I’m curious whether I should treat “X sues everyone who calls it a cult” as evidence for “X is a cult.” Anyone have any input on whether this sort of reaction is actually signalling that the organization is alarmed that the allegations might have substance to them?
“Cult” might not be a very useful term given the existing LW knowledge base, but it’s a very useful term. I personally recommend Steve Hassan’s book “Combating Cult Mind Control” as an excellent introduction to how some of the nastiest memetic viruses propagate and what little we can do about them.
He lists a lengthy set of characteristics which cults tend to have in common which go beyond the mind-controlling tactics of mainstream religions. My fuzzy recollection is that est/Landmark was considered a cult by the people who make it their area of interest to keep track of currently active cults.
In a sense these organisations are the polar opposite of LW. LW attempts to maximise rationality, although not always successfully, and cults attempt to create maximum dependence and control.
In a sense these organisations are the polar opposite of LW. LW attempts to maximise rationality, although not always successfully, and cults attempt to create maximum dependence and control.
I hear some ambiguity there on the word “attempt”. In the first case you’re talking about the stated motives of the founders and high-status members, whereas in the second case you’re talking about a behavior that arises from the social relations in a group. A group can become a cult even if its founders and leaders don’t try to be a cult; cultishness is a mode of group behavior.
I’d also caution that “the people who make it their area of interest to keep track of currently active cults” may have some difficulties as well — some are missionaries from larger cults (e.g. conservative Protestantism), for instance ….
If X sues everyone who calls it a cult, you probably have fairly strong evidence that it is a cult. I think you have to evaluate how reasonable the lawsuits seem: Would this be the sort of thing an established, legitimate company you trust would sue over? Ciphergoth’s example of Alcor suing people who accused it of fraud, for instance, strikes me as potentially reasonable—I think most companies would take legal action there.
As a general heuristic, I’m not aware of any respectable business which is often referred to as a cult and takes legal action against this. Apple does not sue people who talk about their fans as zealots / blind / cultists / etc., for instance. It’s also, as far as I know, not a solid legal case, unlike fraud, intellectual property, etc..
Thus, I’d generally conclude that “X sues anyone for calling them a cult” is a pretty good heuristic for “X is not an organization I trust.”
Whether they’re actually a cult seems moot, past that :)
It’s a pretty good heuristic, and if they’re not very cultish it’s a sign they’re sufficiently detached from the world to fail to understand that it’s a really bad sign.
I’m curious whether I should treat “X sues everyone who calls it a cult” as evidence for “X is a cult.” Anyone have any input on whether this sort of reaction is actually signalling that the organization is alarmed that the allegations might have substance to them?
“X is a cult” seems to me to be an unneeded node.
“X worsens its members’ rationality about itself” and “X uses state violence to deter criticism of itself” are pretty bad by themselves.
“Cult” might not be a very useful term given the existing LW knowledge base, but it’s a very useful term. I personally recommend Steve Hassan’s book “Combating Cult Mind Control” as an excellent introduction to how some of the nastiest memetic viruses propagate and what little we can do about them.
He lists a lengthy set of characteristics which cults tend to have in common which go beyond the mind-controlling tactics of mainstream religions. My fuzzy recollection is that est/Landmark was considered a cult by the people who make it their area of interest to keep track of currently active cults.
In a sense these organisations are the polar opposite of LW. LW attempts to maximise rationality, although not always successfully, and cults attempt to create maximum dependence and control.
I hear some ambiguity there on the word “attempt”. In the first case you’re talking about the stated motives of the founders and high-status members, whereas in the second case you’re talking about a behavior that arises from the social relations in a group. A group can become a cult even if its founders and leaders don’t try to be a cult; cultishness is a mode of group behavior.
I’d also caution that “the people who make it their area of interest to keep track of currently active cults” may have some difficulties as well — some are missionaries from larger cults (e.g. conservative Protestantism), for instance ….
Note that when at Alcor, Mike Darwin threatened to sue those who alleged the business was engaged in fraud. I think it’s a rare business that won’t sue those who prominently allege that it is fraudulent without evidence, but some people (eg David Gerard) pattern-match this into “cryonics is pseudoscience”.
If X sues everyone who calls it a cult, you probably have fairly strong evidence that it is a cult. I think you have to evaluate how reasonable the lawsuits seem: Would this be the sort of thing an established, legitimate company you trust would sue over? Ciphergoth’s example of Alcor suing people who accused it of fraud, for instance, strikes me as potentially reasonable—I think most companies would take legal action there.
As a general heuristic, I’m not aware of any respectable business which is often referred to as a cult and takes legal action against this. Apple does not sue people who talk about their fans as zealots / blind / cultists / etc., for instance. It’s also, as far as I know, not a solid legal case, unlike fraud, intellectual property, etc..
Thus, I’d generally conclude that “X sues anyone for calling them a cult” is a pretty good heuristic for “X is not an organization I trust.”
Whether they’re actually a cult seems moot, past that :)
It’s a pretty good heuristic, and if they’re not very cultish it’s a sign they’re sufficiently detached from the world to fail to understand that it’s a really bad sign.