We are sorry to inform you that you are in a cult • Hacker News Board

Re: We are sorry to inform you that you are in a cult

#191

Post by jcims » Mon, Nov 21, 2022, 3:09 PM UTC

pas wrote: post #181

jcims wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's like the loudness wars in music production. Dynamic range in language is being sacrificed to elevate the mundane. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war

Spectrum things are spectrum things after all, and they are symptom driven diagnoses, so colloquial usage of these terms are not particularly bad/incorrect/invalid. Though of course it can lead to misuderstandings and severe conflicts when someone who suffers gravely from one such condition and now in addition they have to add more qualifiers and verbosity to try to express their needs.

I would argue they are bad/incorrect/invalid if they dilute the meaning or abuse its gravity for effect.

Re: We are sorry to inform you that you are in a cult

#192

Post by sparkie » Mon, Nov 21, 2022, 3:11 PM UTC

andrewla wrote: post #189

cainxinth wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cults have common and shared warning signs: https://medium.com/@zelphontheshelf/10-signs-youre-probably-... 1. The leader is the ultimate authority 2. The group suppresses skepticism 3. The group delegitimizes former members 4. The group is paranoid about the outside world 5. The group relies on shame cycles 6. The leader is above the law 7. The group uses “thought reform” methods 8. The group is elitist 9. There is…

> Also, not all cults are religious Now we're well into the map vs territory. In the attempt to define a cult (something which we intuit) we end up fixated on the boundary between what is a cult and what is not a cult, and try to create a taxonomic rule-based classification. The mistake is then to assume that that rule-based classification defines what a cult is (rather than attempts to describe what is a cult) and y…

Some people have been saying we are a cult, but they are not using the correct definition of "cult," in our opinion.

Re: We are sorry to inform you that you are in a cult

#193

Post by mistermann » Mon, Nov 21, 2022, 3:12 PM UTC

prirun wrote: post #187

cainxinth wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cults have common and shared warning signs: https://medium.com/@zelphontheshelf/10-signs-youre-probably-... 1. The leader is the ultimate authority 2. The group suppresses skepticism 3. The group delegitimizes former members 4. The group is paranoid about the outside world 5. The group relies on shame cycles 6. The leader is above the law 7. The group uses “thought reform” methods 8. The group is elitist 9. There is…

In summary, every religion.

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/2MD3NMLBPCqPfnfre/cached-tho...

What I like about this article is that the author suffers from the very phenomenon they are describing, demonstrating how ubiquitous and hard to detect in oneself it is.

Re: We are sorry to inform you that you are in a cult

#194

Post by motohagiography » Mon, Nov 21, 2022, 3:14 PM UTC

parrellel wrote: post #42

Was that a meta-cult induction. Because I think I just read the Penn and Teller version of a cult induction? Neat.

Was also thinking it was a variation on a quine. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quine_%28computing%29)

There are variations on this article that I think could be useful to give some perspective on certain patterns of thought. The strange-loop aspect demonstrates how we can operate on a belief that originates from a circular reference, and as a consequence, the logic of our ideas and reasoning may not be consistent with the external world. If our conclusions justify indulging in an immoderate vice (e.g. the seven deadlies or another obvious list of things we know we are capable of choosing better options than) it's probably worth examining more closely.

Re: We are sorry to inform you that you are in a cult

#195

Post by noobker » Mon, Nov 21, 2022, 3:14 PM UTC

prirun wrote: post #187

cainxinth wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cults have common and shared warning signs: https://medium.com/@zelphontheshelf/10-signs-youre-probably-... 1. The leader is the ultimate authority 2. The group suppresses skepticism 3. The group delegitimizes former members 4. The group is paranoid about the outside world 5. The group relies on shame cycles 6. The leader is above the law 7. The group uses “thought reform” methods 8. The group is elitist 9. There is…

In summary, every religion.

> every religion

The world's beliefs are many and varied. There are plenty of religious groups that provide a foundation for a healthy life instead of insisting they are the only means to achieving it.

You'll be hardpressed to apply this list of grievances to the average Buddhist community, for instance. Sikhs, Jains, Baha'i, Quakers -- many more come to mind.

Re: We are sorry to inform you that you are in a cult

#196

Post by etchalon » Mon, Nov 21, 2022, 3:21 PM UTC

latency-guy2 wrote: post #49

etchalon wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_precepts

I was in the process of making a longer comment, but I think I will leave it at this one: Non-Violence or 'Ahmisa' being a core tenant of Buddhism (and many other religions), is the one I would pick as a more apt comparison. I don't think it is reasonable to commit no violence, especially if you consider all life precious - even if you restrict to only humans. Not all people think the same, in fact some people are fa…

I'm not arguing for or against any specific precept. I'm not a Buddhist.

My analogy was meant to out point that the argument, "I believe everything you believe, except for this one thing" is sophomoric, as the number of things we agree on matters less than the weight of what we disagree on – and vice versa.

Re: We are sorry to inform you that you are in a cult

#197

Post by jerf » Mon, Nov 21, 2022, 3:24 PM UTC

orblivion wrote: post #171

drewbug01 wrote: post #130

It’s an interesting piece, and I think it’s intended to be satirical (and done rather well). But, I grew up in an actual cult. The comments here to the effect of “everything’s a cult” and “startups are cults” and “HN is a cult” - oh gosh. Nothing could be further from the truth. HN is not a cult, folks. I’m glad people can make those jokes though, because I immediately know they didn’t experience what I did. They hav…

Do you think that any of these things have cult-like tendencies, or is it a completely distinct phenomenon? It seems like people can go down a rabbit hole to varying degrees. I know I have that tendency. I went down the Scott Adams rabbit hole and allowed him to convince me of some silly things, but I had enough self-awareness not to get too sucked in. And it seems like QAnon is a much more extreme version of the sam…

Are there varying degrees? Sure.

Can QAnon be a cult in a more strict sense of the term? I have a hard time believing in the existence of a cult that exists over the internet where most or all of its members are internet handles; how exactly does one punish "slimeDogAvarest281" for betraying the cult? Or per cainxinth's point, how does on perform "secret rites" over the internet?

I think that gets back to grandparent's point that not everything is a cult and you diminish the term using it so freely. "There's a group that believes things I don't like and think is silly" is not a cult. I don't think you understand the sheer degree of social pressure cults can bring to bear, and I don't think that sort of pressure can be transmitted over a channel the so-called cult member can just shut off and disappear and nobody knows how to follow them. Or, to put it another way, when the exit is as easy as the entrance, it really can't be a cult. I think critical to the cult aspect is that you can't just leave. Did Scott Adams chase you down and tell his followers to harass you? No, of course not. How could he? Neither he nor anyone else even so much as noticed you. That's not a cult by any definition.

Re: We are sorry to inform you that you are in a cult

#198

Post by andrewla » Mon, Nov 21, 2022, 3:30 PM UTC

sparkie wrote: post #192

andrewla wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also, not all cults are religious Now we're well into the map vs territory. In the attempt to define a cult (something which we intuit) we end up fixated on the boundary between what is a cult and what is not a cult, and try to create a taxonomic rule-based classification. The mistake is then to assume that that rule-based classification defines what a cult is (rather than attempts to describe what is a cult) and y…

Some people have been saying we are a cult, but they are not using the correct definition of "cult," in our opinion.

Exactly this! The attempt to reduce "cult" to a strict rule-based definition means you can be endlessly mired in semantic debate rather than actually address the operational parameters that make an organization or association unattractive to join, which is usually what people mean when they say "that's a cult".

"Cult" carries a ton of baggage. You say "hey, that MLM you want to join satisfies 4/10 properties of a cult -- it's a cult!" and the baggage is "Jonestown was a cult and they all died. Heaven's gate was a cult and they all died. Branch Davidian was a cult and they all died." It's a rhetorical sleight of hand, nothing more, and it will not convince anyone or create an interesting discussion; it'll just come down to some argument about whether Catholicism is a cult.

In order to actually get anything useful, you have to show how the cult-like properties either inevitably lead to the negative consequences (which is nigh impossible; some of these definitions apply to little league teams) or talk about the specific negative or questionable behaviors of the organization itself.

Re: We are sorry to inform you that you are in a cult

#199

Post by ineedasername » Mon, Nov 21, 2022, 3:30 PM UTC

sirsinsalot wrote: post #152

drewbug01 wrote: post #130

It’s an interesting piece, and I think it’s intended to be satirical (and done rather well). But, I grew up in an actual cult. The comments here to the effect of “everything’s a cult” and “startups are cults” and “HN is a cult” - oh gosh. Nothing could be further from the truth. HN is not a cult, folks. I’m glad people can make those jokes though, because I immediately know they didn’t experience what I did. They hav…

I think this is a really important point. We use lots of terms these days in ever more generic ways: cult, gaslighting, abuse, "I'm a bit OCD" ... each broader use of the language weakens the contexts where the language is more pointed. Of course, context is everything and language is fluid, but think pieces that inadvertently soften words can also downgrade important intentions as a side-effect.

>"these days"

This has ever been the case.

As one example, you can look at the cyclic nature of words used to describe someone who, according to current terms, has an "intellectual disability":

Idiot

Moron

Imbecile

Retarded

These words and others have, at various times, been used in a specific clinical context. As those words seeped out of the clinical setting into the general public's awareness they started being used in more generic, looser, non clinical settings, often as insults. When that happened-- often when the associated stigma gained so much weight that it was difficult to use as a unloaded clinical term-- new terms started to be used. "Retarded" is the most recent to reach its EOL. Phonemic complexity seems to make this process a little more difficult: Intellectual Disability may be too much of a mouthful to easily become a quick insult.

The evolution & etymology of these terms is actually a bit more complex than this, but it gives a rough sketch of the phenomenon. It's just the natural cycle of language use.

Re: We are sorry to inform you that you are in a cult

#200

Post by orblivion » Mon, Nov 21, 2022, 3:33 PM UTC

jerf wrote: post #197

orblivion wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think that any of these things have cult-like tendencies, or is it a completely distinct phenomenon? It seems like people can go down a rabbit hole to varying degrees. I know I have that tendency. I went down the Scott Adams rabbit hole and allowed him to convince me of some silly things, but I had enough self-awareness not to get too sucked in. And it seems like QAnon is a much more extreme version of the sam…

Are there varying degrees? Sure. Can QAnon be a cult in a more strict sense of the term? I have a hard time believing in the existence of a cult that exists over the internet where most or all of its members are internet handles; how exactly does one punish "slimeDogAvarest281" for betraying the cult? Or per cainxinth's point, how does on perform "secret rites" over the internet? I think that gets back to grandparent…

It's not the silliness of the beliefs, I'm talking about the rabbithole thinking phenomenon. What I saw with QAnon (and I experienced in my own thinking) reminds me of what I hear about Scientology, where people are revealed increasingly fantastical things as they continue in.

I'm not saying this makes a cult, I'll take your point there. But I am wondering if it's an aspect of a real cult, i.e. if these can be called "cult tactics". And if so, if there's at least value in making the qualified comparison. QAnon is still detrimental, introspection still worthwhile to avoid such things, etc. Nobody will chase me down, but it can still be detrimental (even if not a cult) if I still actually believe in it (which I imagine many cult members do and which also helps keep them in the cult).

And to be clear, Scott Adams wasn't detrimental other than making me feel stupid. QAnon is worse.