Talk:Contrarian

(Not just investing)

 * I beg to differ; the word "contrarian" does not exclusively (only) pertain to contrarian investing, but has also been used in other senses where the individual in question differs markedly from conventional wisdom in one or many fields. "Contrarian" is usually even more against the grain than "alternative" is, and usually "alternative" has liberal or left-wing connotations, while "contrarian" often has libertarian, conservative, or right-wing ones. It also differs from being merely eccentric; here's some examples:


 * An eccentric might like spinach-flavored ice cream;
 * An alternative might like indy rock or blue grass in lieu of top-40 pop hits;
 * A contrarian would be like an agnostic who attacks freethought and evolution, or someone who says something that is extremely unpopular (or at least controversial---Shanoman 9/4/13) is actually beneficial and good (such as: pornography, teenage pregnancy, drug use, using tobacco, drinking alcohol to excess, drinking & driving, being selfish on purpose, telling lies, etc.).

Vegetarians (at least before the 1990s) might have been considered eccentric (since then they are just merely alternative); People like Objectivists, rational egoists, satanists, etc. might be considered contrarians, along with such odd-balls as "punk rockers for conservativism", or "cowboys for liberalism".

Here's an example of usage of the word "contrarian" in a sense which I believe does not pertain to investing, in an article here on Wikipedia (and one which I did not create or edit): David Berlinski: 3rd sentence. Shanoman (talk) 03:18, 5 September 2008 & 17:23, 4 September 2013‎ (UTC)
 * Misplaced talk contrib, inside prior, signed, contrib in this section, is now moved to section (Wings), placed chronologically below. --Jerzy•t 07:40, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The preceding "03:18" contrib contains a link to the David Berlinski article, not a sig by a User:David Berlinski --Jerzy•t 07:40, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Krugman
Why was Paul Krugman's opinion placed in the beginning of the article and no one else? I removed this considering there is already discussion in the article sufficiently about Mr. Krugman's views. I would suggest if anyone has more contemporary views of what it is to be a Contrarian their quotations would be highly helpful in the article to help fully establish it's modern meaning when used in different ways.

My 2 cents, Thanks. comment added by Ronmrutherford (talk • contribs) 22:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I added a reference & refinement that further defines it. Contrasted with iconoclasm —and contrarian is "a being contrary for the sake of being contrary" to Lead section. ...From William Safire, NYT, 1989. Worthy reading.


 * I also found a newer popular usage, —contrarians as global warming deniers: google "global warming" OR "climate change" contrarian  (About 294,000 results)      "How to talk to a climate change contrarian (if you must)."  --71.137.156.36 (talk) 04:44, 13 April 2014 (UTC)Doug Bashford

Devil's advocate > Contrarian
I have always had those two terms intertwined. A contrarian merely plays role of the Devil's advocate. Is my understanding of these two words wrong? I am not being a snob, I am genuinely asking a question. Is my usage of the Devil's advocate and Contrarian as mirrored terms false? They do appear to be the same, in practice. Believe me, I have known a few. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.105.46.93 (talk) 23:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me like it's the other way around: playing the devil's advocate is a temporary role one assumes, often just for rhetorical or tactical purposes (even if it doesn't truly refect one's viewpoints), whereas a contrarian sincerely IS the devil's advocate (on certain issues), and maintains those views even after the argument is over. Shanoman (talk) 17:19, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Devil's advocate should have been linked (on this talk page, at least!) before now! --Jerzy•t 07:40, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

(Wings)
what's contrarian about the view on Wings? After all, they're only the band The Beatles could've been. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.68.226.10 (talk) 10:39, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The reference to Wings (band) was part of (IMO presumably copyright-protected) text from Slate, that was removed from the accompanying article in the edit of 12:04, 20 February 2015. --Jerzy•t 07:40, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Contrarians
Do they argue just to be different, or do they really believe what they argue about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.251.169.69 (talk) 21:00, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * IMO, (tho its relevance to the article is not obvious) the question commits the Fallacy of the excluded middle, and deserves two answers: one abt those who believe the contrary view, and one abt those who have a reason, other than believing the contrary view, for arguing against the conventional wisdom.
 * What, do you imagine that everyone believes in their heart that the conventional wisdom is either accurate or worth betting on? Often they act as if they believe the CW bcz it makes them comfortable, or bcz they fear the fools around them will lynch them if they disturb the individual or political calm the CW provides. Yet some act differently in the hope that the world, or part of it, can wake up to the evidence either that the CW represents someone being effective in "selling a bill of goods", or that the small risk of irremediable disaster from following the CW is worth the substantial cost of attempting to ameliorate that risk.
 * There's so much CW floating around that it tends to anesthetize our critical faculties. Even when the CW is right, we need practice applying critical reason in trying to confirm it's right instead of just trusting it. (I 'spose that's a form of "just to be different", but far from the senses that are synonyms for "just out of cussedness", "just to look clever", "just to feel superior", and "just to be noticed".)
 * The widely respected thinker Christopher Hitchens wrote Letters to a Young Contrarian, and i'd bet he (who's much cleverer and more rigorous than i) argued in it for both 1 and 2, or for at least one more powerful reason. --Jerzy•t 07:40, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I like Jerzy's points. This page seems very non-neutral to me (mimicking the topic itself - CW vs non-CW). Look at the funny entries on the Urban Dictionary's page on contrarian and it's a bad sign (IMO) that the wiki page sounds similar. A contrarian may challenge CW as a way of experimenting, nurture skepticism, encourage curiosity, not to look clever, but to dig deeper - or they may simply be correct (and CW is incorrect). In fact, contrarians at first do not look clever and are usually ridiculed. I think this line should be removed: "(The opposition and feeling of having 'instantly original and creative thoughts' is more important to the contrarian than any truth or knowledge derived from rational deduction.)" - or we need a new word to describe contrarian in a non-pejorative sense. Is the child who blurts out that the Emperor is naked a 'contrarian'? I would say yes and a rational one. --Pythn (talk) 17:06, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of Contrarianism and nay-saying section
Nothing in this section has been verified and it possesses an original research flavor. Combine this with the strange tangent on the grammatical rules of starting sentences with conjunctions in the second paragraph, I recommend this section be deleted.MrFurious2 (talk) 00:38, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree entirely. Brings down the article considerably. Happydemic (talk) 12:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I originally tagged this as OR, with the intention of having a discussion over it, but seeing that this year-old comment suggesting its removal has met with no disagreement, I'll just go ahead and remove it. If someone can find anything of value to salvage from the section, please do, but as it stands, it's completely unencyclopaedic. D 4 g 0 t h u r  07:00, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * This whole article should be named after the "ism", like most are, rather than after its "ians", "ists" or "ites". Just trying to be different, is it? Meta humour died in 2013, I seem to recall. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:37, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Contrarianism in science
I agree that Berlinski is an evolution denialist or contrarian, but since he's not a biologist, is his mention relevant for this "Contrarianism in science" section? On the other hand, Richard Lindzen appears to have some climatology-related credentials (but indeed is a climate change denialist or contrarian). Bjørn Lomborg appears to also lack climatologist-related credentials, although he would be an environmentalist, so the same question applies. Are the non-expert, ignorant opinions of non-scientists relevant for "Contrarianism in science"? If so, we could probably reformulate or rename the section, etc. Does this section address against the scientific consensus, against science , or expert fringe opinions ? Thanks, 76.10.128.192 (talk) 06:51, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Contrarian. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140921054232/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6591462/Copenhagen-climate-change-conference-2009-climate-contrarians.html to http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6591462/Copenhagen-climate-change-conference-2009-climate-contrarians.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:03, 30 November 2016 (UTC)