When everyone thinks alike, everyone is likely to be wrong.
As a general rule, it is foolish to do just what other people are doing, because there are almost sure to be too many people doing the same thing.
Contrarians `zig´, while others `zag´. In the fourteenth reprint, Neill´s classic introduces the `contrary thinking´as art of being `a nonconformist when using your mind.´In order to avoid the naturally homologue thinking, the speculator should practice to throw his `mind into directions which are opposite to the obvious.´Because, obvious thinking, that is, mainstream thinking onbviously produces wrong conclusions and decisions. Beyond any claim for rationality or truth, the idea of contrarian speculation is to act against the mainstream, not for meta-reasons but for `counter-mimicry´. This is not meant as a cynical thought of an elite, but as a promising strategy to succeed, which `is more of an antidote to general forecasting than a system for forecsting. In a word, it is a thinking tool, not a crystal ball. It forces one to think through a given subject´, or in the words of Loos, as `the Other´.
The avant-gardist, therefore, has to create continuous distinctions between itself and the others, by developing strategies that detect fashions and fads to counter them. Only in a position of difference, one is avant-garde at all.
Becoming an avant-garde author, the means to constantly re-establish the difference, to constantly become the Other.
I´m a communist. The only difference between me and the Bolscheviks is that I want to turn everyone into aristocrats while they want to turn everyone into proletarians.
…`were using capitalism to smash capitalism.´… creating a spectacle to smash the spectacle.
It is the performative separation from an established fashion, throughthe speculation on another fashion, which characterizes the contrarian as well as the avant-garde. The spectacle, in other words, thereby is to claim and make visible an authority that may challenge an established fashion.
Notes taken from the book “HOW ARCHITECTURE LEARNED TO SPECULATE”