Popular Opinion Writers vs Contrarian Thinkers in WAT: Which Are You?
Do your WAT essays play it safe or go against the grain? Take our quiz to discover your stance style and learn the balanced positioning that impresses evaluators.
Understanding Popular Opinion Writers vs Contrarian Thinkers in WAT
Give MBA candidates a WAT topic like “Is social media harmful to society?” and you’ll see two predictable patterns: the popular opinion writer who echoes what everyone already believes—”Social media has both benefits and drawbacks, and we must use it responsibly”—and the contrarian thinker who reflexively takes the opposite stance—”Actually, social media is the greatest democratizing force in human history, and all criticism is moral panic from older generations.”
Both believe they’re demonstrating independent thinking. The popular opinion writer thinks, “I’m being balanced and reasonable—evaluators will appreciate nuance.” The contrarian thinker thinks, “I’m standing out from the crowd—my bold position will be memorable.”
Here’s what neither realizes: both approaches, taken to extremes, signal intellectual laziness.
When it comes to popular opinion writers vs contrarian thinkers in WAT, evaluators are looking for something specific: Can this person think independently while remaining intellectually honest? Do they take positions because they’ve reasoned through them, or because those positions are either safe or attention-grabbing? Will they add value in discussions, or just echo consensus or reflexively oppose it?
Coach’s Perspective
In 18+ years of coaching WAT, I’ve watched popular opinion writers get feedback like “nothing new here—could have been written by anyone” and contrarians get noted as “contrarian for its own sake—position not substantiated.” The candidates who score highest take genuine positions—sometimes aligned with popular opinion, sometimes against it—but always because they’ve thought it through and can defend it with original reasoning. The stance matters less than whether it’s genuinely yours and genuinely argued.
Popular Opinion Writers vs Contrarian Thinkers: A Side-by-Side Comparison
Before you can find the balance, you need to understand both extremes. Here’s how popular opinion writers and reflexive contrarians typically approach WAT—and how evaluators perceive them.
👥
The Popular Opinion Writer
“There are pros and cons to consider…”
Typical Behaviors
Echoes conventional wisdom without questioning it
Takes “balanced” positions that commit to nothing
Uses safe, predictable arguments
Avoids any stance that might be controversial
Concludes with fence-sitting: “It depends on how we use it”
What They Believe
“Balance shows I can see multiple perspectives”
“Taking sides is risky—what if evaluators disagree?”
“Safe positions can’t be marked wrong”
Evaluator Perception
“Nothing original—heard this a hundred times today”
“Fence-sitting isn’t nuance, it’s avoidance”
“Can’t tell what this person actually thinks”
“Would they add anything to class discussions?”
🔄
The Reflexive Contrarian
“Actually, everyone has it backwards…”
Typical Behaviors
Takes opposite stance regardless of merit
Dismisses popular opinion as uninformed
Overstates contrarian position to stand out
Lacks nuance—sees only the unconventional angle
Can’t substantiate bold claims with evidence
What They Believe
“Being different shows independent thinking”
“Popular opinions are usually wrong”
“Bold positions are more memorable”
Evaluator Perception
“Contrarian for attention, not insight”
“Position isn’t substantiated—just provocative”
“Would they argue nonsense in team meetings?”
“Being different isn’t the same as being right”
📊 Quick Reference: Position-Taking at a Glance
Position Strength
Weak/None
Popular
Clear + Defended
Ideal
Bold + Unsupported
Contrarian
Argument Origin
Borrowed
Popular
Original reasoning
Ideal
Reactive
Contrarian
Counterargument Handling
Listed but not resolved
Popular
Acknowledged + Addressed
Ideal
Dismissed
Contrarian
Pros and Cons: The Honest Trade-offs
Aspect
👥 Popular Opinion Writer
🔄 Reflexive Contrarian
Memorability
❌ Blends with hundreds of similar essays
✅ Stands out from the stack
Credibility
⚠️ Safe but uninspiring
❌ Bold but often unsupported
Risk Level
✅ Low—unlikely to offend
❌ High—may seem unreasonable
Thinking Signal
❌ Seems to repeat, not reason
⚠️ Seems to oppose, not reason
Team Discussion Fit
⚠️ Won’t challenge or add new ideas
⚠️ May derail discussions with extremes
Real WAT Scenarios: See Both Types in Action
Theory is one thing—let’s see how popular opinion writers and reflexive contrarians actually produce WAT essays, with evaluator feedback on what went wrong and what could be improved.
👥
Scenario 1: The Safe Echo
Topic: “Is AI a threat to employment?”
What Was Written
Aditya’s essay opened: “Artificial Intelligence has become a topic of significant debate in today’s world. While AI offers numerous benefits, it also poses certain challenges to employment.” The body presented standard arguments: “On one hand, AI can automate repetitive tasks, leading to job displacement. On the other hand, it creates new jobs in technology and data science.” He noted that “upskilling will be important” and that “governments and companies should work together.” The conclusion: “In conclusion, AI is neither entirely good nor entirely bad for employment. The impact depends on how we manage the transition. If we invest in education and create supportive policies, AI can be a force for good. However, if we ignore the challenges, it could lead to inequality. Therefore, a balanced approach is needed.” Every point was true. Every point was also completely predictable.
0
Original Arguments
None
Clear Position
4
“On one hand/other hand”
Forgettable
Overall Impact
Evaluator’s Notes
“I could have written this essay without reading it—I knew exactly what was coming after the first sentence. ‘AI has pros and cons, we need balance, upskilling is important, governments should help.’ This is the median essay. It’s not wrong, but it’s not HIS thinking—it’s a synthesis of everything everyone already believes. What does ADITYA think? I genuinely don’t know. If I asked him ‘So what’s your actual view?’ he’d have to pick one, and this essay avoids that entirely. The fence-sitting conclusion commits to nothing. Average score—competent writing but zero differentiation or original thought. He’d add nothing to a class discussion that isn’t already being said.”
🔄
Scenario 2: The Provocative Contrarian
Topic: “Is AI a threat to employment?”
What Was Written
Meera’s essay opened: “The hysteria around AI destroying jobs is completely overblown. In fact, AI will be the greatest job creator in human history, and anyone worried about it simply doesn’t understand technology.” She continued: “Every technological revolution—from the printing press to the internet—was met with panic, and every time, humanity ended up with MORE jobs, not fewer. The Luddites were wrong then, and the AI doomsayers are wrong now.” Her argument built: “The real problem isn’t AI taking jobs—it’s that people are lazy and refuse to adapt. In previous generations, workers learned new skills without government handouts. Today’s workforce expects to be retrained at someone else’s expense. AI will simply expose who is willing to grow and who isn’t.” The conclusion: “Stop the fear-mongering. AI is pure opportunity. Those who fail to benefit have only themselves to blame.”
Strong
Position Clarity
0
Nuance Acknowledged
Weak
Evidence Quality
Dismissive
Tone
Evaluator’s Notes
“Well, this is certainly different from the hundred ‘balanced approach’ essays I’ve read today. But being different isn’t the same as being right. Her position is extreme and poorly substantiated. ‘Every technological revolution created more jobs’—this ignores genuine displacement periods and assumes AI follows the same pattern. ‘People are lazy’—this dismisses legitimate structural concerns about transition speed. She’s not engaging with counterarguments; she’s dismissing them as stupidity. The Luddite comparison is facile—printing presses didn’t threaten white-collar cognitive work. Would she listen to opposing views in a team? Or just bulldoze? Below average score—memorable for wrong reasons. Contrarian without substance is just provocation. Independent thinking requires engaging with complexity, not dismissing it.”
⚠️The Critical Insight
Notice what both essays share: neither demonstrates genuine thinking. Aditya borrowed conventional wisdom and presented it as analysis. Meera took the opposite stance reflexively and presented provocation as insight. Neither engaged genuinely with the complexity of the question. The popular opinion writer avoided having a view; the contrarian mistook having a loud view for having a reasoned one. Both shortcuts are recognizable to evaluators who read hundreds of essays.
Self-Assessment: Are You a Popular Opinion Writer or Contrarian Thinker?
Answer these 5 questions honestly to discover your natural position-taking style. Understanding your default approach is the first step to finding balance.
📊Your WAT Position-Taking Style Assessment
1
When you first see a WAT topic, your initial instinct is to:
Think about what most people would say, then present that view thoughtfully
Think about what most people would say, then look for reasons they’re wrong
2
When writing your conclusion, you typically:
Present a balanced view that acknowledges multiple perspectives
Take a strong, definitive stance that challenges conventional thinking
3
Reading your practice WAT essays, friends would say your arguments are:
Reasonable and well-balanced but similar to what others might write
Provocative and different but sometimes hard to fully agree with
4
When you encounter a widely-held belief on a topic, you usually:
Assume it’s probably right since many people believe it
Become skeptical—popular beliefs are often wrong
5
Your biggest fear when writing a WAT essay is:
Taking a position the evaluators might disagree with
Writing something forgettable that sounds like everyone else
The Hidden Truth: Why Extremes Fail in WAT
The Real WAT Formula
High-Scoring Position = Genuine Stance + Original Reasoning + Nuance Acknowledged + Counterarguments Addressed
Notice all four elements. A genuine stance means you actually believe it—not because it’s safe or because it’s different. Original reasoning means YOUR logic, not borrowed talking points. Nuance acknowledged means you understand complexity. Counterarguments addressed means you’ve engaged with opposing views, not dismissed them. Popular opinion writers miss the first two. Contrarians miss the last two. Both miss what makes positions genuinely strong.
Evaluators have read thousands of essays. They instantly recognize both shortcuts: the safe echo and the reflexive opposition. They’re assessing something deeper:
💡What Evaluators Actually Assess
1. Independent Thinking: Did you reason through this, or adopt a ready-made position? 2. Intellectual Honesty: Do you acknowledge complexity, or oversimplify to make your point? 3. Discussion Value: Would your perspective add something to a classroom debate?
The popular opinion writer fails on independent thinking—they’ve borrowed a position rather than developed one. The contrarian fails on intellectual honesty—they’ve dismissed complexity to seem bold. The genuine thinker succeeds on both—they hold a real position, arrived at through actual reasoning, with honest acknowledgment of what the opposing view gets right.
Be the third type.
The Genuine Thinker: What Balance Looks Like
Element
👥 Popular Opinion
⚖️ Genuine Thinker
🔄 Reflexive Contrarian
Position
“It has pros and cons”
“I believe X because [specific reasoning]”
“Everyone is wrong—it’s actually Y”
Arguments
Lists common points from both sides
Develops original angles with evidence
Attacks popular view without building alternative
Counterarguments
Mentioned but not resolved
Engaged with and addressed
Dismissed as uninformed
Conclusion
“A balanced approach is needed”
“Therefore X, though Y remains a valid concern that requires…”
“The conventional wisdom is simply wrong”
Evaluator Reaction
“Safe but forgettable”
“This person thinks”
“Bold but unconvincing”
8 Strategies to Find Your Balance in WAT
Whether you’re a popular opinion writer or reflexive contrarian, these actionable strategies will help you develop genuinely reasoned positions that impress evaluators.
1
The “What Do I Actually Believe?” Test
Before writing, ask yourself: “If I had to bet money on this question, which side would I bet on?” Not which side is safer. Not which side is more provocative. Which side do you actually think is more likely correct? Start from genuine belief, then build your argument. If you don’t have a genuine belief, think harder until you do.
2
The “Why Might I Be Wrong?” Check
For Popular Opinion Writers: After identifying the common view, ask: “What’s the strongest argument against this?” Don’t dismiss it—engage with it.
For Contrarians: After taking your bold stance, ask: “What’s the strongest argument for the conventional view?” If you can’t articulate it fairly, you don’t understand the debate.
3
The Original Angle Search
For Popular Opinion Writers: You can agree with common wisdom while adding something new. “Yes, AI will displace some jobs, but the more interesting question is WHICH jobs—not blue-collar as expected, but middle-management.” Find an angle others miss, even if your conclusion aligns with popular opinion.
4
The Steelman Exercise
For Contrarians: Before attacking the popular view, write out the BEST version of that view—not a strawman. “The strongest argument for concern about AI and jobs is…” If your essay doesn’t address this strongest version, you’re not convincing anyone thoughtful. Genuine disagreement requires understanding what you’re disagreeing with.
5
The “So What’s New?” Filter
After writing each paragraph, ask: “Would a smart evaluator already know this?” If yes, either cut it or deepen it with original reasoning. “AI automates tasks” is not new. “AI automates tasks, but human judgment remains essential for ambiguous decisions where context matters more than data”—that’s developing the point further.
6
The Concession + Position Structure
Use this pattern: “While [opposing view] is valid because [strongest reason], I believe [your position] because [your strongest reason].” This shows you’ve considered both sides but still have a view. “While concerns about AI displacement are legitimate given automation’s track record, the greater risk is NOT adapting—companies that resist will lose competitiveness.” You’ve acknowledged; now you’ve positioned.
7
The Evidence Anchor
Anchor your position in something concrete—a fact, a case study, a logical principle. Not just opinion. “AI will create jobs” is an assertion. “AI will create jobs—consider that ATMs didn’t reduce bank teller employment because banks opened more branches and tellers shifted to advisory roles” is an evidence-backed argument. Even contrarian positions need evidence, not just conviction.
8
The Confidence Calibration
For Popular Opinion Writers: Push yourself to commit. Replace “It depends” with “On balance, I believe X because…” You can acknowledge uncertainty while still having a view.
For Contrarians: Temper overconfidence. Replace “Everyone is wrong” with “The mainstream view underestimates X because…” Strong positions don’t require dismissing all alternatives.
✅The Bottom Line
In WAT, the extremes lose. The popular opinion writer who echoes consensus produces forgettable essays that demonstrate no independent thought. The reflexive contrarian who opposes for attention produces unconvincing essays that demonstrate no intellectual honesty. The winners understand this simple truth: What matters is not whether your position is popular or contrarian—what matters is whether it’s genuinely yours and genuinely argued. Take a real stance. Support it with original reasoning. Acknowledge what the opposing view gets right. That’s the formula that impresses evaluators—whether your conclusion aligns with or challenges conventional wisdom.
Frequently Asked Questions: Popular Opinion vs Contrarian Thinkers in WAT
Only if you can’t defend it. Evaluators don’t penalize you for disagreeing with popular opinion—they penalize you for unsupported claims, dismissed counterarguments, and shallow reasoning. A well-argued contrarian position can score very high because it demonstrates genuine independent thinking. A poorly-argued contrarian position scores low not because it’s contrarian, but because it’s poorly argued. The risk isn’t in the position—it’s in failing to substantiate it.
Yes—nuance is not the same as fence-sitting. Fence-sitting is: “There are pros and cons, so we need balance.” Nuance is: “While AI poses genuine displacement risks for routine cognitive work, I believe the net effect will be positive because…” You can acknowledge complexity, address counterarguments, and still land on a clear position. The difference is having an actual conclusion versus refusing to conclude. Evaluate, then commit—while showing you’ve genuinely considered the other side.
Ask second-order questions. Instead of “Is AI good or bad for jobs?” ask: “Which jobs specifically?” “Over what timeline?” “For which demographics?” “Compared to what alternative?” The original angle often comes from specificity—narrowing the broad question to something others haven’t addressed. You can agree with the popular conclusion while getting there through a different route. “Most people focus on job loss; I want to examine job quality—even new jobs may offer less stability and meaning than what’s replaced.”
That’s fine—but demonstrate you’ve thought about it. The problem isn’t agreeing with consensus; it’s echoing consensus without adding anything. If you believe AI poses genuine risks, argue WHY with your own reasoning. Add a specific angle, a fresh example, a consideration others miss. “I agree with concerns about AI, but what’s underappreciated is the speed dimension—previous technological shifts took decades; AI is moving in years, and institutions can’t adapt that fast.” Now you’ve agreed with popular opinion while still demonstrating original thought.
One strong counterargument, addressed in 2-3 sentences. You don’t need to list every opposing point—that becomes the fence-sitting problem. Identify the STRONGEST counterargument, state it fairly, and explain why your position still holds despite it. “Critics rightly note that previous technological revolutions created more jobs. However, AI differs in targeting cognitive work itself—the very capabilities humans used to adapt before. This time, the adaptation strategy may not be available.” You’ve acknowledged, you’ve addressed, you’ve maintained your position.
Not if you want to score well. “Both sides have valid points” is not a conclusion—it’s an abdication. After examining both sides, you should have a view. Even if that view is “The answer depends on X factor,” you’ve still taken a position—that the determining variable is X. “Whether AI helps or harms employment depends on the speed of implementation—gradual rollout allows adaptation, rapid deployment causes disruption. Policy should focus on controlling speed.” That’s a position. “It has pros and cons” is not.
🎯
Want Personalized WAT Feedback?
Understanding your type is step one. Getting expert feedback on your actual writing—with specific strategies for your position-taking style—is what transforms practice into high scores.
The Complete Guide to Popular Opinion Writers vs Contrarian Thinkers in WAT
Understanding the dynamics of popular opinion writers vs contrarian thinkers in WAT is essential for any MBA aspirant preparing for the Written Ability Test at top B-schools. This position-taking spectrum significantly impacts how evaluators perceive candidates and ultimately determines WAT scores.
Why Position-Taking Style Matters in MBA Written Ability Tests
The WAT round evaluates your ability to think independently and communicate a reasoned position. MBA programs need students who will contribute original perspectives to classroom discussions—not just echo what everyone already believes, but also not reflexively oppose for attention. Your WAT essay reveals your default approach to taking intellectual positions: Do you think for yourself, or do you adopt ready-made positions—whether conventional or contrarian?
The popular opinion writer vs contrarian thinker dynamic in WAT reveals fundamental patterns in how candidates form and express views. Popular opinion writers who echo consensus may seem safe but add nothing to discourse. Reflexive contrarians who oppose for attention may seem bold but often can’t substantiate their positions. Both extremes fail because both represent shortcuts around actual thinking. Evaluators recognize both patterns instantly after reading hundreds of essays.
The Psychology Behind WAT Position-Taking Styles
Understanding why candidates fall into popular opinion or contrarian categories helps address the root behavior. Popular opinion writers often fear evaluation—they believe taking a strong stance risks being “wrong,” so they hedge with balance. This produces forgettable essays where the candidate’s actual view remains invisible. Contrarians often fear being ordinary—they believe sounding like everyone else means being overlooked, so they oppose to stand out. This produces provocative but unconvincing essays where boldness substitutes for substance.
The genuine thinker understands that good positions require neither safety nor provocation—they require honest reasoning. Success in WAT comes from asking “What do I actually believe and why?” rather than “What’s safe to say?” or “What’s different to say?” The best essays take real positions—sometimes aligned with popular opinion, sometimes against—but always because the writer has thought through the question and can defend their conclusion.
How Top B-Schools Evaluate Position-Taking in WAT
IIMs, XLRI, ISB, and other premier B-schools train their evaluators to assess candidates’ ability to think independently while remaining intellectually honest. They recognize the fence-sitting essay that commits to nothing (“AI has pros and cons, balance is needed”) and the provocative essay that substantiates nothing (“Everyone is wrong about AI”). Neither demonstrates the thinking ability MBA programs value.
The ideal WAT essay—the one that scores highest—takes a clear, genuine position on the question asked, supports that position with original reasoning (not just borrowed talking points), acknowledges what the opposing view gets right (demonstrating intellectual honesty), and addresses the strongest counterargument rather than dismissing all opposition. This profile signals the independent but honest thinking that MBA programs value—someone who will add genuine perspective to class discussions rather than echoing consensus or derailing debates with unsupported contrarianism.
Premium Courses
Recommended Course Bundles
Master B-School selection criteria with our comprehensive preparation programs designed by experts with 18+ years of experience
With 18+ years of teaching experience and a passion for making MBA admissions preparation accessible, I'm here to help you navigate GD, PI, and WAT. Whether it's interview strategies, essay writing, or group discussion techniques—let's connect and solve it together.
Don't let doubts slow you down. Whether it's GD topics, interview questions, WAT essays, or B-school strategy—I'm here to help. Choose your preferred way to connect and let's tackle your challenges head-on.
