Contrarian

Last night I was called a contrarian. I disagreed. (Presumably proving their point). Anyhow, it is safe to say I recognize most people I know, from different walks of life, would probably agree to call me a contrarian.

I don't like the term because I think it tends to be used as "You're just being contrary for the sake of being contrary," and allows someone to get out a weak argument. And I don't perceive myself to be contrary just for the sake of it.

So I looked up contrarian on the internet and found two definitions I think put it in perspective -

1. Contrarian Investor

In finance, a contrarian is one who attempts to profit by investing in a manner that differs from the conventional wisdom, when the consensus opinion appears to be wrong.

A contrarian believes that certain crowd behavior among investors can lead to exploitable mispricings in securities markets.

2. Contrarian Scientist

A contrarian is someone who poses as a skeptic, refusing to accept consensus conclusions in science on the ground that there is still some uncertainty. As Chris Mooney writes:

That doesn’t mean that scientific consensus is right in every instance. There are famous examples, in fact, of when it was proved wrong: Galileo comes to mind, as does a lowly patent clerk named Einstein. In the vast majority of modern cases, however, scientific consensus can be expected to hold up under scrutiny precisely because it was reached through a lengthy and rigorous process of professional skepticism and criticism.*

Contrarians are particularly active in the areas of climate change and other environmental issues, but they have been active in many other areas as well, such as tobacco and health issues. Contrarians demand endless analysis of issues to prevent any action from being taken rather than to ensure that the most reasonable conclusion be arrived at. Polluters and anyone else opposed to government regulations are well served by the contrarian's paralysis by analysis. Contrarians often refer to their endless demands for more study and their claims that doubts still remain—no matter what the consensus—as "sound science," a bit of doublespeak that is the scientific equivalent of the filibuster.

If I am to cop to being a contrarian, I cop to the first definition. I certainly believe the "crowd" whether it applies to investing, movie taste, political choices, and a whole host of issues has systemic "gaps" of intelligence. Groups get things wrong for a lot of reasons - mostly as a combination of limited intelligence and a herd mentality which makes it safer to accept the widely accepted view because if you are wrong as part of a herd, everyone else is wrong as well, and you don't look stupid.

But I do not subscribe to being a contrarian in the second sense, trying to purposely filibuster accepted knowledge cynically to further the interests of evildoers or just be purposely obstructive.

So there.