The Contrarian

Always On the Contrary... 

A Confrontation Kinda Character

For this blog post I've created a character called Swine King Porcinus VIII of Swinebard, an enthroned figure whose most defining trait was his suffocating intellectual vanity. His Royal Highness Porcinus VIII makes announcements indirectly as declarations or claims to bait his subjects to challenge him while strolling around the palace—'chess is superior to knowledge' he broadcast one day. That declaration started after his own mediocre score in the royal chess competition. Despite his self-proclaimed cleverness, he often failed to accomplish anything meaningful outside of winning petty palace debates through dismissing others. Any argument he strikes up is always to feed his ego. 

The Oppositional Mind is Entitled

This was not a usual behaviour outside the Royal Swine Family. Sadly Porcinus VIII’s mind was built on contradiction genetics and entitlement. His cerebral need to enjoy social dominance was rooted in wanting to appear clever! Eventually palace courtesans and other aristocrats started to agree with him just for an easier life. It took a while before he suspected anything. All those years of being the one who announced the flaw, the loophole, the technicality that he thought no one else could see slowly began to tarnish the monarch. Then he realised they saw his imperfections. Despite this he doubled down his efforts, he even rejected established truths accepted by all and spoken about at the table. 

King Porcinus VIII The Contrarian, forced his narrow opinion down forcefully on his guests; any irrelevant detail, one day deeply challenging a comment of Glirine Duke. The Mouse Duke only shared his observation about atomism philosophy inspiring the later discovery of atoms before nervously nibbling on the last of the extra mature cheese. The arrogant king kicked off. Royal-Declaration meant everyone had to accept it. This kindled support for the subsequent republic. 

The Privileged Pig

All this entitled ignorance reminds me of Kehinde Andrews in his debate with Rafe Heydel-Mankoo on Triggernometry. It's quite frustrating how such people don’t listen to experts or even the multitudes but always refer to to them to strengthen their own opinion. 

Our Swine King rudely scoffed at the mouse, and then reduced his philosophical suggestion. Maybe that ancient philosophy known as Atomism (matter fundamentally comprised of tiny irreducible particles called Atomos), was unrelated to modern atomic physics:

‘It has nothing to do with real science,’ the pig grunted, ‘physics split the atom, making them reducible unlike irreducible atomos!' 

Everyone knew resorting to hyper-literalism to kill the overall idea was beneath any monarch; using quantum-level standards of proof against an Atomos Philosophy caused a silence, but during dessert, the guests asked questions forcing him to admit that he had no knowledge of atomic splitting or quantum physics at all! His Royal Highness didn't even know why atoms were called atoms at all. Everyone was bewildered and Glirine, the vindicated Mouse Duke, smiled and then squeaked, 'But, it's rooted in philosophy. . . Scientists named atoms from the atomism philosophy, you see, atom and atomism?'

That was when Porcinus minced out of the dining hall and became a recluse just before the start of revolution. 

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. We can see the contrarian archetype is not logical to fact, but to desires. They're like tricksters. You see, the rigorous scientific standard disappear when blind faith is needed. This selective application of scrutiny perfectly exposes the vanity and irrationality that drives them. 

The Motives Behind Everything

When examining the Swine Kings Philosophy argument, we see black and white logic: if a modern atom can be split, the ancient concept of Atomos is 100% wrong. When combined with black and white egotism a character starts to be plausibly confrontational. 

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.

'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 clueless as you admit to being, want to start an argument about it?' 

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 contrarian 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. 

Another Swine King used this particular walking study to leverage their opinion that walking 'does' make you live longer'. I never disagreed that walking is good for you, but I was still presented with evidence from a study. Closer inspection showed it claimed walking 'may' extend life and cut healthcare costs. No shit, right? What a waste of time and energy. Either way, the methodology, was a punchline:

Interviewers asked people only once how much they walk, and then, they waited 13 years, saw some walkers had 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 rhetoric 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!