I tend to see multiple sides to things when others seem to agree that there's only one side to see. I'm the person who talks about the elephant in the room. In a professional context, that means putting my neck on the line; be bloody sure that I'm speaking up about something I believe, not just taking the piss.
I like the role of "advocatus diaboli" (the devil's advocate).
Not for the mere sake of argument, but because I find elements of truth in all sides, and want to balance the sheepish behavior of most groups to fully side with one side.
To the group-mind this makes it appear like you are contrarian for the sake of it and contradictory, e.g. "but you where anti-colonialist in yesterday's argument, why are you pro-west today" or "you like Apple and MS, why do you say OSS is good now?" and so on...
But that's just judging each case both on its own merits and in general context and thinking for yourself - not just taking some given side...
It’s totally a valid criticism that contrarians are distasteful for that simple reason, but the herd can be equally annoying. It’s a symbiosis.
The Joker to Batman: You complete me
We’re also very pretentious as you can see :p
Best cheesy outro ever: https://youtu.be/6c_H45kt1_8
Greatest in group contrarian ever?
It's an In Group Contrarian -- so contrarian in the context of the group.
This means that
(a) they are not just contrarian for the sake of it (then they would be contrarian to the ideas of every group, not just one)
(b) they are not opposed to everything the group believes (in that case they wouldn't be in-group contrarians, but mere ideological enemies of the group)
(c) they share some beliefs and core tenets of the group (hence the in-group qualifier)
So where there is no specific group or context in which to place said "contrarian" - just a description of what was felt/instinctive. Would change immediately once we get into a specific example.