The Contrarian Character

The Contrarian Archetype: The Foil and Justice Bait

A Kind of Confrontation

7 min read 

We all know someone who argues not to find out the truth, but to win. This sophist type like this guy is divisive, annoying and rich pickings for any manuscript or novella because they offer delicious just-deserts. They can inspire the protagonist to play their egotistical game—Batman and Riddler dynamics. The intellect of the Riddler is wasted, tainted by a sad point-scoring thing and a reactive self-esteem. Genuine scepticism is the front adopted by the contrarian, hiding relentless, unnecessary oppositional drive to prove they are the smartest person in the room like William Lane Craig. It has a cerebral narcissism grown out of a need for validation of self-appointed beliefs of exceptional intelligence.

I have shared a character in this blog post. He is the Swine King Porcinus VIII of Swinebard, an enthroned figure whose most defining trait was his suffocating intellectual vanity. His Royal Highness Porcinus VIII would regularly make his announcements indirectly as declarations for everyone to accept while perusing his palace—'chess is superior to knowledge' he broadcast one day. That one started after his own slightly above average score in the royal competition. The irony, and the deep hypocrisy: despite his self-proclaimed cleverness, he often failed to accomplish anything meaningful outside of winning petty palace debates. Never vehicles for understanding, those arguments of his were mere performances to get an egotistical hit. 

The Oppositional Mind is Entitled

This is not a majority behaviour and sadly Porcinus VIII’s mind was built on contradiction. His cerebral contrarianism was rooted in a pathological need to reject the established and champion the obscure—it looks clever! Eventually palace courtesans and other aristocrats started to agree with him for an easier life. It took a while before he suspected. All those years of being the one who announced the flaw, the loophole, the technicality no one else could see. He realised that they knew it wasn't his insight anymore; it was surface-level intellectual agility hoping to impress. Despite this he continued rejecting established truths anyone offered at the table. 

King Porcinus VIII The Contrarian, forced his narrow stake down hard; just an irrelevant detail, deep into the beliefs Glirine Duke shared before nibbling his cheese. The arrogant king denied him with inconsequential details at the dinner discussion which put the mouse duke off his desert. Pronounced and glaring, the swine’s hypocrisy was pig-headed and automatically correct by Royal-Decree. 

The Privileged Pig

All this entitled ignorance reminds me of Kehinde Andrews in his debate with Rafe Heydel-Mankoo on Triggernometry; he would inspire the multitudes of ‘right-thinking’ folk to want to say something to take him down. It's quite frustrating how these people don’t tend to listen to experts or even the multitudes. Could this be the textbook toxicity forming your character needs? 

On one hand, the swine king totally denied the principle of the ancient philosophy of Atomism (the idea that matter is fundamentally comprised of tiny irreducible particles called Atomos). ‘It’s totally wrong and has nothing to do with real science,’ he said, ‘we can split the atom’. Resorting to hyper-literalism, and taking quantum-level standards of proof against an Atomos Philosophy was quite enough, but later, he admitted to having no knowledge of atomic splitting or quantum physics at all! After a few simple questions His Royal Highness conceded to say he didn't know why atoms were called atoms, clue; it's the philosophy–he minced out of the dining hall. 

Celebrity and Contrary

Do you remember Piers Morgan's prime moment of hypocrisy when he was exposed on live TV? It was after fiercely insisting his absolute right to express his views on air, the hypocritical man lost the argument became enraged and stormed off the set of ‘Good Morning Britain’ and resigned! The valued 'free speech' was just his own version of 'free speech' others were not very free.

Double Standards 

Monarchs like King Porcinus VIII think they have divine authority to rule. Of course, such a man would insist sophisticated scientific methods can dismiss and reduce a non-scientific principle. Therefore, people would find his belief in the ancient scripture that maintains his divinity to rule distasteful and hypocritical. We can see the contrarian archetype is not logical to fact, but to his desires. They're like tricksters. You see, the rigorous scientific standard disappears when blind faith is needed. This selective application of scrutiny perfectly exposes the vanity and irrationality that drives them. 

The Motives Behind Everything

What makes a person do as they do? We often want to pin the actions of our antagonists onto mental diagnosis associated with violence, bit it is not necessary. Intellectual rigidity is often found fuel in traits associated with neurodiversity, specifically Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). Anyone can have negative personality traits. 

Here we see black and white logic: if a modern atom can be split, the ancient concept of Atomos is 100% wrong. When combined with opposition or a common personality disorder a character begins to take on a plausible confrontational front. The Monarch wasn’t arguing for a better answer; he was arguing against your answer. 

The Power Dynamic

The real fool's errand was not the King’s arguments but engaging with them when you know exactly what he is. That very moment you argue back, the Royal Contrarian wins, why? Because the goal was to bait you into his game. It's also a Donald Trump thing. The Duke, just like Volodymyr Zelenskyy with the orange faced president should have moved on into friendlier territory instead of bickering in the White House. Keep the toxicity high with a manipulative contrarian and the drama flows. 

'Can you teach me about nuclear fission or explain the original philosophy of Atomism that you said is irrelevant?’

' No, I uh, well... I can't, no, '

'So why would you, as uninformed as you are, want to start an argument? Where you going?' 

This the way of the contrarian. 

The Self-Validation Reversal

The Cerebral Contrarian’s game is built on arrogance and a stubbornness; they flat-out deny agreeing because it's easier than constantly shooting down whatever's said. By refusing to play the victim of their baiting, or by simply making them out up or shut up, the manufactured intelligence of the cintrarian dissolves, leaving only the sound of a fool who must argue blind to sustain vanity. 

Tricks and Misleading Tactics

Watch out for dodgy evidence like newspaper reports, media or academic studies. Simple test: if their logic can't distinguish. 

Someone I argued with used this particular walking study to leverage their opinion that walking 'does' make you live longer. Closer inspection shows it claims walking 'may' extend life and cut healthcare costs. The methodology, however was the punchline: interviewers asked people only once how much they walk, and then, they waited 13 years, saw some walkers died (all unknown causes, could have been shootings electrocutions, stabbings, suicide, running too much!?) others died less: it  concluded walking promoted longevity.

On this logic, we really could take the piss by saying if all Ukrainians significantly increased their walking it would decrease the efficacy of Russian missiles, why not? Urinating on an electric fence would be less of a gamble for trekkers. If a group of people walk into a heavy hail storm with a wheelchair user, guess who should get hit first? Wouldn't the sedentary population be warned to stay indoors for risk of any possible cause of death?

Data can't always tell if walking makes you healthy nor will it always clearly state X, Y or Z, especially if it is used to buffer someones need to be right! We saw this practice with Jordan Peterson and his lobster data he used to explain human behaviour, or Alex Jones, the man who conjured up conspiratory rehetoric to sell his idea that the Sandy Hook shooting was a lie. 

My Conclusion

A prime example of contrarian justice is ultimately played out in Good Will Hunting. When Will defends his friend from a narcissistic Harvard graduate, Clark, who arrogantly uses his complex terminology to undermine someone. He boastfully claimed the early colonial economy was 'agrarian pre-capital' near some girls. 

Will instantly clocked him as a plagiarist, naming the specific book and page number of the quote. Will cross-sectioned the contrarian, finally asking the man if he had any thoughts of his own, shattering his fragile manufactured intelligence. Will concludes that Clark wasted $150,000 on an education 'you coulda picked up for a dollar fifty in late charges at the Public Library,' scene ends. 

These characters, like The Riddler, Harvard Kid Clark, Rick Sanchez or Dr. House M.D contribute dearly to any story!