I think I’ll side with the novices against Ougi here. The novices deserve a clearer answer than “think of ways to resolve your doubts” and “all will be clear when you try to use this stuff.” Cults usually tell people many things that are actually useful, and confronting leaders seems a reasonable way to resolve doubts. As I said before, the word “cult” is a bit too easy a word to throw around—I’d prefer a clearer description of what it means exactly and how to recognize one.
A few things to look for, gleaned from the Wikipedia article:
In Cults, coercive Mind Control is said to take these forms:
- People are put in physically or emotionally distressing situations;
- Their problems are reduced to one simple explanation, which is repeatedly emphasized;
- They receive what seems to be unconditional love, acceptance, and attention from a charismatic leader or group;
- They get a new identity based on the group;
- They are subject to entrapment (isolation from friends, relatives and the mainstream culture)
Cults also seem to involve the adulation of charismatic leaders, who become corrupted by the power the situation brings them. The most common complaints against cults involve sexual abuse of members. Cults have also been known to cause harm through getting members to forego medical care.
Okay, so taking a look at this checklist for LessWrong, we get...
People are put in physically or emotionally distressing situations;
Nope. (Well, not intentionally, anyway… does the basilisk count? People did have nightmares from that...)
Their problems are reduced to one simple explanation, which is repeatedly emphasized;
...Sort of? I mean, “rationality” is trumpeted as the Winning Way, but I’d say that’s justified in that it is the Winning Way. Besides, the category of “rationality” is rather broad, which might mean it doesn’t satisfy the definition of “one simple explanation”… eh. Tentatively going with “yes” for now.
They receive what seems to be unconditional love, acceptance, and attention from a charismatic leader or group;
Uh, yeah, not even close.
They get a new identity based on the group;
Pretty clear that this one gets a “yes”. People self-identify as “LWers” all the time.
They are subject to entrapment (isolation from friends, relatives and the mainstream culture)
Nope.
So, LessWrong meets two of the five criteria, and does not satisfy the remaining three. Does that make it a cult, or not?
Note: “it’s justified by being true” doesn’t help distinguish cults. You seem to be aware of this, though, because you still count that component of cultishness as true.
Eight years later, and these criteria are no longer in the Wikipedia article. Cults are now referred to as “new religions.” This taxonomy isn’t even available in the article on “anti-cult movement,” which does contain a taxonomy of anti-cult movements.
So I guess we’re fine now that the scholarly consensus has changed /s
I think I’ll side with the novices against Ougi here. The novices deserve a clearer answer than “think of ways to resolve your doubts” and “all will be clear when you try to use this stuff.” Cults usually tell people many things that are actually useful, and confronting leaders seems a reasonable way to resolve doubts. As I said before, the word “cult” is a bit too easy a word to throw around—I’d prefer a clearer description of what it means exactly and how to recognize one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult
A few things to look for, gleaned from the Wikipedia article:
In Cults, coercive Mind Control is said to take these forms:
Cults also seem to involve the adulation of charismatic leaders, who become corrupted by the power the situation brings them. The most common complaints against cults involve sexual abuse of members. Cults have also been known to cause harm through getting members to forego medical care.
I think this is ok for a place to start.
Okay, so taking a look at this checklist for LessWrong, we get...
Nope. (Well, not intentionally, anyway… does the basilisk count? People did have nightmares from that...)
...Sort of? I mean, “rationality” is trumpeted as the Winning Way, but I’d say that’s justified in that it is the Winning Way. Besides, the category of “rationality” is rather broad, which might mean it doesn’t satisfy the definition of “one simple explanation”… eh. Tentatively going with “yes” for now.
Uh, yeah, not even close.
Pretty clear that this one gets a “yes”. People self-identify as “LWers” all the time.
Nope.
So, LessWrong meets two of the five criteria, and does not satisfy the remaining three. Does that make it a cult, or not?
Note: “it’s justified by being true” doesn’t help distinguish cults. You seem to be aware of this, though, because you still count that component of cultishness as true.
Eight years later, and these criteria are no longer in the Wikipedia article. Cults are now referred to as “new religions.” This taxonomy isn’t even available in the article on “anti-cult movement,” which does contain a taxonomy of anti-cult movements.
So I guess we’re fine now that the scholarly consensus has changed /s