
Preliminary Theory of the In-Group Contrarian - fullshark
https://outsidertheory.com/preliminary-theory-of-the-in-group-contrarian/
======
seven4
_" 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 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.

I'm somewhat surprised by this as I see myself as somewhat rational but this
leads me to think that absent other contextual clues _for me at least_ the
"default" setting is to "dislike" the contrarian and I can then be swayed by
the veracity/rationale of their argument.

~~~
StandardFuture
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 intellectually gratifying, and I am genuinely
put off when I see people in intellectual communities (like software, etc.)
_not_ naturally having this instinct towards people who hold contrary views.

It is usually not a bad thing for someone to think differently from yourself
or others. In fact, almost all (if not all) ideas have some valid criticisms
and counter-arguments or examples. I personally find that it makes for a much
more intellectually honest view of the world to consider them.

~~~
untog
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.

~~~
klyrs
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.

~~~
runawaybottle
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

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

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

Best cheesy outro ever:
[https://youtu.be/6c_H45kt1_8](https://youtu.be/6c_H45kt1_8)

Greatest in group contrarian ever?

------
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?

~~~
TechBro8615
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.

~~~
js8
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.

------
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.

------
stephc_int13
"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](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dandy)

Bourdieu also wrote a book on something tangentially related:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distinction_(book)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distinction_\(book\))

"In a specific social field, agents are constantly caught between two
contradictory intentions. To be recognized in a field, one must distinguish
oneself from it, but distinguishing oneself also leads to being excluded from
it. Officers therefore need to adjust the balance between distinction and
compliance. To have style is to follow fashion while standing out from it with
a few personal touches." (Translated from the better French version of the
wikipedia page)

~~~
oh_sigh
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"

------
raxxorrax
> 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.

------
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.

------
circlefavshape
"a figure ... who nominally belongs to a given ideological formation but
consistently dissents from its orthodoxies"

I'm only comfortable being part of a group if I'm on its fringes. I don't know
why I'm this way, but I am

------
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.

------
yarrel
"...the way that dissent from the herding dynamics can be an effective way to
game the attention economy..."

, yes, go on...

~~~
runawaybottle
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.

------
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?

------
throwaway6274
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?

~~~
screye
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.

~~~
raxxorrax
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.

~~~
screye
> 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.

