The title of this post might strike some readers as being odd, given that I hold a number of contrarian views—most notably the claim that the Fed caused the 2008 recession with a tight money policy.
When I say don’t be a contrarian, I mean don’t be someone whose entire identity is contrarianism. Don’t be a person who notices, “The elites say X, therefore I need to search out evidence that ‘not X’ is true.” Guess what, it is almost always possible to find at least some evidence that not X is true; that doesn’t make it wise to hold the view that not X is true.
Instead, I’d suggest that the best way to respond to the claim that X is true is to look for all sorts of evidence about X, both supportive and opposed. In most cases, you will discover that the elites are correct; X really is true. The moon landing was not faked. Oswald did kill JFK.
So by all means you should be willing to hold contrarian views. But don’t be a contrarian. Don’t adopt contrarianism as an identity in the way that a person might be a Cubs fan or a Yankee fan, rooting for their team.
This post was motivated by an Axios article that contained this tweet:
Imagine a pundit starts their career by making a bold contrarian claim, and achieves a certain degree of fame. Perhaps their initial bold claim actually turns out to be true. Over time, the pundit may begin to see him or herself as a contrarian, and feel pressure from their audience to supply increasingly contrarian takes. It’s at that point when the key mistake gets made, when a person moves from being someone that holds a particular contrarian view to someone whose stock and trade is contrarianism.
And this does not happen in a vacuum. Other pundits may be pursuing the same general career path. In the competition for readers, pundits are pressured to supply more and more edgy takes, to stand out from the crowd. This competition can only end in one place, dipping one’s toes into the most taboo political opinions of all. Just as all political debates eventually make the Nazi comparison, descents into contrarianism eventually soft peddle Nazi crimes.
(Or, if the contrarian pundit is on the left, they end up excusing communist crimes.)
READER COMMENTS
Craig
Sep 7 2024 at 9:33am
“I hold a number of contrarian views—most notably the claim that the Fed caused the 2008 recession with a tight money policy.”
I tend to agree with you, but interesting that you choose 2008 itself because here’s the thing, there was an interview with Bernanke after he was chairman. The interviewer asked about his comments as chairman when Bernanke had commented that sub-prime presented no threat to the broader economy. Bernanke’s response was that he really couldn’t speak freely at the time. Indeed I’d suggest the possibility that JP did likewise with respect to ‘transitory’ and ultimately I feel like the government is, at least generally, straight up gaslighting the American people.
Craig
Sep 7 2024 at 11:03am
And just to expound here. If you write something and I happen to disagree with it, I at least believe that YOU believe it. I don’t question your sincerity.
“Instead, I’d suggest that the best way to respond to the claim that X is true is to look for all sorts of evidence about X, both supportive and opposed.”
That’s good advice, but remember you’re an academic and I’m busy building my empire of dirt. I need sources I can rely on from the get go.
steve
Sep 7 2024 at 12:40pm
I agree with you but it’s easy to be a contrarian now and I think it’s pretty rewarding if you take that route. It makes you feel special that you know everyone else is wrong and it puts you into a social circle of friends where everyone is special. It also gives you people to hate and in the short run hate is much more powerful than most/all positive emotions.
You are correct that on most topics there is good information if you want to find it but most people dont have the skills and/or knowledge to evaluate what is available. They wont know which sources have long term issues of weakness or strength in what they publish. Most people dont understand statistical analysis or know someone who can help. So they decide to trust sources suggested by their friends or those with similar beliefs.
Which brings up the point I dont think you mention. Contrarians used to be uncommon, but now contrarians make up large percentages of the population and while they may be contrarians on popular issues they have their own litmus tests and tend to be rigidly in line on what one must believe to belong to their contrarian group.
Steve
Craig
Sep 7 2024 at 1:20pm
Its not just being contrarian either the issue is whether the actors are even acting in good faith to begin with.
Robert EV
Sep 7 2024 at 4:56pm
I think contrarians were always common, they just didn’t have an aura of believability around them. This aura is generated by views and agreement, things that were hard to get in the day when radio, TV, and newspapers were controlled by their publishers, and very few people were able to self-publish easily.
Craig
Sep 7 2024 at 8:17pm
I agree, I think we began to see the wizard behind the curtain.
Robert EV
Sep 7 2024 at 4:46pm
In line with the serenity prayer and the buddhism anti-suffering idea: If you can’t act on it, the truth or falsity of any claim doesn’t really matter. Take the main lesson from if the claim was true, and the main lesson from if the claim was false, and use those lessons in your life.
MarkW
Sep 8 2024 at 9:40am
Well, don’t be a ‘knee-jerk’ contrarian. But pointing out where elites and those in power are wrong is a lot more useful than pointing out where they are right (except, I suppose, where the dominant position is under a strong attack from an errant adversary). But as a libertarian in a university town, contrarianism is hard to avoid. I find that the credentialed experts in my city are generally sound when it comes to their own areas of expertise, but not otherwise. There’s no end of bad dirigist policies they would approve if possible (for example, we would certainly have strong rent-control if state law permitted it).
In broader areas, though, I find a lot of people I know have an ‘all is well’ bias. They find it pleasant to believe that things in society are generally well managed by competent people with good intentions and the right credentials who know what they’re doing and they are naturally resistant to the suggestion that this might not actually be the case.
Try to suggest, for example, that it’s a really bad thing that the standard procedure for US prosecutors now is to grossly overcharge defendants in order to intimidate even the innocent into accepting plea bargains. People will listen, but they’re more likely than not (because of the ‘all is well’ bias) to think — “No, that can’t be true” and instead think, “Oh, there you go again being a contrarian”.
nobody.really
Sep 8 2024 at 4:34pm
Perhaps a thought to be shared with those who publish I Blog to Differ.
Knut P. Heen
Sep 9 2024 at 10:35am
But contrarians are rich?
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/contrarian
If everyone is selling and the contrarian is buying, the contrarian must have more money than each seller.
nobody.really
Sep 10 2024 at 12:33pm
Seemed to be true of Potter.
Comments are closed.