If you have a conflict where one side is consistently dishonest, then this procedure can lead to rapidly transfering a ton of their trust away, to the other side of the conflict.
This mostly makes sense, but the wrong part of it is the “homogeneity of the outgroup” assumption. Basically, the cult leader does the trick of dividing the world into two groups: the cult, and everyone else.
The cult tells the truth about that one thing you strongly care about? Check.
All people who lie about the thing you care about are in the “everyone else” group? Check.
The missing part is that… many people in the “everyone else” group also tell the truth about that one thing you strongly care about. That’s because the “everyone else” group literally contains billions of people, with all kinds of opinions and behaviors.
But it is easy to miss this, especially when the cult leader tends to use the liars as the prototypes of the outgroup (essentially “weakmanning” the rest of humanity).
As a specific example, if you strongly care about veganism, you should notice that although the majority of non-Zizians are non-vegans, the majority of vegans are non-Zizians. So you shouldn’t conclude that there is no salvation outside of Zizians.
But also, it doesn’t always work. You might have multiple conflicts going on, exponentially reducing who fits the bill. Most people don’t know who you are, so you might be limited to your local circles. Sometimes the conflict itself is an obscure thing that few can interact with.
On its own, yes there are lots of vegans they could have had contact with. But the Zizians were also rat/EA types, which restricts their community reach heavily. Though there are lots of peaceful EA vegans, so this can’t explain it all.
But like—could there be any other conflicts they had? I expect there to be, though I am not sure about the details. Maybe I am wrong.
This mostly makes sense, but the wrong part of it is the “homogeneity of the outgroup” assumption. Basically, the cult leader does the trick of dividing the world into two groups: the cult, and everyone else.
The cult tells the truth about that one thing you strongly care about? Check.
All people who lie about the thing you care about are in the “everyone else” group? Check.
The missing part is that… many people in the “everyone else” group also tell the truth about that one thing you strongly care about. That’s because the “everyone else” group literally contains billions of people, with all kinds of opinions and behaviors.
But it is easy to miss this, especially when the cult leader tends to use the liars as the prototypes of the outgroup (essentially “weakmanning” the rest of humanity).
As a specific example, if you strongly care about veganism, you should notice that although the majority of non-Zizians are non-vegans, the majority of vegans are non-Zizians. So you shouldn’t conclude that there is no salvation outside of Zizians.
To an extent, yes this is a good solution.
But also, it doesn’t always work. You might have multiple conflicts going on, exponentially reducing who fits the bill. Most people don’t know who you are, so you might be limited to your local circles. Sometimes the conflict itself is an obscure thing that few can interact with.
On its own, yes there are lots of vegans they could have had contact with. But the Zizians were also rat/EA types, which restricts their community reach heavily. Though there are lots of peaceful EA vegans, so this can’t explain it all.
But like—could there be any other conflicts they had? I expect there to be, though I am not sure about the details. Maybe I am wrong.
That sounds correct. Rat, vegan, trans… maybe one or two more things, and the selection is sufficiently narrow.