[You can take] an authority defying position [that you] can share with like-minded folks and which might later lead to glory, while avoiding most of the accuracy-reducing costs of disagreement: be contrarian on questions, not answers. (
I wonder whether the unpopularity of topic contrarians is related to the fact that it is much easier to introduce a topic in a discussion when one can connect it to the preceding (or at least some earlier-discussed) topic.
Sure, you can advocate a minority position to show how clever and independent minded your are.
You can also signal how clever, interesting and unlike all those merely disagreeable people who just defend the wrong side of the debate by being a topic contrarian. Indeed, you simultaneously signal how you have interesting things to say and novel thoughts but aren't so gosh as to get people upset or start arguments by advocating views that are socially disfavored.
Indeed, I'd actually go so far as to say this is the *more* acceptable and status conferring route. I mean compare the social status of someone who does ig nobel winning type research (topic contrarian) to someone like Charles Murray (issue contrarian). Compare being really into the physical security of elevators or building your own languages or even genetically engineering humans to be aquatic where you might get a ted talk with, say arguing for challenge trials or suggesting school isn't teaching useful skills. Or the whole cottage industry of intellectualish books (freakonomics, mathematics of love etc..) that show the public some topic or set of questions they hadn't before really thought about is interesting.
Also, I think your own posts suggests the opposite. Your posts suggesting you take the ideas that some UFOs could be aliens seriously (issue contrarianism) was social status costly while your posts using your model about hurdles for intelligent life plus lack of evidence of grabby aliens (topic contrarianism) was a social status boon.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding your distinction or maybe your defining topic contrarianism much more narrowly but, ultimately, being into unusual topics mostly might fail to interest others while contariarian issues advocacy has a large built in set of critics who often just call you dumb without considering your reasons.
I think this idea is a great framing, and I think that a lot of people should try being topic contrarians.
Also, two other minor things: "releasing a while paper" should be "releasing a white paper", and I can't seem to upvote posts (increasing their rating).
I wonder whether the unpopularity of topic contrarians is related to the fact that it is much easier to introduce a topic in a discussion when one can connect it to the preceding (or at least some earlier-discussed) topic.
Sure, you can advocate a minority position to show how clever and independent minded your are.
You can also signal how clever, interesting and unlike all those merely disagreeable people who just defend the wrong side of the debate by being a topic contrarian. Indeed, you simultaneously signal how you have interesting things to say and novel thoughts but aren't so gosh as to get people upset or start arguments by advocating views that are socially disfavored.
Indeed, I'd actually go so far as to say this is the *more* acceptable and status conferring route. I mean compare the social status of someone who does ig nobel winning type research (topic contrarian) to someone like Charles Murray (issue contrarian). Compare being really into the physical security of elevators or building your own languages or even genetically engineering humans to be aquatic where you might get a ted talk with, say arguing for challenge trials or suggesting school isn't teaching useful skills. Or the whole cottage industry of intellectualish books (freakonomics, mathematics of love etc..) that show the public some topic or set of questions they hadn't before really thought about is interesting.
Also, I think your own posts suggests the opposite. Your posts suggesting you take the ideas that some UFOs could be aliens seriously (issue contrarianism) was social status costly while your posts using your model about hurdles for intelligent life plus lack of evidence of grabby aliens (topic contrarianism) was a social status boon.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding your distinction or maybe your defining topic contrarianism much more narrowly but, ultimately, being into unusual topics mostly might fail to interest others while contariarian issues advocacy has a large built in set of critics who often just call you dumb without considering your reasons.
Seems true, but only the first group are properly contrarians. The other might be correctly called free thinkers or something along those lines.
I noticed that as well on the upvoting.
I think this idea is a great framing, and I think that a lot of people should try being topic contrarians.
Also, two other minor things: "releasing a while paper" should be "releasing a white paper", and I can't seem to upvote posts (increasing their rating).