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 reasonsble 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. Most discussions he might strike up tend to serve his own pride. 

The Oppositional Character 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—royalty in a nutshell. His cerebral need to enjoy social dominance was rooted in always wanting to 'appear' the cleverest! 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, but even began to reject established truths commonly accepted. 

King Porcinus VIII The Contrarian, forced his narrow opinion down forcefully on his guests; any irrelevant detail, one day deeply challenging a comment of Duke  Glirine. The Mousey Monarch only shared his observation about atomism philosophy inspiring the later discovery of actual atoms as he nervously nibbled on the last of the extra mature cheddar cheese. The arrogant king seemed to throw down his gauntlet. However, Royal-Declaration meant everyone had to accept his position. It inspired support for the subsequent republic which exposed those days of sovereignty and divine rule for what it really was—manipulation. 

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 dismissed his philosophical theory. 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 common for his grunting grace, but using quantum-level standards of proof against an Atomos Philosophy caused a silence. During dessert, guests asked each other questions and confronted his power; he admitted that he had no knowledge of atomic splitting or quantum physics at all! This Royal didn't even know why atoms were called atoms. Everyone was bewildered. Glirine, the vindicated Mouse Duke, smiled and then he squeaked, 'But, it's rooted in philosophy. . . Scientists named atoms from the atomism philosophy, you see, atom and atomism?'

That was the point Porcinus minced out of the dining hall and became a recluse. It was just minutes 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 approval to verbally attack a monarch on his platform and he grew enraged and stormed off the set of ‘Good Morning Britain’ and resigned! The 'free speech' he valued was just his own version of it.

Double Standards 

Monarchs like King Porcinus VIII think they have some kind of entitlement over others. We can see the contrarian archetype is not logical toward fact, but to their desires. They're like tricksters. You see, the rigorous scientific standard disappear when blind faith is needed. They blur your facts to meet their wants, and use others to support them. Questions expose their dishonesty. 

The Motives Behind Everything

When examining the Swine Kings stance on the philosophical argument, we see rigidity of thought: if a modern atom can be split, the ancient concept of Atomos is 100% wrong. Proud rigid thinking can bring out a touch of confrontation. 

The Monarch wasn’t arguing for a better, more qualified answer; he was simply arguing against the Mouse Duke. 

The Power Dynamic

The real stupidity was not the King’s arguments it was engaging with them; they knew exactly what he was. That very moment they argued back, the Royal Contrarian wins, why? Because the goal was to bait you into submission using his manipulation, rules and hypocrisy. 

'Can you teach me about nuclear fission then? Maybe explain this philosophy of Atomism that you say is irrelevant?’

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

'So why would you – as clueless as you've just admitted to being about the subject – want to push an empty argument?' 

The Self-Validation Reversal

The Cerebral Contrarian’s game is kind of narcissistic, built on arrogance and a stubbornness; they might flat-out deny agreeing, because there's pleasure in constantly shooting down whatever's said. There's power in refusing to play their game, by pushing them to put-up or shut up. This, in most cases, is when the power  of the contrarian dissolves, leaving only the sound of a fool who must argue blind to sustain vanity. Prof Andrews shows this stubborness in abundance. 

Tricks and Misleading Tactics

Watch out for dodgy evidence like newspaper reports, media or academic studies. 

Another Swine King type 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, who would? I was still, nevertheless 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 bit of 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, cancer, heart attack, running too much!?) others died less: it concluded walking promoted longevity. We have no idea if pilates, weight training or anything else was practices in the 13 year period. 

You can follow this logic and jab countless blows, for example: if all Ukrainians significantly increased their walking it would decrease the lethality of Russian missiles, why not? It fits the template! Urinating on an electric fence would be less of a gamble for regular trekkers. If a group of people practise outdoors exercise together the wheelchair users would be highest risk of cardiac arrest. Wouldn't the sedentary population be warned to stay indoors for risk of every 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 was trying to explain human behaviour. Just like Alex Jones, who conjured up conspiratory 'fact' and thetoric to sell his idea that the Sandy Hook shooting was nonsense. 

My Conclusion

A prime example of contrarian justice is ultimately played out in Good Will Hunting. When Will defends his friend from a big headed Harvard graduate, Clark. The man arrogantly used 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 him 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 well to any story!