Person who takes an alternate stance

[greenisgood]

What do you call a person (John) who always takes an alternative stance from rest of the group? For instance, if a group decides to watch a superman movie, John simply prefers to watch a batman movie, even if John independently might not mind watching a superman movie. If everyone in the family chooses to go to the beach, John prefers to go to the park. If everyone in the class chooses X, John takes a Y stance, just because Y is different from X.
What is such a person or personality called?

Reading through the definitions, it does not appear appropriate to call John an opposer, obstructor, adversary, antagonist, thwarter, or resister, because to be called that John would have to directly say No to what others say or do. John is not opposing or attacking others choice or stance directly, but simply taking an alternate stance. Cantankerous, uncooperative, disobliging, or discommoding do not seem to be specific enough to describe John's personality. Contrary?

 

[SoothingDave]

He is a contrarian.

 

[emsr2d2]

Don't forget to capitalise the names of films and put them in italics.

If we all want to watch a Superman film, he always wants to watch a Batman film.

 

[Rover_KE]

He could be a fly in the ointment in some contexts; in others, a devil's advocate.

 

[andrewg927]

I sometimes call people who take a very different stance from the group an "outlier". There are other more negative words but I think "outlier" is quite neutral.

 

[Tdol]

In BrE, you could say that John is awkward.

 

[emsr2d2]

Jane: What shall we have for dinner?
Sam: Pizza.
Tom: Sounds great.
Len: I agree.
John: I want curry.
Jane/Sam/Tom: Oh, you always have to be bloody difficult, don't you, John?!

 

[GoesStation]

Jane/Sam/Tom: Oh, you always have to be bloody difficult, don't you, John?!

"Difficult" works for me. Sadly, we Americans don't use that terrific (and mystifyingly vulgar to some Brits) adjective.

 

[andrewg927]

I say"bloody hell" all the time. No, just kidding.

 

[emsr2d2]

I don't think I know any Brits who consider "bloody" to be vulgar.

 

[Tdol]

Wow, she's a stickler- Joyce's Dubliners was criticised for using the word back in 1914. I thought that, since then, it was regarded as an OK escape valve and better than the other possibilities by the anti-swearing brigade.

 

[emsr2d2]

I'm always surprised by what people [still] consider to be swearing. For me, "bloody" doesn't even appear on the list, much like "damn", "Oh my god" etc.

 

[greenisgood]

Thanks to all that have replied with valuable input.

Jane: What shall we have for dinner?
Sam: Pizza.
Tom: Sounds great.
Len: I agree.
John: I want curry.
Jane/Sam/Tom: Oh, you always have to be bloody difficult, don't you, John?!

This scenario accurately portrays John's personality.

A maverick or deviant would want to be different from the rest but they could show concern for addressing the problem ( of getting something for dinner). But John is not worried about the group's problem. John just wants to utilize his voting privilege to make an alternative selection different from rest of the group, just to bother or irritate them. You can say John takes pleasure being a borderline sadist. He does it by being non-confrontational and never directly counteracting others' individual choices.

John is being difficult. This is a vague description as one can be bloody difficult through many different ways.

A sadistic contrarian? Is there a milder version of this phrase to describe John?

From browsing the online thesaurus, can he be called a perverse non-team player?

 

[andrewg927]

You cannot use sadistic contrarian (it just means something completely different), therefore I don't think there is a milder version of it.

You can say "he is not a team player" or "he is not a player". Perverse seems a little much.