With all due respect, this post reads as, “The lady doth protest too much.” It looks like you’ve dedicated this post to absolutely, comprehensively dismantling any notion that your community has anything to do with cults — with a religious fervour, almost. :)
But do you think there’s any merit to the argument that your community has some cult-like aspects to it?
I suspect that it would have been easier for me to take your post in good faith, if you’d been, like, “Yeah. We definitely have some problems and norms that are worrisome. We should probably examine those things. I can see how someone would make that connection, even if I don’t think that we’re a full-blown cult.”
It’s not like Cade is the only person who’s ever critiqued the rationalists on this subject. I’ve spent some time in Berkeley and I’ve certainly thought about how some of the stuff is cult-y; and I’ve talked to other people about it, who agree.
(I made my account to leave this comment, but I’m engaging in good faith; I’m not a troll.)
I agree that we should discuss the specific problems.
I would even approve of writing some kind of resource on “bad things that happened in the rationalist community”. It should be mandatory reading for new members.
On the other hand, the fact that your comment is upvoted here… is not something you would expect from a typical cult, would you?
On the other hand, the fact that your comment is upvoted here… is not something you would expect from a typical cult, would you?
maybe not as often, but could still be “Ooh, someone who doesn’t like the cult! better show them we’re Normal!”, not to mention “hey, look, we’re not a cult, see? we upvoted you!” Traditional hardcore cults would definitely have difficulty doing it, but medium-strength cults like the religion I grew up with explicitly tell evangelists to listen to people’s doubts, while never holding any doubts oneself. there are still ways for permitting doubt to be turned into a tool of control.
There are usually not simple and reliable ways to tell that something isn’t bad. they’re either simple or reliable. Usually people err on the side of simple and classify some things as bad that aren’t necessarily but which are hard to confirm as being not bad, so as to not risk get screwed over by mistakes in complex is-it-bad-or-not rules. Eg, “don’t talk to strangers on the street unsupervised” is common (generally good!) advice for kids, and it excludes talking to the majority of actually pretty nice people so as to not get screwed over by less-but-still-plenty-common dangerous people.
It should be mandatory reading for new members.
I don’t think having explicit membership that makes a mandatory reading moment possible is itself a good idea.
I do think a community having a warnings doc is good and that people who encounter the community can inform themselves about what kind of danger or annoyance or etc the community is likely to produce is familiar and avoidable. Though if your list of warnings is incomplete, it can produce a false sense of security in readers. If it’s complete and accurate, it can become a target of attacks by the people it’s trying to contain, which they sometimes succeed at, at least partially. And if it contains mistakes, people can even have legitimate issues with it. Eg, malicious folk love to try to get in a position where they can add people to a warnings list like that, so it can even become a tool of control itself.
Still seems like a good idea, that’s why I comment places like this to point out things are not fine, but requires having a good sense of the landscape of attacks.
With all due respect, this post reads as, “The lady doth protest too much.” It looks like you’ve dedicated this post to absolutely, comprehensively dismantling any notion that your community has anything to do with cults — with a religious fervour, almost. :)
But do you think there’s any merit to the argument that your community has some cult-like aspects to it?
I suspect that it would have been easier for me to take your post in good faith, if you’d been, like, “Yeah. We definitely have some problems and norms that are worrisome. We should probably examine those things. I can see how someone would make that connection, even if I don’t think that we’re a full-blown cult.”
It’s not like Cade is the only person who’s ever critiqued the rationalists on this subject. I’ve spent some time in Berkeley and I’ve certainly thought about how some of the stuff is cult-y; and I’ve talked to other people about it, who agree.
(I made my account to leave this comment, but I’m engaging in good faith; I’m not a troll.)
I agree that we should discuss the specific problems.
I would even approve of writing some kind of resource on “bad things that happened in the rationalist community”. It should be mandatory reading for new members.
On the other hand, the fact that your comment is upvoted here… is not something you would expect from a typical cult, would you?
maybe not as often, but could still be “Ooh, someone who doesn’t like the cult! better show them we’re Normal!”, not to mention “hey, look, we’re not a cult, see? we upvoted you!” Traditional hardcore cults would definitely have difficulty doing it, but medium-strength cults like the religion I grew up with explicitly tell evangelists to listen to people’s doubts, while never holding any doubts oneself. there are still ways for permitting doubt to be turned into a tool of control.
There are usually not simple and reliable ways to tell that something isn’t bad. they’re either simple or reliable. Usually people err on the side of simple and classify some things as bad that aren’t necessarily but which are hard to confirm as being not bad, so as to not risk get screwed over by mistakes in complex is-it-bad-or-not rules. Eg, “don’t talk to strangers on the street unsupervised” is common (generally good!) advice for kids, and it excludes talking to the majority of actually pretty nice people so as to not get screwed over by less-but-still-plenty-common dangerous people.
I don’t think having explicit membership that makes a mandatory reading moment possible is itself a good idea.
I do think a community having a warnings doc is good and that people who encounter the community can inform themselves about what kind of danger or annoyance or etc the community is likely to produce is familiar and avoidable. Though if your list of warnings is incomplete, it can produce a false sense of security in readers. If it’s complete and accurate, it can become a target of attacks by the people it’s trying to contain, which they sometimes succeed at, at least partially. And if it contains mistakes, people can even have legitimate issues with it. Eg, malicious folk love to try to get in a position where they can add people to a warnings list like that, so it can even become a tool of control itself.
Still seems like a good idea, that’s why I comment places like this to point out things are not fine, but requires having a good sense of the landscape of attacks.