This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
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;
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.).
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•
t07:40, 16 April 2015 (UTC)reply
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.
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 Bashfordreply
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)reply
~~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)reply
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".)
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)reply
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)reply
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.
D4g0thur07:00, 3 July 2013 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)reply
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.