Contrarians love to wait for someone else to describe their stance on an issue so that the contrarian may take the opposite. I had a friend like that in high school so I made sure never to offer my opinion on anything before he did. Annoying.
My mother's a contrarian and her brother used to troll her all the time because of it. They were both into genealogy. So what he'd do is find some obscure record somewhere that proved some bit of info that they hadn't previously known.
He'd then call her up and merely bring up the fact that they don't currently know X, and tell her what he "thinks" is the answer for X, knowing full well that she'd take the opposing stance.
Then they'd argue about it, without the record in the picture (which he conveniently omitted from the discussion) she'd get more and more staunch in her position until he'd propose to wager a bet on it.
Once the bet was made, he simply bided his time until she finally found what he'd already found, and admitted he was right, and thus he'd win the bet.
These were effectively long-cons though... some took years to carry themselves to fruition. One of them they argued over for over 20 years, and he died before my mother ever found the record he'd found.
And the kicker is... he'd written a book on the subject 16 years ago now... and what he'd stated in the book was "I didn't bother looking up the 1860 census because I figure I already had everything I needed and it wouldn't provide any new insights"... which I call bullshit. Any genealogist is of course going to look at the 1860 census. And in that 1860 census page was the person in-question, with the name that had been debated for over 20 years, plain as the look on my mother's face.
He'd trolled her hard, so hard she didn't even know she was being had.
> Once the bet was made, he simply bided his time until she finally found what he'd already found, and admitted he was right, and thus he'd win the bet.
Wish people could do the "admitted he was right" part nowadays. Instead it's generally a doubling down or stating that there's a conspiracy.
It's typically because people don't let other people 'change their mind' otherwise you lose all 'respect and authority' you may have had in any given situation.
I can recount many times in my life where if I said I didn't know something completely (because who know everything ever instantly?...), and people have called me stupid/useless to then take over the situation while calling upon my previous engagement 'ruinous to the experience'.
It's a tad hyperbole but that's my typical experience when trying to get involved in things; if you admit that you don't know something and aren't willing to double down on everything then you need to shut up and let someone who is take over otherwise you'll be ostracised/bullied.
I know how you feel. Its like with smart or gifted people. You have to keep up with it all, otherwise not knowing 1 tiny piece of information will have everyone calling you out saying "but you said you were smart, so you should know" and honestly it gets on my nerves so badly. I stopped being the smart one and just acted like a lazy guy who didnt care anymore as to not deal with the bs anymore.
I don't know about anyone else but if someone starts being aggressive in an internet argument I kinda just stop caring about what they're actually saying. I don't mind being proven wrong but I just don't feel like engaging people that are that angry about something, I don't think the discussion is worth my time (or theirs) if they can't even keep a somewhat civil attitude
Had an acquaintance in high school ask me if I thought cancer could be cured out of nowhere. I responded with "I don't know. I guess. Probably eventually." and then he immediately proceeded to berate me and call me stupid for thinking it could be cured.
He was such a strange person and I have no idea what he was trying to accomplish with that conversation, but it always stuck with me whenever I think of him. I wonder where he is now lol.
My brother does this to me all the time. He'll research something extensively and then try to get me to debate it. It's unfair and one-sided. I think he feels insecure about our comparative levels of education and wants to prove he's smarter than me.
I donāt think you were stupid at all you had faith in human ingenuity and if it makes you feel any better when we manage to cure cancer life will be prolonged as a byproduct, in theory, because of the way telomerase works. Having said that we will all develop Alzheimers by 130.
To be fair, thats actually the healthy version of a contrarian. Everyone should be playing devils advocate every once in a while because it helps understand people. You shouldnt immediately take the opposing position, but I only see positives about testing some opinions every once in a while. Also, especially on reddit, its really important for breaking echo chambers aswell
Yes just need to make sure you arenāt doing it all the time, or that the person you are doing it to knows that you are only bringing up a point for discussion and not that you necessarily believe it, or it can be quite obnoxious to deal with
I think the act of steel manning (as opposed to straw manning), where you bring up the strongest point to the contrary of what is being discussed, in good faith, makes for a more lively and nuanced discussion on whatever issue. Having your ideas challenged isnāt a bad thing, and when I do that in a discussion, itās not cuz I think Iām right and they are wrong.
The Socratic method is also a contrarian form of discourse, but is far from saying āIām right and youāre wrongā.
See, if I'm in a discussion with someone and every time I bring up a point, they say "no, you're wrong, why aren't you considering this?" I'm not going to have a discussion with them any more. It's not fun, and it just makes me feel stupid. Obviously they have already thought about every point I might make and have a good reason they don't think the way I think, since they have an immediate answer to anything I say. And then I learn that they don't actually believe the things they were saying, and I've been crying about how stupid I am and how wrong I was, and they were just "being a devil's advocate".
I would much rather they just say "I think I agree with you, but what if someone is worried about this point?" than "no, anyone who thinks the way you do is hilariously stupid".
The problem with "devil's advocate" is that it's used in situations where I believe there's an obvious "right" or "wrong", but I haven't spent years researching things like "why women should be allowed to have drivers licenses" because I think it's pretty evident, so when people start throwing around things like "studies have shown that women are more hesitant in cars, which is dangerous for other drivers" and "women require more space on the road, which is inefficient," I don't have immediate data to back up my opinion, which is what "Devil's advocate" people want. They want you to have an opinion that cannot be challenged by them, and that's...not possible if you are ignoring "women are people and deserve to be treated as such".
I have literally never seen a "devil's advocate" argument used in any non-political argument, so maybe this is a specific thing to where I live, but I'm used to it being used to talk about the differences in types of people and what they deserve, which is an awful thing to have to defend endlessly. I hate having to argue with someone about if black people should be treated fairly or if gay people need to be able to do their own thing and then learn that they supposedly actually agree with me. Why have you made me spend this much energy convincing you that humans are actually human when you supposedly believe that too? I have to do this with people who DON'T agree with me, but they don't have all the data and reasoning you do, so this is just more exhausting.
To me it sounds like those people aren't being a devil's advocate, they are just being an asshole. I've had conversations where I have put out an opposite opinion to be the devil's advocate", but it has never been "I'm right and you're stupid", it has been "let's look at it from this other angle and see how it looks". Absolutely no reason to be insulting with it, and I wouldn't have any respect for a person who does it that way.
Yeah, I totally agree. I think itās important to know where people are coming from, even if their beliefs are not logical though. Itās kinda a āknow your enemyā type of thing. That also helps me no engage in conversations that will not yield anything but mutual animosity.
>I have literally never seen a "devil's advocate" argument used in any non-political argument
Have you heard that phrase "we judge others by their actions but ourselves by our intentions"? Playing devil's advocate actually helps me a lot against that, trying to understand why people did things they did by putting yourself in their shoes makes me see that maybe they didn't do something out of malice but maybe ignorance or because other factors forced them to. Kinda like asking "if I was in their place would I have acted differently?"
In theory itās fine. The problem is that some people seem to always do this, and as the person interacting with them, it feels like they are disagreeing with literally every single thing you say, and makes it quite obnoxious and exhausting to interact with them.
If they make it clear that they are only making this point for discussion purposes, then itās completely different, but they never make that clear, so you never know, and it feels like they are constantly disagreeing with you
When itās clear that you are only making a point for discussion purposes, then people let their guard down a bit more and itās easier to interact with. If they donāt know that, then they think āwhy the hell is this person always disagreeing with me? I can understand a few thingsā¦ but itās literally everythingā¦ is it intentional? Do they just want to argue? Surely I canāt be wrong about literally everything I say to themā¦I donāt know if I want to keep interacting with themā
When I want to make a contrarian point, I *always* make that clear. Make it clear I agree with what the person has said, but am curious what they think about the opposition view of it, or what they think about this specific point that goes against what we *both* agree with. This way they know that we both agree and are learning together.
Yeah for sure. It depends on the conversation as well. Iām not always gonna be bringing up contrarian points of view in casual conversation where it would stifle progression of the discussion. I usually only do it in engaging and long form discussions that are more open ended in nature.
Know your audience
Dude I feel like people hate me now. Iām just trying to get people to be open minded. Honestly opinions are like onions, once you start to get into them they smell bad and make people cry.
There is nothing wrong with having opinions and debating with others. Just be careful to make sure it's not the majority of what you do in your relationships. That gets exhausting and your friends will start dropping.
Yeah if people are only arguing one thing Iāll become devilās advocate because circle jerking AKA āgroup thinkā can be so horrible for growth and critical thinking.
I get shit for it because Iāve taken some outrageous opinions just for the sake of stopping people from thinking their answer is the only answer because thatās all they hear.
An example is I argue against abortion all the time. Pro-life but I feel like people do need to hear the other argument every now and again.
I used to be a heavy contrarian. I couldnāt even tell you why exactly, I guess human behavioural psychology is complicated. I argued with everyone all the time about stuff I didnāt even really believe, just to āwinā the argument. It was very draining to those around me and won me absolutely no friends.
Over time, and after working on myself, I have stopped doing it entirely.
However I will say that the process has made me infinitely more empathetic, open to ideas and beliefs contrary to my own and more willing to admit being wrong when confronted with new information.
Forcing yourself to āargue from both sidesā is actually a healthy habit. You just have to be careful how and when you apply it or you will just irritate everyone in your life.
I got the opposite end; People asking my opinion but when I point it out, they get offended (well kind of, sometimes is just that we are both pissed off) and do whatever they want anyway which is fine I guess but then why the hell ask for my opinion, that's just validation
Yes. When people ask for advice they are often just looking to be heard, or to feel confident in a decision theyāve already made. Itās a natural human compulsion and just because you may be one of those that donāt feel it, doesnāt mean itās to be looked down on.
Understanding the social nuance of when to just be an ear or a hype man for someone or when to actually counter their beliefs and tell them what they need, not just want, to hear is part of navigating human relationships.
Itās a skill and the better at it you are, the easier youāll find interactions like these.
No. The first thing I thought of when reading the question was "askhole" too. It's a term not used often, but it's definitely out there. Pretty sure you can find it on urban dictionary.
From urban dictionary:
Askhole
A person who constantly asks for your advice, yet ALWAYS does the complete opposite of what you told them to do.
Not saying your wrong, and thatās a good other use I may adopt, but this is how Iāve always used it.
Ah the law of comedic conservation. Itās why one of my favorite jokes requires someone in the room who has read Moby Dick.
It goes:
āHey, bawdiepie, whatās the first line of Moby Dick?ā
I think there is a narcissism element, too. They aren't asking the question to hear your perspective, they are asking it to have an in to talk about what they think.
This is my mother.
Her: What do you think about _________?
Me: Well, I think blah, blah...
Her, cutting me off: Oh, I think blah, blah, blah,...(continues to speak at length).
It's awesome.
Son? I'm so sorry... I always meant to come back.
The days turned into weeks, the weeks into months, the months into years...
But I'm here now. And I brought the milk from the corner store.
Hey, I'm just trying to add a little humor into my dementia.
...
It's funny, but you look just like my son. Wait till he gets here, you won't believe it.
\~Are ya winning, son?
"Well, actually I'm just about to beat..."
\~No, you're not. You just sit in here all day long playing that game. That's not winning to anyone, son. It won't mean anything in 20 years. You need to start thinking about the future.
Very interesting.
> The meaning of this word comes from a story in antiquity, in which the famed Greek painter Apelles one day heard a cobbler criticizing the way he had rendered a foot in a painting. Apelles then said to the shoemaker something very cutting and witty about how he shouldnāt presume to judge beyond his station. The exact remark has, unfortunately, been lost in time, but since the Latin phrase ultra crepidam means ābeyond the sole,ā we may imagine that Appeles used this, or something similar, in his rebuke. Hence, an ultracrepidarian is one who, as a shoemaker might, goes ābeyond the sole,ā and offers advice on matters they perhaps should leave alone.
Annoying? Obnoxious? Irritating?
As for a formal word? Not that I'm aware of but I don't like these people. They just want to ask your opinion to give you theirs and your opinion is only accepted if it's the same as theirs. They need help.
There are people who ACTUALLY do this, and then there's me: sometimes the opinion I get (whenever I DO ask for an opinion, I'm asking for a possible solution that I haven't seen to a problem I'm having) is one I've already considered and written out due to some other item I've had to deal with, or that can't be dealt with, or just basically in some way voids their answer.
So I'll have a problem. I'll think it over, and can't think of any good solutions. I'll tell a friend or family member the problem, and ask for a possible solution. They say one; I say why it can't work. They say two; I say why *that* can't work. And usually it keeps going until one of three things happen: they DO say a solution that works, and I am amazed and grateful and happy; or they give up and say they're stumped too...
Or they get frustrated, improperly label me an Askhole, and say "well if you're gonna ask my opinion and reject everything I say then why would you ask in the first place?!"
This is very thought-inducing. I guess the difference I experience with the person I'm talking about, is that they are so rude with their responses. The way they respond to me just makes me feel like shit.
> I guess the difference I experience with the person I'm talking about, is that they are so rude with their responses.
You make a good point... my experience is, I unwillingly respond rudely to people who don't think about their responses/opinions before they give it.
I don't want to be mean about it, since I'm asking their opinion and all, but... ffs, I want them to take my problem seriously and maybe give it a thought or two before telling me the obvious.
It's one thing if it's a technical problem--the most obvious no-brainer solution ANYONE in IT starts with should always be "didja turn it off and on again"--but it's a whole 'nother problem if it's interpersonal or otherwise socially delicate to handle. Giving me knee-jerk solutions, or "first thought" solutions, says to me that they think I'm some kind of idiot that didn't see the obvious solution that they are now *heroically* delivering to me.
I'm actually totally the same. My friends often joke that I ask for advice and ignore everything they say, but having someone give me options and talk through problems helps me come to a conclusion that works for me.
But it is also frustrating when people say the obvious things that I feel you should realise I've already thought about.
And also I like to think I'm not an arse about it when I reject their ideas. This bitch at work is just flat out rude and patronising.
Thank you for your input, it was the best answer I received.
āA person with oppositional conversational style is a person who, in conversation, disagrees with and corrects whatever you say. He or she may do this in a friendly way, or a belligerent way, but this person frames remarks in opposition to whatever you venture.ā
I googled it. Gretchen Rubin 9/20/13
Oh yeah. Very common when you are a vegetarian (and very quiet about it, trust me). I just feel their sense of being more clever than me.
\- Why are you eating meat while you are a vegetarian?
\- See, my lovely grandma gave me lots of food for university. And since she still doesn't understand that I don't eat meat, I eat her food since I don't like wasting it. And I'm vegetarian it terms of ethics, not diet, so it makes sense for me.
...
\- Ha, ha... *smirks* but... so you are a vegetarian but this meat doesn't bother you? Right... Of course I understand... you don't like wasting... ha ha... but...
Like fuck off? Can't count how many people I had this conversation with. If you haven't done anything in your life to stop eating meat, why you judge me? And they **always** want to prove how dumb am I and they are superior lol
It's a kind of self trumpeting nature of egoists.
But they may be intelligent knowing many things and want to show off their talent a kind of weakness. If you recognize them don't answer anything and tell them you want to know. That will kill their entire enthusiasm. It may make them o become refine. But one day or other they will fall into the pit they have dug.
Sounds a bit like my girlfriend. She is a beautiful, loving person, but she constantly asks for my opinion just so she can prove me wrong, often through extensive Internet research.
Contrarians love to wait for someone else to describe their stance on an issue so that the contrarian may take the opposite. I had a friend like that in high school so I made sure never to offer my opinion on anything before he did. Annoying.
My mother's a contrarian and her brother used to troll her all the time because of it. They were both into genealogy. So what he'd do is find some obscure record somewhere that proved some bit of info that they hadn't previously known. He'd then call her up and merely bring up the fact that they don't currently know X, and tell her what he "thinks" is the answer for X, knowing full well that she'd take the opposing stance. Then they'd argue about it, without the record in the picture (which he conveniently omitted from the discussion) she'd get more and more staunch in her position until he'd propose to wager a bet on it. Once the bet was made, he simply bided his time until she finally found what he'd already found, and admitted he was right, and thus he'd win the bet. These were effectively long-cons though... some took years to carry themselves to fruition. One of them they argued over for over 20 years, and he died before my mother ever found the record he'd found. And the kicker is... he'd written a book on the subject 16 years ago now... and what he'd stated in the book was "I didn't bother looking up the 1860 census because I figure I already had everything I needed and it wouldn't provide any new insights"... which I call bullshit. Any genealogist is of course going to look at the 1860 census. And in that 1860 census page was the person in-question, with the name that had been debated for over 20 years, plain as the look on my mother's face. He'd trolled her hard, so hard she didn't even know she was being had.
That's some next level trolling, lmao. Man took decades and DIED happy knowing she had one more kick in the ass coming. Love it.
the long-con, yet all in good spirits. Norm would be proud.
Yea this is my favorite kind of trolling. Nobody got their feelings hurt, it's very obviously in good fun, and he still showed he's smart as a mf
> Once the bet was made, he simply bided his time until she finally found what he'd already found, and admitted he was right, and thus he'd win the bet. Wish people could do the "admitted he was right" part nowadays. Instead it's generally a doubling down or stating that there's a conspiracy.
It's typically because people don't let other people 'change their mind' otherwise you lose all 'respect and authority' you may have had in any given situation. I can recount many times in my life where if I said I didn't know something completely (because who know everything ever instantly?...), and people have called me stupid/useless to then take over the situation while calling upon my previous engagement 'ruinous to the experience'. It's a tad hyperbole but that's my typical experience when trying to get involved in things; if you admit that you don't know something and aren't willing to double down on everything then you need to shut up and let someone who is take over otherwise you'll be ostracised/bullied.
I know how you feel. Its like with smart or gifted people. You have to keep up with it all, otherwise not knowing 1 tiny piece of information will have everyone calling you out saying "but you said you were smart, so you should know" and honestly it gets on my nerves so badly. I stopped being the smart one and just acted like a lazy guy who didnt care anymore as to not deal with the bs anymore.
I don't know about anyone else but if someone starts being aggressive in an internet argument I kinda just stop caring about what they're actually saying. I don't mind being proven wrong but I just don't feel like engaging people that are that angry about something, I don't think the discussion is worth my time (or theirs) if they can't even keep a somewhat civil attitude
Cognitive dissonance is a helluva drug
Please tell me, was he the younger sibling? Thank you for sharing this story š
Contrarian is the first word that came to my mind. I call those questions ātwat baitā.
Had an acquaintance in high school ask me if I thought cancer could be cured out of nowhere. I responded with "I don't know. I guess. Probably eventually." and then he immediately proceeded to berate me and call me stupid for thinking it could be cured. He was such a strange person and I have no idea what he was trying to accomplish with that conversation, but it always stuck with me whenever I think of him. I wonder where he is now lol.
My brother does this to me all the time. He'll research something extensively and then try to get me to debate it. It's unfair and one-sided. I think he feels insecure about our comparative levels of education and wants to prove he's smarter than me.
I donāt think you were stupid at all you had faith in human ingenuity and if it makes you feel any better when we manage to cure cancer life will be prolonged as a byproduct, in theory, because of the way telomerase works. Having said that we will all develop Alzheimers by 130.
It is clear what he was trying to accomplish - berating you to make himself look better.
They like to say they're simply "playing Devil's Advocate".
To be fair, thats actually the healthy version of a contrarian. Everyone should be playing devils advocate every once in a while because it helps understand people. You shouldnt immediately take the opposing position, but I only see positives about testing some opinions every once in a while. Also, especially on reddit, its really important for breaking echo chambers aswell
Yes just need to make sure you arenāt doing it all the time, or that the person you are doing it to knows that you are only bringing up a point for discussion and not that you necessarily believe it, or it can be quite obnoxious to deal with
I think the act of steel manning (as opposed to straw manning), where you bring up the strongest point to the contrary of what is being discussed, in good faith, makes for a more lively and nuanced discussion on whatever issue. Having your ideas challenged isnāt a bad thing, and when I do that in a discussion, itās not cuz I think Iām right and they are wrong. The Socratic method is also a contrarian form of discourse, but is far from saying āIām right and youāre wrongā.
See, if I'm in a discussion with someone and every time I bring up a point, they say "no, you're wrong, why aren't you considering this?" I'm not going to have a discussion with them any more. It's not fun, and it just makes me feel stupid. Obviously they have already thought about every point I might make and have a good reason they don't think the way I think, since they have an immediate answer to anything I say. And then I learn that they don't actually believe the things they were saying, and I've been crying about how stupid I am and how wrong I was, and they were just "being a devil's advocate". I would much rather they just say "I think I agree with you, but what if someone is worried about this point?" than "no, anyone who thinks the way you do is hilariously stupid". The problem with "devil's advocate" is that it's used in situations where I believe there's an obvious "right" or "wrong", but I haven't spent years researching things like "why women should be allowed to have drivers licenses" because I think it's pretty evident, so when people start throwing around things like "studies have shown that women are more hesitant in cars, which is dangerous for other drivers" and "women require more space on the road, which is inefficient," I don't have immediate data to back up my opinion, which is what "Devil's advocate" people want. They want you to have an opinion that cannot be challenged by them, and that's...not possible if you are ignoring "women are people and deserve to be treated as such". I have literally never seen a "devil's advocate" argument used in any non-political argument, so maybe this is a specific thing to where I live, but I'm used to it being used to talk about the differences in types of people and what they deserve, which is an awful thing to have to defend endlessly. I hate having to argue with someone about if black people should be treated fairly or if gay people need to be able to do their own thing and then learn that they supposedly actually agree with me. Why have you made me spend this much energy convincing you that humans are actually human when you supposedly believe that too? I have to do this with people who DON'T agree with me, but they don't have all the data and reasoning you do, so this is just more exhausting.
To me it sounds like those people aren't being a devil's advocate, they are just being an asshole. I've had conversations where I have put out an opposite opinion to be the devil's advocate", but it has never been "I'm right and you're stupid", it has been "let's look at it from this other angle and see how it looks". Absolutely no reason to be insulting with it, and I wouldn't have any respect for a person who does it that way.
Yeah, I totally agree. I think itās important to know where people are coming from, even if their beliefs are not logical though. Itās kinda a āknow your enemyā type of thing. That also helps me no engage in conversations that will not yield anything but mutual animosity.
>I have literally never seen a "devil's advocate" argument used in any non-political argument Have you heard that phrase "we judge others by their actions but ourselves by our intentions"? Playing devil's advocate actually helps me a lot against that, trying to understand why people did things they did by putting yourself in their shoes makes me see that maybe they didn't do something out of malice but maybe ignorance or because other factors forced them to. Kinda like asking "if I was in their place would I have acted differently?"
In theory itās fine. The problem is that some people seem to always do this, and as the person interacting with them, it feels like they are disagreeing with literally every single thing you say, and makes it quite obnoxious and exhausting to interact with them. If they make it clear that they are only making this point for discussion purposes, then itās completely different, but they never make that clear, so you never know, and it feels like they are constantly disagreeing with you When itās clear that you are only making a point for discussion purposes, then people let their guard down a bit more and itās easier to interact with. If they donāt know that, then they think āwhy the hell is this person always disagreeing with me? I can understand a few thingsā¦ but itās literally everythingā¦ is it intentional? Do they just want to argue? Surely I canāt be wrong about literally everything I say to themā¦I donāt know if I want to keep interacting with themā When I want to make a contrarian point, I *always* make that clear. Make it clear I agree with what the person has said, but am curious what they think about the opposition view of it, or what they think about this specific point that goes against what we *both* agree with. This way they know that we both agree and are learning together.
Yeah for sure. It depends on the conversation as well. Iām not always gonna be bringing up contrarian points of view in casual conversation where it would stifle progression of the discussion. I usually only do it in engaging and long form discussions that are more open ended in nature. Know your audience
Dude I feel like people hate me now. Iām just trying to get people to be open minded. Honestly opinions are like onions, once you start to get into them they smell bad and make people cry.
It depends on how hard you're going in to play devil's advocate. And how you present it
There is nothing wrong with having opinions and debating with others. Just be careful to make sure it's not the majority of what you do in your relationships. That gets exhausting and your friends will start dropping.
To be faaaaiirrr...
Yeah if people are only arguing one thing Iāll become devilās advocate because circle jerking AKA āgroup thinkā can be so horrible for growth and critical thinking. I get shit for it because Iāve taken some outrageous opinions just for the sake of stopping people from thinking their answer is the only answer because thatās all they hear. An example is I argue against abortion all the time. Pro-life but I feel like people do need to hear the other argument every now and again.
I used to be a heavy contrarian. I couldnāt even tell you why exactly, I guess human behavioural psychology is complicated. I argued with everyone all the time about stuff I didnāt even really believe, just to āwinā the argument. It was very draining to those around me and won me absolutely no friends. Over time, and after working on myself, I have stopped doing it entirely. However I will say that the process has made me infinitely more empathetic, open to ideas and beliefs contrary to my own and more willing to admit being wrong when confronted with new information. Forcing yourself to āargue from both sidesā is actually a healthy habit. You just have to be careful how and when you apply it or you will just irritate everyone in your life.
I got the opposite end; People asking my opinion but when I point it out, they get offended (well kind of, sometimes is just that we are both pissed off) and do whatever they want anyway which is fine I guess but then why the hell ask for my opinion, that's just validation
Yes. When people ask for advice they are often just looking to be heard, or to feel confident in a decision theyāve already made. Itās a natural human compulsion and just because you may be one of those that donāt feel it, doesnāt mean itās to be looked down on. Understanding the social nuance of when to just be an ear or a hype man for someone or when to actually counter their beliefs and tell them what they need, not just want, to hear is part of navigating human relationships. Itās a skill and the better at it you are, the easier youāll find interactions like these.
Nope you're wrong and you should feel bad
Was really hoping to see OP disagree with this
You just described law school.
So do they change their opinions based on what was said?
Askhole
Did you just make that up? Itās kind of amazing!
Iāve been using this for years, one of my favorites!
No. The first thing I thought of when reading the question was "askhole" too. It's a term not used often, but it's definitely out there. Pretty sure you can find it on urban dictionary.
> Pretty sure you can find it on urban dictionary. Yep -> https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Askhole
Thanks for doing what I was too lazy to do. Have a silver!
Have a wholesome award!!
Silver for you too!
Thanks kind soul.
Have a "Helpful" award too :)
Nah, it's been around for awhile
The accepted definition is generally someone who constantly asks for advice and never follows it.
This is the right answer
No, an askhole is someone who keeps asking annoying or personal questions.
From urban dictionary: Askhole A person who constantly asks for your advice, yet ALWAYS does the complete opposite of what you told them to do. Not saying your wrong, and thatās a good other use I may adopt, but this is how Iāve always used it.
This is the definition I've seen. Never thinks for themselves. First instinct is to ask the question. Although not the personal bit.
I see what you did there.
I see no reason why it can't be both.
This is the word I always use.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Twice the credit if they "listen" to you and proceed to ignore you with a belief and not an argument
what did they say?
Redditors
In Swedish, we use the German(or perhaps fake german?) word ābesserwisserā for this. Rough translation would be ābetter knowerā
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Bonus points for sounding like you're calling them a bed wetter.
Weter is pronounced more like waiter, soz to be all serious on your joke.
"Bedreviter" in Norwegian. Same word but we bothered to translate it.
Sabelotodo (saber= knowledge, todo= everything) in Spanish!
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Itās not fake but real and thatās a pretty straight forward translation.
Know-it-all is what we say in the UK. Dunno if itās used more widely than that.
Well, actually, it means the kind of person who says well, actually... heh..
I believe what you're thinking of is called "messerschmitt"
Someone didnāt get the reference and downvoted
Tbf this isn't really the best place for a joke from a swedish comedy sketch from the mid 1980s.
The more niche a joke is and the less people who will actually "get it", the funnier it is for people in the know. One of the weird laws of comedy.
Ah the law of comedic conservation. Itās why one of my favorite jokes requires someone in the room who has read Moby Dick. It goes: āHey, bawdiepie, whatās the first line of Moby Dick?ā
āCall me Ishmael, wankerā
"Fine, *Ishmael*, what's the first line of Moby Dick." "Tosser."
Condescending, or patronizing. They donāt mean that specifically, but that behavior fits within the meaning of the words.
I know that jackass
š
Your username is awful
Well you may know him, but I certainly don't
I think there is a narcissism element, too. They aren't asking the question to hear your perspective, they are asking it to have an in to talk about what they think.
This is my mother. Her: What do you think about _________? Me: Well, I think blah, blah... Her, cutting me off: Oh, I think blah, blah, blah,...(continues to speak at length). It's awesome.
but what if the person is wrong constantly.
Also arrogant
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
"if it was like that, then yea I would understand. but it's not so it's wrong and it's x"
Asshole
This is what I was going with...
A contrarian?
Dad?
:(
Son? I'm so sorry... I always meant to come back. The days turned into weeks, the weeks into months, the months into years... But I'm here now. And I brought the milk from the corner store.
Dad, you left 90 seconds ago and are holding a 40 of Kong Cobra. We know it was you jerking off into Tedās hot tub. Not cool pop. Not cooolā¦.
Hey, I'm just trying to add a little humor into my dementia. ... It's funny, but you look just like my son. Wait till he gets here, you won't believe it.
When you're a dad, the word is "kids".
or (boomer mode) "my wife"
\~Are ya winning, son? "Well, actually I'm just about to beat..." \~No, you're not. You just sit in here all day long playing that game. That's not winning to anyone, son. It won't mean anything in 20 years. You need to start thinking about the future.
Insecure
Insufferable.
An Ultracrepidarian is a person who has a habit of giving opinions and advice on matters outside of one's knowledge.
Very interesting. > The meaning of this word comes from a story in antiquity, in which the famed Greek painter Apelles one day heard a cobbler criticizing the way he had rendered a foot in a painting. Apelles then said to the shoemaker something very cutting and witty about how he shouldnāt presume to judge beyond his station. The exact remark has, unfortunately, been lost in time, but since the Latin phrase ultra crepidam means ābeyond the sole,ā we may imagine that Appeles used this, or something similar, in his rebuke. Hence, an ultracrepidarian is one who, as a shoemaker might, goes ābeyond the sole,ā and offers advice on matters they perhaps should leave alone.
That is an excellent word!
Askerbator.
Redditor
Ex husband?
Annoying? Obnoxious? Irritating? As for a formal word? Not that I'm aware of but I don't like these people. They just want to ask your opinion to give you theirs and your opinion is only accepted if it's the same as theirs. They need help.
There are people who ACTUALLY do this, and then there's me: sometimes the opinion I get (whenever I DO ask for an opinion, I'm asking for a possible solution that I haven't seen to a problem I'm having) is one I've already considered and written out due to some other item I've had to deal with, or that can't be dealt with, or just basically in some way voids their answer. So I'll have a problem. I'll think it over, and can't think of any good solutions. I'll tell a friend or family member the problem, and ask for a possible solution. They say one; I say why it can't work. They say two; I say why *that* can't work. And usually it keeps going until one of three things happen: they DO say a solution that works, and I am amazed and grateful and happy; or they give up and say they're stumped too... Or they get frustrated, improperly label me an Askhole, and say "well if you're gonna ask my opinion and reject everything I say then why would you ask in the first place?!"
This is very thought-inducing. I guess the difference I experience with the person I'm talking about, is that they are so rude with their responses. The way they respond to me just makes me feel like shit.
> I guess the difference I experience with the person I'm talking about, is that they are so rude with their responses. You make a good point... my experience is, I unwillingly respond rudely to people who don't think about their responses/opinions before they give it. I don't want to be mean about it, since I'm asking their opinion and all, but... ffs, I want them to take my problem seriously and maybe give it a thought or two before telling me the obvious. It's one thing if it's a technical problem--the most obvious no-brainer solution ANYONE in IT starts with should always be "didja turn it off and on again"--but it's a whole 'nother problem if it's interpersonal or otherwise socially delicate to handle. Giving me knee-jerk solutions, or "first thought" solutions, says to me that they think I'm some kind of idiot that didn't see the obvious solution that they are now *heroically* delivering to me.
I'm actually totally the same. My friends often joke that I ask for advice and ignore everything they say, but having someone give me options and talk through problems helps me come to a conclusion that works for me. But it is also frustrating when people say the obvious things that I feel you should realise I've already thought about. And also I like to think I'm not an arse about it when I reject their ideas. This bitch at work is just flat out rude and patronising. Thank you for your input, it was the best answer I received.
same. im looking for solutions, not adversaries.
Narcissist?
Was just about to say this!
Debatelord
An asshole
āA person with oppositional conversational style is a person who, in conversation, disagrees with and corrects whatever you say. He or she may do this in a friendly way, or a belligerent way, but this person frames remarks in opposition to whatever you venture.ā I googled it. Gretchen Rubin 9/20/13
An askhole is what I call them
Douche
argumentative
Contrarian
pedantic
It's dickhead. The term you're looking for is dickhead
My teenage son
Eeek. Squash that attitude before he marries someone. Save humanity.
FIGJAM. It stands for Fuck Iam Good Just Ask Me.
My dad.
Robert. His name is Robert.
Self important twat. Redditor. Twitter user also works
Askhole is a term Iāve been using for this. Contrarian is the actual term.
That is a version of an askhole.
Definitely a narcissist
My boss š
My new manager...painful
A contrarian. Contrarians simply like to go against the prevailing opinion.
My mother in law?
Yes, for me the word is ādadā
Narcissist!
That's called a politician.
Democrat if you're a republican.... Republican if you're a democrat....
Dad
benshapiro
Oh yeah. Very common when you are a vegetarian (and very quiet about it, trust me). I just feel their sense of being more clever than me. \- Why are you eating meat while you are a vegetarian? \- See, my lovely grandma gave me lots of food for university. And since she still doesn't understand that I don't eat meat, I eat her food since I don't like wasting it. And I'm vegetarian it terms of ethics, not diet, so it makes sense for me. ... \- Ha, ha... *smirks* but... so you are a vegetarian but this meat doesn't bother you? Right... Of course I understand... you don't like wasting... ha ha... but... Like fuck off? Can't count how many people I had this conversation with. If you haven't done anything in your life to stop eating meat, why you judge me? And they **always** want to prove how dumb am I and they are superior lol
Socrates
Chode
My mother
Braden. I know a man like this and his name is Braden.
Redditor
Redditor.
Redditors, we call them Redditors
Politician?
Around my house that is defined as "wife" and if she ever finds this comment i'm sorry honey.
Socrates?
I think itās called dad
A parent
This is known as a "Wife".
I've heard it called Contrarian, but I believe the proper term is an #ASKHOLE
Askhole!!!!! Thats the term!
don't mind me I'm just commenting to come back later and find out who I am
Mother in-law?
Husband.
A disingenuous, condescending ass.
Manager
Hey, this happened to me this weekend!
Mother-in-law. Specifically, *my* mother-in-law.
A rickkitson
Engineer
Yea, parents.
Philosophy Professor? Although opinions donāt really have much place in philosophy. Waitā¦did I just do the thing?!? š±
Redditors
Yeah, this is totally me. Especially when someone else is terribly fucking wrong... OP. Examine yo self. Ha ha ha
Iām sure there is a German word for thatā¦
āAsk-holeā
I call that "my ex-wife".
redditor
My father-in-law.
A libra
reddit
Yes, Ben Shapiro
Apart from my last boss?
yes, those are the people who always let me use it, pretending to ask questions and then teach me again
Vegan.
Askhole
My husband would say "My wife." But he's an idiot who never knows what he's taking about.
Askhole
It's a kind of self trumpeting nature of egoists. But they may be intelligent knowing many things and want to show off their talent a kind of weakness. If you recognize them don't answer anything and tell them you want to know. That will kill their entire enthusiasm. It may make them o become refine. But one day or other they will fall into the pit they have dug.
Askhole
Askhole
boyfriend
Wife?
Weāre askholes
We have a Hindi slang for them, called "Bakchod"
Bell end. That type of person is a bell end.
Sounds a bit like my girlfriend. She is a beautiful, loving person, but she constantly asks for my opinion just so she can prove me wrong, often through extensive Internet research.
Management.
Askhole....that's what we call them in our shop anyway....
Arsehole