Not everything is signaling.
I have a simpler explanation.
Where true data driven testing and validation isn't possible, which coincidentally involves most of the theories we get all excited and huffy about, theories will suck.
A "Narcissistic Contrarian" is just someone who can see that your theory sucks too.
In the realm of non testable theories, theories will be generated as responses to other theories. The more intellectually compulsive you are, the more you are driven to follow that thread of criticism, and in the limit you won't stop until you can no longer find the error in the thread, whether yourself, or in a valid critique by others. The more obscure the theory, the less it has been subjected to criticism, and the harder to find a valid critique.
Honest, intelligent, diligent people who compulsively care about the truth will stop at some personal tweak to obscure theories lacking widespread criticism, not because they're trying to "create an identity", but because that is where the trail has grown cold.
With less diligence, you simply stop when you cease interacting with people who can beat your kung fu. Your position is no longer problematic at that point. The easiest way is to live in a monoculture.
People who live in monocultures stop earlier. Those who don't live in a monoculture will have influences from the monocultures, and "combine positions not normally met in the same person."
Some people are just intellectually compulsive, and don't spend their days saying or doing things primarily to present an image to others. No doubt that attitude is hard for those who do to comprehend, just as it is difficult for those who don't to get their head around the attitude of those who do.
I'm extremely intellectually compulsive if I do say so perhaps immodestly; just for example, I read a lot of books by people I expect to disagree with, and in fields I start out with no clue about; but I'm trying to get better and better at knowing where to draw the line -- and to share some of thoughts on on this in part so they can be criticized.
With less diligence, you simply stop when you cease interacting with people who can beat your kung fu.
Well, here I am, still interacting with you. Maybe my kung fu is being beaten, maybe not (by the way, sad...
The recent discussion on neo-reactionary-ism brought out some references to (intellectual hipsters and) meta-contrarianism linking to a 2010 posting by Yvain.
For some time I've been thinking about "narcissistic contrarians" -- those who make an art form of their exotically counterintuitive belief systems, who combine positions not normally met in the same person. There can be good reasons for being a contrarian. If you're looking for a scarce resource, it may help to not look where everyone else is looking, hence contrarian stock market investors may do very well, if they actually see something others don't; same with oil explorers. Less creditably, I believe Nate Silver's The Signal and the Noise made reference to the way a novice pundit or prognosticator may have nothing to gain by saying anything like what other people are saying, and much to gain, in taking some wild extravagant position or prediction if it happens to attract an audience others have ignored, or if the predictions happens to be right.
The Narcissistic Contrarian is much like the Intellectual Hipster, but more extreme. The Intellectual Hipster usually stakes out a few unusual or incongruous positions, to create an identity that stands out from the crowd. The Narcissistic Contrarian is constantly dazzling her fans. Something written by Camille Paglia made me think of the idea in the first place. Nicholas Taleb is another suspect although I think he started out with some good ideas. If she/he manages to get a fan-base, they are apt to be pretty worshipful -- they can't imagine being able to come up with such a wild set of insights. The contrarianism is for its own sake rather than an attempt to find and settle on some previously undiscovered thing, so it particularly likely to lead people astray, into unproductive avenues of thought.
Does anyone else think this is a real and useful distinction?