Can the pretty constant (until recently) switching between the party affiliation of the US president (two terms Democrat, two terms Republican) be a real-life manifestation of a general version of this mechanism?
Yes, if we also consider that the parties themselves change a lot over such a time scale. Per the median voter theorem, the parties try to adjust to what the electorate wants; and at the same time they try to be different from the opposition. So they tend to be contrarian but also attuned to what the majority wants, which gets us something close to (meta-)*contrarianism and explains why there's political alternance in most democratic countries. (Although not all, e.g. Japan)
The tendency of an individual to take a meta contrarian position is a sign of health to me. We need to actively engage our minds, wrestle with thoughts and reconsider what we thought to be true so that we may grow as human beings. Rigidity or the inability to be flexible in thinking is a sign of mental illness. This is the focus of a lot of neuroscience and psychedelic research on flow states which you’re probably already familiar.
I think that’s why many of us are “bundles of contradictions” — for that very reason. For example, someone being ‘pro life’ for example, but being for the death penalty. It’s not that people that hold seemingly irreconcilable positions are necessarily a bunch hypocrites (although they could be) Ideologically, individuals who are actively engaging their pre frontal cortex, and by extension, their thinking skills, are forever looking to gain greater understanding of issues. The problem is that we have too many people locked into rigid thought patterns that only further reinforced by the social media they consume daily.
That’s why I like debate team as an activity for young people in high school and college. When you’re on a debate team, you’re often required to take a position that you would not normally argue. In other words, you learn to argue both sides of an issue. You, in a sense, become the meta contrarian. And then as you refine your argumentative skills, you acquire the ability to become a meta meta contrarian.
Excellent points! The part about "seemingly irreconcilable positions" is especially interesting; most things are indeed complex enough for there to exist justified ways to hold apparent contradictions together. Although sometimes contradictions are also a sign of bad reasoning...
Can the pretty constant (until recently) switching between the party affiliation of the US president (two terms Democrat, two terms Republican) be a real-life manifestation of a general version of this mechanism?
Yes, if we also consider that the parties themselves change a lot over such a time scale. Per the median voter theorem, the parties try to adjust to what the electorate wants; and at the same time they try to be different from the opposition. So they tend to be contrarian but also attuned to what the majority wants, which gets us something close to (meta-)*contrarianism and explains why there's political alternance in most democratic countries. (Although not all, e.g. Japan)
The tendency of an individual to take a meta contrarian position is a sign of health to me. We need to actively engage our minds, wrestle with thoughts and reconsider what we thought to be true so that we may grow as human beings. Rigidity or the inability to be flexible in thinking is a sign of mental illness. This is the focus of a lot of neuroscience and psychedelic research on flow states which you’re probably already familiar.
I think that’s why many of us are “bundles of contradictions” — for that very reason. For example, someone being ‘pro life’ for example, but being for the death penalty. It’s not that people that hold seemingly irreconcilable positions are necessarily a bunch hypocrites (although they could be) Ideologically, individuals who are actively engaging their pre frontal cortex, and by extension, their thinking skills, are forever looking to gain greater understanding of issues. The problem is that we have too many people locked into rigid thought patterns that only further reinforced by the social media they consume daily.
That’s why I like debate team as an activity for young people in high school and college. When you’re on a debate team, you’re often required to take a position that you would not normally argue. In other words, you learn to argue both sides of an issue. You, in a sense, become the meta contrarian. And then as you refine your argumentative skills, you acquire the ability to become a meta meta contrarian.
Excellent points! The part about "seemingly irreconcilable positions" is especially interesting; most things are indeed complex enough for there to exist justified ways to hold apparent contradictions together. Although sometimes contradictions are also a sign of bad reasoning...
I love this, I feel like my whole life is that drawing of A-B-A meta infinity.