That would be a much more convincing example about cults in general if it weren’t about a failed dead cult. EDIT: I would add that successful cults tend to spend time and energy minimizing and explaining away failed prophecies rather than being happy to spiral into a tiny core of believers & no one else; Jehovah’s Witnesses spend little time discussing failed predictions by the Watchtower, and Christian theologians for millennia have been explaining away things like Jesus’s prophecy that the apocalypse would come within a generation of him.
BTW, if you are interested in cults, you should really read the book When Prophecy Fails (it’s on Libgen, so no excuses!) - you’ll find it doesn’t match your ideas about cults, but matches the academic literature described in OP, with regard to very low retention rates, minimal efficacy of recruitment, and the cult adding value to retained members’ lives.
I would add that successful cults tend to spend time and energy minimizing and explaining away failed prophecies rather than being happy to spiral into a tiny core of believers & no one else; Jehovah’s Witnesses spend little time discussing failed predictions by the Watchtower, and Christian theologians for millennia have been explaining away things like Jesus’s prophecy that the apocalypse would come within a generation of him.
Very few cults are as successful as Jehovah’s Witnesses or the like. Your typical cult is something fairly small, a congregation around one or a few literally insane persons which are indulging in short sighted self gratification such as convincing oneself that god speaks to them, or at times, around a person initially out for easy money (e.g. Keith Raniere). Said people need a certain number of close admirers. The danger, likewise, is not in the successes but in failure modes that infrequently include mass murder, and much more frequently include e.g. sexual abuse of minors, consequences to the member’s health, and so on.
Your typical cult is something fairly small, a congregation around one or a few literally insane persons which are indulging in short sighted self gratification such as convincing oneself that god speaks to them, or at times, around a person initially out for easy money (e.g. Keith Raniere).
The median cult may be small, but the median cult quickly dies. Why does this matter? If you were to apply your argument that cults are not intended to grow to, say, businesses, wouldn’t it look completely ridiculous?
‘Very few corporations are as successful as Microsoft. Your typical corporation is something fairly small, a group of one or two literally insanely optimistic entrepreneurs who are indulging in short-sighted egotistic expenditures such as the delusional belief that what the market needs is another Facebook clone, or at times, around a successful marketer out for easy money (e.g. Peter Pham). Said people need a certain number of close employees. Businesses are not intended to be successful or grow and make money, just keep loyal employees for the founder’s gratification. The danger, likewise, is not in the successes but in failure modes that infrequently include mass murder like the Bhopal incident, and much more frequently include e.g. sexual abuse of minors, consequences to the customer’s health, and so on.’
As I already said, cults die at such high rates that your theory is impossible because it presupposes utterly self-defeating behavior and is inconsistent with the behavior of successful cults.
The median cult may be small, but the median cult quickly dies. Why does this matter? If you were to apply your argument that cults are not intended to grow to, say, businesses, wouldn’t it look completely ridiculous?
I’d say vast majority of start-ups are founded by people with some head issues in the direction of narcissism. Who may well be in some abstract sense intending to succeed, but to get from intent to succeed to actions takes quite a lot of intellect, which they mostly lack. Meanwhile, day to day actions are actually based on desire for self gratification (avoidance of feedback especially, things that generally make them feel well), with very short sighted planning. The end result is massive waste of human potential (of those unfortunate enough to end up in said startups), financial losses (often avoided by the narcissistic founder himself), and so on.
As I already said, cults die at such high rates that your theory is impossible because it presupposes utterly self-defeating behavior
What? How is a theory that presupposes utterly self defeating behaviour at odds with, you know, defeat?
and is inconsistent with the behavior of successful cults.
I’m speaking of cults in general, which as you yourself say generally die. The few highly successful cults are not particularly bad, and succeed precisely by being dramatically different from the unsuccessful cults.
I’d say vast majority of start-ups are founded by people with some head issues in the direction of narcissism...Meanwhile, day to day actions are actually based on desire for self gratification (avoidance of feedback especially, things that generally make them feel well), with very short sighted planning.
I respect your bullet-biting with regard to equating startups and cults, even if I think your view is as ridiculous as it looks.
How is a theory that presupposes utterly self defeating behaviour at odds with, you know, defeat?
My point was that the cult death rates were similar to that of organizations which are not generally believed to be organized to gratify narcissistic leaders’ egos but make money, which would have been a counter example that refuted your argument, except you then chose to bite that bullet and argue that businesses are exactly like cults in this respect and aren’t counter-examples at all. So you’re right that that argument no longer works, but you’ve done so only by making completely absurd claims which prove too much.
If you want to argue that businesses are cults and hence the equivalent death rates are consistent with both being about leader gratification, that’s consistent. But it’s absurd and I don’t believe it for a second and I doubt anyone else will either.
That would be a much more convincing example about cults in general if it weren’t about a failed dead cult.
I think an example about a failed dead startup is most informative about startups in general.
edit: also, on the reading list, what I expect is for my interpretation of it to be quite massively different from yours. I’d be better served by picking a reputable book about cults at random, anyway (cherry picking vs unfiltered data).
edit2: as for adding value, I’m not sure value adding cults are nearly of as much of impact-weighted interest as cults which end up in a Jonestown. Furthermore, sunk cost fallacy—like failure mode seems massively relevant to retention in cults.
I think an example about a failed dead startup is most informative about startups in general.
What’s that? Surely if a prophecy were a useful filtering mechanism as you say, then dying is a problem. A cult which fails cannot serve anyone’s purpose at all...
I’d be better served by picking a reputable book about cults at random, anyway (cherry picking vs unfiltered data).
Fair enough, but shouldn’t you then retract your previous claims? I mean, what with it being based on cherry picked evidence and all?
Furthermore, sunk cost fallacy—like failure mode seems massively relevant to retention in cults.
You should probably know that I consider it seriously questionable whether sunk costs affect individuals at all, then, and reject the premise of that argument, much less whether it applies to cults.
Ohh, another good example of filtering, prophesies.
That would be a much more convincing example about cults in general if it weren’t about a failed dead cult. EDIT: I would add that successful cults tend to spend time and energy minimizing and explaining away failed prophecies rather than being happy to spiral into a tiny core of believers & no one else; Jehovah’s Witnesses spend little time discussing failed predictions by the Watchtower, and Christian theologians for millennia have been explaining away things like Jesus’s prophecy that the apocalypse would come within a generation of him.
BTW, if you are interested in cults, you should really read the book When Prophecy Fails (it’s on Libgen, so no excuses!) - you’ll find it doesn’t match your ideas about cults, but matches the academic literature described in OP, with regard to very low retention rates, minimal efficacy of recruitment, and the cult adding value to retained members’ lives.
Very few cults are as successful as Jehovah’s Witnesses or the like. Your typical cult is something fairly small, a congregation around one or a few literally insane persons which are indulging in short sighted self gratification such as convincing oneself that god speaks to them, or at times, around a person initially out for easy money (e.g. Keith Raniere). Said people need a certain number of close admirers. The danger, likewise, is not in the successes but in failure modes that infrequently include mass murder, and much more frequently include e.g. sexual abuse of minors, consequences to the member’s health, and so on.
The median cult may be small, but the median cult quickly dies. Why does this matter? If you were to apply your argument that cults are not intended to grow to, say, businesses, wouldn’t it look completely ridiculous?
‘Very few corporations are as successful as Microsoft. Your typical corporation is something fairly small, a group of one or two literally insanely optimistic entrepreneurs who are indulging in short-sighted egotistic expenditures such as the delusional belief that what the market needs is another Facebook clone, or at times, around a successful marketer out for easy money (e.g. Peter Pham). Said people need a certain number of close employees. Businesses are not intended to be successful or grow and make money, just keep loyal employees for the founder’s gratification. The danger, likewise, is not in the successes but in failure modes that infrequently include mass murder like the Bhopal incident, and much more frequently include e.g. sexual abuse of minors, consequences to the customer’s health, and so on.’
As I already said, cults die at such high rates that your theory is impossible because it presupposes utterly self-defeating behavior and is inconsistent with the behavior of successful cults.
I’d say vast majority of start-ups are founded by people with some head issues in the direction of narcissism. Who may well be in some abstract sense intending to succeed, but to get from intent to succeed to actions takes quite a lot of intellect, which they mostly lack. Meanwhile, day to day actions are actually based on desire for self gratification (avoidance of feedback especially, things that generally make them feel well), with very short sighted planning. The end result is massive waste of human potential (of those unfortunate enough to end up in said startups), financial losses (often avoided by the narcissistic founder himself), and so on.
What? How is a theory that presupposes utterly self defeating behaviour at odds with, you know, defeat?
I’m speaking of cults in general, which as you yourself say generally die. The few highly successful cults are not particularly bad, and succeed precisely by being dramatically different from the unsuccessful cults.
I respect your bullet-biting with regard to equating startups and cults, even if I think your view is as ridiculous as it looks.
My point was that the cult death rates were similar to that of organizations which are not generally believed to be organized to gratify narcissistic leaders’ egos but make money, which would have been a counter example that refuted your argument, except you then chose to bite that bullet and argue that businesses are exactly like cults in this respect and aren’t counter-examples at all. So you’re right that that argument no longer works, but you’ve done so only by making completely absurd claims which prove too much.
If you want to argue that businesses are cults and hence the equivalent death rates are consistent with both being about leader gratification, that’s consistent. But it’s absurd and I don’t believe it for a second and I doubt anyone else will either.
From recent personal experience at a startup, I am inclined to believe the view, as it makes said experience make a lot more sense.
Your reductio ad absurdam is something I can quite easily imagine Michael Vassar saying.
I think an example about a failed dead startup is most informative about startups in general.
edit: also, on the reading list, what I expect is for my interpretation of it to be quite massively different from yours. I’d be better served by picking a reputable book about cults at random, anyway (cherry picking vs unfiltered data).
edit2: as for adding value, I’m not sure value adding cults are nearly of as much of impact-weighted interest as cults which end up in a Jonestown. Furthermore, sunk cost fallacy—like failure mode seems massively relevant to retention in cults.
What’s that? Surely if a prophecy were a useful filtering mechanism as you say, then dying is a problem. A cult which fails cannot serve anyone’s purpose at all...
Fair enough, but shouldn’t you then retract your previous claims? I mean, what with it being based on cherry picked evidence and all?
You should probably know that I consider it seriously questionable whether sunk costs affect individuals at all, then, and reject the premise of that argument, much less whether it applies to cults.