I have only heard rumors about Ziz and her destructive effects on aspiring rationalists within her impact radius. Apparently young rationalists are very susceptible to the dark side of the force. Who could have thought.
The Zizians post reads like any old cult beginning: brainwash, remove the ethical guardrails, isolate the flock, intimidate, use mind-altering techniques like sleep deprivation and trance. Fortunately it appears to fizzle before taking hold. Unfortunately, people died, and probably quite a few are still mentally scarred.
I am guessing that the real lesson here is not for the susceptible youngsters, but for the wise elders who watched it all and didn’t do much: if you notice an issue like that, speak up, take action, and protect the potential victims. Otherwise, what is your high morality good for?
Chris* Pasek didn’t appear to me like a susceptible youngster. At least not in the way that college students are. I would estimate that he was around ~30. He worked for some years in Japan. He seemed internally aligned being able to work on projects without procrastinating.
He also wasn’t really isolated in the way you see in most. He lived in a group house with other rationalists for most of the time and his contact with Ziz was mainly online.
“I’m using the name Chris, because that’s how I got to know him, he transitioned after being in contact with Ziz”
I am guessing that the real lesson here is not for the susceptible youngsters, but for the wise elders who watched it all and didn’t do much: if you notice an issue like that, speak up, take action, and protect the potential victims.
Figuring out this kind of risk is probably something that people only learn after they actually witness something bad happen. (Until then, it just feels like bias against doing unusual things.)
Reading about it does not help much, because (1) System 1 versus System 2; when it actually happens to you, it feels different; and (2) there is always some technical difference between the situation you read about and the situation that happens in your neighborhood, which can be used as an argument that “this is different”, until you actually get burned and then you see how the similarities were sufficient and the differences were superficial. For example, once you make the analogy to cults, someone is guaranteed to object “but Ziz is not religious”, etc. Also, contrarianism is high status, common wisdom is low status; talking common sense among clever people is totally inviting them to get status points by mocking you.
Before the bad things actually happen, “a wise elder warning about dangers” is merely “an old man yelling at clouds”. I could totally see myself in that role if I lived in Bay Area, and I would willingly take the status hit, but I am not sure it would actually change the outcome.
strong upvote, strong agree—very important point! I’d add:
not only the ones with a self-perception of moral high ground should be on the lookout; people probably ought to know what cultiness looks like, so as to be somewhat immunized against it. of course, that is itself a conflicted discussion point, as groups that don’t want to be identified as cults object to such things. there’s a pretty strong consensus on what cultiness looks like, though, and browsing several search engines on “what is cultiness” finds great anti-cult documentation:
The leader is the ultimate authority—If you’re not allowed to criticize your leader, even if the criticism is true, you’re probably in a cult.
+0.5
Appears somewhat applicable to me from a distance; I’m not sure how obvious it would have been up close, because many types of criticism would likely have been apparently welcome, but there was a large space of things where criticism would not only result in ziz disagreeing, but in anger at the topic coming up. Since many folks [edit: not everyone, that was wrong, but definitely most folks] have topics that will anger them when they come up, I’m not sure how to draw an unambiguous line on this one, but I think there’s something to do with whether the anger is endorsed as a pressured demand to change away from anything that involves questioning.
The group suppresses skepticism—If you’re only allowed to study your organization through approved sources, you’re probably in a cult.
+0.5
Again, appears applicable about the key philosophy. Anyone who doesn’t accept their definitions is evil.
The group delegitimizes former members
+0.5
Not sure there were any former members to delegitimize?
The group is paranoid about the outside world
+1
Obviously becoming a common warning sign given the number of real threats to the world, but overconfidence about them is still a serious warning sign, and they very much were using intense emotional activation about end of the world as a key selling point. Remaining sober when there are risks on the horizon is always key to defeating those risks, so it’s important to not fall into a habit of overactivation—that was how this whole post was started in the first place, after all.
The group relies on shame cycles
+1
YUP. “if you’re not with us, you’re against us”, lots of stuff about having wrong thoughts being shameful.
The leader is above the law
+0.5
Well certainly the literal law, unclear if ziz was in the habit of breaking their own principles internally. weaker match.
The group uses “thought reform” methods—If your serious questions are answered with cliches, you’re probably in a cult.
+1
ohhh boy yep that one applies hard.
The group is elitist—If your group is the solution for all the world’s problems, you’re probably in a cult.
+1
yeppppppp
There is no financial transparency
+0.5
Well I don’t know about that one. Not sure how to know, really.
The group performs secret rites
+1
Seems like it!
overall score on this thrown-together hand-calculated hunch-based metric: 7.5
I think there are better ways to score this, but it given the fact that I can’t say “definitely not” to any of them and can easily say “definitely yes” to half of them, I think it’s a pretty solid “yeah that looks like a cult by this description”.
I have only heard rumors about Ziz and her destructive effects on aspiring rationalists within her impact radius. Apparently young rationalists are very susceptible to the dark side of the force. Who could have thought.
The Zizians post reads like any old cult beginning: brainwash, remove the ethical guardrails, isolate the flock, intimidate, use mind-altering techniques like sleep deprivation and trance. Fortunately it appears to fizzle before taking hold. Unfortunately, people died, and probably quite a few are still mentally scarred.
I am guessing that the real lesson here is not for the susceptible youngsters, but for the wise elders who watched it all and didn’t do much: if you notice an issue like that, speak up, take action, and protect the potential victims. Otherwise, what is your high morality good for?
Chris* Pasek didn’t appear to me like a susceptible youngster. At least not in the way that college students are. I would estimate that he was around ~30. He worked for some years in Japan. He seemed internally aligned being able to work on projects without procrastinating.
He also wasn’t really isolated in the way you see in most. He lived in a group house with other rationalists for most of the time and his contact with Ziz was mainly online.
“I’m using the name Chris, because that’s how I got to know him, he transitioned after being in contact with Ziz”
Figuring out this kind of risk is probably something that people only learn after they actually witness something bad happen. (Until then, it just feels like bias against doing unusual things.)
Reading about it does not help much, because (1) System 1 versus System 2; when it actually happens to you, it feels different; and (2) there is always some technical difference between the situation you read about and the situation that happens in your neighborhood, which can be used as an argument that “this is different”, until you actually get burned and then you see how the similarities were sufficient and the differences were superficial. For example, once you make the analogy to cults, someone is guaranteed to object “but Ziz is not religious”, etc. Also, contrarianism is high status, common wisdom is low status; talking common sense among clever people is totally inviting them to get status points by mocking you.
Before the bad things actually happen, “a wise elder warning about dangers” is merely “an old man yelling at clouds”. I could totally see myself in that role if I lived in Bay Area, and I would willingly take the status hit, but I am not sure it would actually change the outcome.
strong upvote, strong agree—very important point! I’d add:
not only the ones with a self-perception of moral high ground should be on the lookout; people probably ought to know what cultiness looks like, so as to be somewhat immunized against it. of course, that is itself a conflicted discussion point, as groups that don’t want to be identified as cults object to such things. there’s a pretty strong consensus on what cultiness looks like, though, and browsing several search engines on “what is cultiness” finds great anti-cult documentation:
https://medium.com/@zelphontheshelf/10-signs-youre-probably-in-a-cult-1921eb5a3857
https://www.culteducation.com/warningsigns.html
http://www.ex-cult.org/fwbo/CofC.htm
https://www.microsolidarity.cc/articles/cults (this one seems cool. before losing it trying to satisfy forced perfection, maybe she would have liked this idea...)
https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/cults (I added this tag to this post; I think it’s important to understand that that’s pretty much what this instance was)
https://faenrandir.github.io/a_careful_examination/asking-if-its-a-cult-is-wrong-question/
https://cultrecover.com/cultdef
https://cultrecovery101.com/faq/
https://cultrecovery101.com/cult-recovery-readings/checklist-of-cult-characteristics/
I’d be curious of how much of those apply to Ziz’s group.
The leader is the ultimate authority—If you’re not allowed to criticize your leader, even if the criticism is true, you’re probably in a cult.
+0.5
Appears somewhat applicable to me from a distance; I’m not sure how obvious it would have been up close, because many types of criticism would likely have been apparently welcome, but there was a large space of things where criticism would not only result in ziz disagreeing, but in anger at the topic coming up. Since many folks [edit: not everyone, that was wrong, but definitely most folks] have topics that will anger them when they come up, I’m not sure how to draw an unambiguous line on this one, but I think there’s something to do with whether the anger is endorsed as a pressured demand to change away from anything that involves questioning.
The group suppresses skepticism—If you’re only allowed to study your organization through approved sources, you’re probably in a cult.
+0.5
Again, appears applicable about the key philosophy. Anyone who doesn’t accept their definitions is evil.
The group delegitimizes former members
+0.5
Not sure there were any former members to delegitimize?
The group is paranoid about the outside world
+1
Obviously becoming a common warning sign given the number of real threats to the world, but overconfidence about them is still a serious warning sign, and they very much were using intense emotional activation about end of the world as a key selling point. Remaining sober when there are risks on the horizon is always key to defeating those risks, so it’s important to not fall into a habit of overactivation—that was how this whole post was started in the first place, after all.
The group relies on shame cycles
+1
YUP. “if you’re not with us, you’re against us”, lots of stuff about having wrong thoughts being shameful.
The leader is above the law
+0.5
Well certainly the literal law, unclear if ziz was in the habit of breaking their own principles internally. weaker match.
The group uses “thought reform” methods—If your serious questions are answered with cliches, you’re probably in a cult.
+1
ohhh boy yep that one applies hard.
The group is elitist—If your group is the solution for all the world’s problems, you’re probably in a cult.
+1
yeppppppp
There is no financial transparency
+0.5
Well I don’t know about that one. Not sure how to know, really.
The group performs secret rites
+1
Seems like it!
overall score on this thrown-together hand-calculated hunch-based metric: 7.5
I think there are better ways to score this, but it given the fact that I can’t say “definitely not” to any of them and can easily say “definitely yes” to half of them, I think it’s a pretty solid “yeah that looks like a cult by this description”.