4666 »

Lots of words and vagueness without much of a point (other than someone really didn't like being called a grifter on twitter dot com, I guess?). After reading the entire piece I have no idea what the author is really alluding to, and they have to be alluding to something because it wouldn't sound eerily specific otherwise. Why not just state your point with the example at hand instead of uselessly theorizing? Seriously, this is what happens when you take online too seriously - using grandiloquent words like orthodoxy, skandalon, attention economy or citing Girard and Durkheim as though this weren't about petty spats no one outside Weird Twitter has ever heard about. If your reputation and livelihood doesn't depend on your being extremely online, why would you care about this stuff? If it does, and you actually profit from talking about this stuff and playing contrarian, how can you object to being called a grifter?

Re: Preliminary Theory of the In-Group Contrarian

#47

Post by runawaybottle »

klyrs wrote: post #45
runawaybottle wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 symbios…

I agree, Batman is an excellent example of a misanthropic, pretentious contrarian ;)

Not the hero you want, but the hero you deserve.

Best cheesy outro ever: https://youtu.be/6c_H45kt1_8

Greatest in group contrarian ever?

Post reply on HN