Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by cainxinth | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

cainxinth

Cults have common and shared warning signs:

https://medium.com/@zelphontheshelf/10-signs-youre-probably-...

1. The leader is the ultimate authority

2. The group suppresses skepticism

3. The group delegitimizes former members

4. The group is paranoid about the outside world

5. The group relies on shame cycles

6. The leader is above the law

7. The group uses “thought reform” methods

8. The group is elitist

9. There is no financial transparency

10. The group performs secret rites

Also, not all cults are religious. Some are tied to economic activity (MLMs are very culty, for example), and dysfunctional families often take on a cult-like atmosphere, with a charismatic and controlling parent backed by enablers as they abuse a scapegoat and dominate the family.

View on HN

> Also, not all cults are religious

Now we're well into the map vs territory. In the attempt to define a cult (something which we intuit) we end up fixated on the boundary between what is a cult and what is not a cult, and try to create a taxonomic rule-based classification.

The mistake is then to assume that that rule-based classification defines what a cult is (rather than attempts to describe what is a cult) and you end up saying that something (like MLMs) are a "cult" even though they are not! I mean, you can make an analogy to a cult, or show cult-like properties, but absent a religious motivation (where "religious" itself is a similarly nebulous concept) it's not a cult.

If your rule-based model defines something which is not a cult (subjectively) as a cult (objectively), then your definitions are bad, period, and you should stop using them. Instead, embrace fuzziness and subjectivity and look for the interesting properties of "cult", and learn what it teaches us about language and society.

>absent a religious motivation (where "religious" itself is a similarly nebulous concept) it's not a cult.

NXIVM was absolutely a cult, despite a focus on self-improvement/ philosophy rather than religion. They had a supreme leader, they cut off the members from the outside, there was a clean ingroup/outgroup and they freaking branded their members. Sure, in most ways it was "just" an MLM but it was also absolutely a cult and it absolutely ruined people's lives in an identical way.

Scientology was a cult even before the point it took on the trappings of religion for tax purposes. It was originally NOT a religion - it was just more pseudo-scientific MLM nonsense. It was still a cult.

Sex cults are also definitely cults, even though the focus is on sex and the leader in general rather than religion.

So you list a bunch of bad things that NXIVM did. How does labeling it a "cult" add or detract from that list of bad things?

Sure, it did bad things. If a member were a Christian, did it force them to denounce God or renounce their hope of salvation, or to otherwise accept heretical beliefs? I am not Christian; these are not things important to me, but they are part of the operational definition of a classical cult, which NXIVM is not, in that sense.

Why use the label cult? As a rhetorical device, that's fine, but don't present it to me as an absolute. Even the wikipedia article on NXIVM, for example, calls it a "personality cult", a term specifically invented to refer to a cult-like organization organized around a persona rather than a religious precept.

Language is free -- what I think subjectively is a cult and what you do are different, and usage will evolve as time goes on, and that's fine. I'm in general in favor of holding to a narrower definition because otherwise the semantic mismatch in discussing cults can get very broad, to the point where we're just talking about two different things and the connection from cult -> occult -> hidden knowledge has been completely lost. EDIT: And not stated here, but my main thrust, is that expanding the meaning because of poorly scoped definitions is the worst possible way to go about it because it's motivated by pseudo-logic rather than by organic usage.

> I am not Christian; these are not things important to me, but they are part of the operational definition of a classical cult, which NXIVM is not, in that sense.

Could you possibly link to this singular, authoritative (and non-contested) "operational definition of a classical cult"?

> Why use the label cult? As a rhetorical device, that's fine, but don't present it to me as an absolute.

Only your absolute definition is allowed? Is there a governing body for such things?

> Language is free -- what I think subjectively is a cult and what you do are different, and usage will evolve as time goes on, and that's fine.

This is a bit inconsistent with the rest of your comment - what constitutes a cult is now subjective?

> I'm in general in favor of holding to a narrower definition because otherwise the semantic mismatch in discussing cults can get very broad, to the point where we're just talking about two different things and the connection from cult -> occult -> hidden knowledge has been completely lost.

Is it possible that this could be happening right here in this thread?

> EDIT: And not stated here, but my main thrust, is that expanding the meaning because of poorly scoped definitions is the worst possible way to go about it because it's motivated by pseudo-logic rather than by organic usage.

Now we're back to "the (singular) meaning"?

Sir: do you recall where you acquired your facts? Did those who provided them to you include any supporting proofs?

The thing about operational usage is that they don't need a definition, nor do they purport to be absolute, but strictly context-dependent. That's what operational means in this context. For a Christian worried about a congregant joining an organization, if they required those things then it would be considered a "cult" (also usually required here is that it be a small organization).

I do not have an absolute definition! That's my whole point! Nor do I deny yours, but only point out that the label, by itself, adds no value to the discussion, unless there's a common framework. Surely you can acknowledge that a significant number of people would require a religious belief; that's what makes the accusation against NIXVM particularly outre, because they are cult-like without a religious element, and saying they are a cult is a way to associate them with something generally found distateful.

> This is a bit inconsistent with the rest of your comment - what constitutes a cult is now subjective?

YES! A MILLION TIMES YES! On the border of the taxonomy, things get very wishy-washy -- but finding someone who says that Heaven's Gate or Jonestown are not cults would be enormously difficult. The usage of "cult" only works because we have a shared cultural experience with the notion of cult. and invoking that when referring to things like NXIVM is a rhetorical device, nothing more.

I don't get to "decide" the meaning of "cult" and neither do you! It's a word in a living language in the milieu of a society with a shared cultural heritage that carries history and connotation stretching back to before we were born. It is ultimately uninteresting to debate whether NIVMX is a cult or not because it does not make more acceptable or condemnatory their practices.

If you could make a strong statement; "they exhibited the following cult-like attributes, and in consequence, like every organization with those attributes, they also exhibited these behaviors" then you're on to something; you're doing observational sociology. But here all you're really saying is "they are super double bad", which is, okay, fine, but you can just call them fascists or communists or something else that people hate and it has the same impact.

> I do not have an absolute definition!

Unless you're being deliberately ironic for effect and it's going over my head, are you not saying religion is an absolute requirement for a cult?

> The usage of "cult" only works because we have a shared cultural experience with the notion of cult. and invoking that when referring to things like NXIVM is a rhetorical device, nothing more.

Another shared cultural experience is delusions of omniscience.

> If you could make a strong statement; "they exhibited the following cult-like attributes, and in consequence, like every organization with those attributes, they also exhibited these behaviors" then you're on to something; you're doing observational sociology.

Until our culture can take the distinction between reality and perception of it seriously, such observational sociology will operate on a platform of delusion.

That said, starting with this and dealing with the psychological issues later seems like a very reasonable strategy.

> But here all you're really saying is "they are super double bad", which is, okay, fine, but you can just call them fascists or communists or something else that people hate and it has the same impact.

A problem: this did not actually occur (this is an extremely common behavior that ideally would be persuaded out of people somehow....but I suspect you are averse to even discussing it).

Some people have been saying we are a cult, but they are not using the correct definition of "cult," in our opinion.

Exactly this! The attempt to reduce "cult" to a strict rule-based definition means you can be endlessly mired in semantic debate rather than actually address the operational parameters that make an organization or association unattractive to join, which is usually what people mean when they say "that's a cult".

"Cult" carries a ton of baggage. You say "hey, that MLM you want to join satisfies 4/10 properties of a cult -- it's a cult!" and the baggage is "Jonestown was a cult and they all died. Heaven's gate was a cult and they all died. Branch Davidian was a cult and they all died." It's a rhetorical sleight of hand, nothing more, and it will not convince anyone or create an interesting discussion; it'll just come down to some argument about whether Catholicism is a cult.

In order to actually get anything useful, you have to show how the cult-like properties either inevitably lead to the negative consequences (which is nigh impossible; some of these definitions apply to little league teams) or talk about the specific negative or questionable behaviors of the organization itself.

As far as I can tell you’re the only one mired in a semantic debate.

The list of signs of a cult above is a useful rubric for determining if an organizational is harmful. And as others have noted the technical term “high-demand organization” has grown specifically to leave behind the religious implications of “cult”, though language moves slow and many will still use that term day to day.

Are there any organizations you’ve been involved in that have been called a cult?

Well, I wouldn't say "mired", but I do agree that I'm the only one directly addressing the distinction between substance and semantics.

I do not agree about the list. That list is there to win semantic arguments about whether something is a cult or not. Nothing to do with harm; you can argue that some of the criteria, like "shame cycles" are harmful in and of themselves, but most are harmless attributes. Apply it to a kid's soccer team to see this.

I have never been involved in a cult. But sure, calling things a cult is cheap. I'm Jewish, I have been a Ron Paul supporter, card-carrying ACLU member. All of those things have been called cults.

No, the list is diagnostic, in the same way that lists of behaviors and experiences that may indicate depression, bpd, or any psychological state/disorder is. The list is "you may be in a cult if", not "lol it's totally a cult nerd, look at this definitive list"

I agree that people use "cult" too quickly. But that doesn't mean that a list like that isn't helpful.

Plus if your kids soccer team "delegitimizes former members", "is paranoid about the outside world" and "relies on shame cycles" then … big oof! These are not typical behaviors.

(Part of your argument I think is that these ideas are subjective. If you're in a jewish group that has a meeting about rising anti-semitism are you "paranoid". Hell no. But could someone call you "paranoid"? Sure. Working through that subjectiveness is actually where the meat of this issue is.)

Well, obviously don't get me started on psychological classification and diagnostic criteria. Those only work because a trained practicing psychologist can tell the difference between the ordinary form and the pathological form of those criteria (subjectively and through experience); in the hands of a layman they might as well be a recipe for hypochondria.

The real question someone is asking when they ask "am I in a cult" is not about whether you can mark your religion as "cult" on your taxes. The question is "am I in danger of harm", and it is better to ask yourself that question directly -- is there sexual or physical abuse among the members; is there a financial obligation; does the group engage in abusive punishments or penalties. If it does those things who cares if it's a cult or not; get the hell out!

For the soccer team analogy a simple colloquial reading is fine -- "delegitimizes former members" : "quitters" -- "paranoid about the outside world" : "refs are crooked" -- "shame cycles" : well, that one is pretty bad, but it is not unusual for people to get significant personal gratification and the respect of your teammates for excellent performance, and to feel shame for failures.

Sure, subjectivity is part of it too. But if you're looking for diagnostic criteria in that list, you have to implicitly add "in a cult-like manner" to all of the criteria, and rely on the common subjective understanding of what a "cult" is to determine if they apply.

https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/are-yall-with-the-cult

Are you arguing that we should not try to define the words we use because natural language is always fuzzy? Or are you just objecting to a definition of "cult" that doesn't require religion?

No, define away! Descriptivism is a wonderful way to examine artifacts of human activity. But be wary of prescriptivism -- because you have defined a category does not mean you have provided a test for membership, especially if there are connotations associated with the original category.

Definitions when applied prescriptively have to be looked at from an operational perspective -- _why_ does it matter that this instance belongs to that category?

Is this GPT3 generated text?

-1

Its was probably written by an adult.

Feel free to disagree and engage in the discussion rather than using reductive cheap shots.

Instead of writing an elaborately referenced reply to andrewla, I decided to mention that the current term people are using is "high-demand groups" because to monotheists, part of the "cult" definition is tied up in the deviation from their religion.

If we're talking about extremely insular, high-commitment groups that tend to punish people who leave, we might as well leave behind a word that is just as often used by monotheists to refer to heretics. "Cult" and "occult" are from "hidden" anyway, as in you'd better hide if you're a heretic.

It’s been posted here before but The Guru Papers is a great exploration of the workings of cults and authoritarianism. https://www.amazon.com/Guru-Papers-Masks-Authoritarian-Power...

I enjoyed reading "Holy Madness: Spirituality, Crazy-Wise Teachers, and Enlightenment" by G. Feuerstein. great re-visit of the sometimes ridiculous counter-culture of the 1960s and 1970s West.

Are any of those required or sufficient? Because I see a lot of overlap in those "warning signs". I could probably whittle it down to just three observations about group dynamics:

- sharp distinction between in-group and out-group (covers 3, 4, 8)

- high degree of social control (covers 5, 6, 7, 10)

- truth is a social construct (covers 1, 2, 7, probably 9 as well)

By the way, I prefer this list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_Reform_and_the_Psychol...

I think that if you try to compress the information too much, it becomes too abstract and meaningless. Your local library also distinguishes between members and non-members, but it doesn't imply that they slander the former members, or are paranoid about people who buy their own books. Social control can be achieved by different ways; for some reason it seems important that cults use shame as a specific psychological tool. Many cults would strongly object against the words that "truth is a social construct", despite the fact that they use it exactly that way.

There is a social mechanism that seems unusually successful at hacking human brains. It has probably been reinvented many times independently by various abusive people, but some people also copy some behaviors from their previous groups. Lists like this are attempts to describe the mechanism. The individual points are not independent things, but parts of a complex whole, reinforcing each other. For example, it is easier for the group to shame you, after they have convinced you that all your achievements outside the group are worthless. And it is easier to convince you that everything outside the group is worthless, if they falsely exaggerate the value of the group, and then apply black-and-white thinking (our group is miraculous, the world outside is not, therefore the world outside is worthless). Black-and-white thinking comes easier if they convince you that the teachings are super important, so it is important to get them absolutely right. Etc.

My litmus test is when the leader starts sleeping with everyone, or shows some other selfish motive that makes the “above the law” stuff necessary to avoid cognitive dissonance.

Approximate line from the Waco miniseries on Netflix: "Why is it, that whenever God speaks to a prophet, it's always to tell him to have sex with a bunch of women?"

add to that - its not "sleeping" .. it is sex.. sometimes very energetic sex. Sex activity is deeply tied to social constructs, and at the same time powerful forces of the mind and body in a very personal way .. sex activity in a group like that has been the raison d'etre of many orthodox religious orders.. anti- that is, to ban and demolish that, basically.. because it does work.

It's not on the list, but that one is definitely common, too. Whenever someone says they have a direct line of communication with a deity, you just know there is a good chance they are going to follow up with: "And I just got off the horn with the big guy and he says I'm allowed to bang anyone I want."

As someone that is growth up in a religious semi-cult, this is impressive. It's just the description of the environment where I grow up.

I think the issue with any definition and why people say “everything is a cult”, is because I read this list and it makes me feel like progressivism is a cult based on it. Though I’m sure a progressive would say Trumpism is a cult.

LDS is accused of being a cult. But they’re generally nice neighbors. Is it still a cult if it gets big enough? Islam would’ve once been a cult as well as Christianity.

At the very least it seems any religion is a cult. We can argue then about whether something is religious or not.

>Is it still a cult if it gets big enough?

To draw an analogy, if a street gang gets big enough and controls enough territory, is it a government?

The obvious follow up question is that if these phenomena only differ in size of membership, what makes one "legitimate" and the other not? Is there such a thing as a legitimate government and a legitimate religion, or are they all just another level of street gangs and cults?

For governments anyway we have an answer. Sure at some level the organization of hard force in the form of police is subject to the same practical considerations and constraints as the organization of hard force in the form of a gang, and will thus take a superficially similar form, but a gang does not give you a day in court nor does it set up a system of fair and impartial trials nor does it let you vote on its rules. A gang is fundamentally self serving. It exists for the enrichment of itself at the expense of those outside of it. A democracy, in contrast, directly contradicts the premise "the leader is above the law." So there is such a thing as a "legitimate government".

Existence and uniqueness of "legitimate religion" is left as an exercise for the reader.

(btw Trumpism is absolutely a cult. Just look at it, they had to invent the word "Trumpism" to describe the phenomena because it did not fit any other defined political philosophy and the only constant non-contradictory belief it has is loyalty to Trump himself. Seriously, try defining Trumpism in some way other than "agreeing with what Trump says no matter what." Its impossible. That's a cult.)

Just curious: do you think that any government where the leader is not above the law is legitimate?

Legitimacy is more often a spectrum than a binary thing. Rule of law, by which I mean the law itself is the ruler and not the person enforcing it, is a necessary but not sufficient condition. The essence of what we are calling legitimacy is that the government derives its authority from something other than physical force. In a situation like you described, where the ruler themselves isn't personally above the law, the law itself might still derive from "because some authority said so".

For example, you could have a case like China which up until recently had rulers that stepped down every 5 years. I'd call that a textbook example of the rulers themselves being subject to the rules, and indeed regular peaceful transfers of power is something rarely ever seen outside of Democracies. In spite of having some amount of rule of law, China doesn't quite match the way I've defined legitimacy, because the laws of China themselves are ultimately derived from "because the party said so". So the legitimacy of the laws rest on the legitimacy of the communist party. Where does that legitimacy come from? The short answer is "Chinese standard of living better keep trending upwards forever."

In summary, every religion.

One criteria that's fairly defining of a cult, by my definition, is major operational secrecy. People who join don't know what the higher-ups are doing. Indeed, they often don't know the fundamental doctrines of the cult! E.g. people who join Scientology don't get the whole "God is a space alien" package dropped on them until they're many, many $10,000s down the hole already.

Now, let's take Catholicism, probably the major faith most often accused of cult-like behaviour. It certainly has some of the most political structure and (pardon the pun) orthodoxy of the major religions. But Catholicism is also extremely open. There are no fees to join. There are no mandatory payments. There are no doctrinal secrets. They're entirely open about everything they believe, up front. You don't get whacked with some dark secret ten years in. They also don't really attempt to control most, let alone all, domains of of members' lives. They go about careers, etc. as they see fit. They're also tolerant of internal criticism and dissent; you've got some Cardinals in favour of gay marriage, and some of the loudest voices about the systematic sex abuse problem (one of the biggest reasons one might call them a cult) are coming from adherent Catholics, who aren't automatically excommunicated or given other traditionally cult-like handling for their dissent.

Such difference seems very significant to me. And I'm an atheist and decidedly anti-religious, for what it's worth.

>Such difference seems very significant to me.

Thank you for your honesty. As a Catholic it's interesting to hear the perspective of an atheist on this topic.

Christianity rejects at a philosophical level any sort of dependence on 'secret information'. The teachings of the Catholic Church should stand up to scrutiny and there is nothing to hide.

> Now, let's take Catholicism ... They also don't really attempt to control most, let alone all, domains of of members' lives.

Really?

"The Catholic position on contraception was formally explained and expressed by Pope Paul VI's Humanae vitae in 1968. Artificial contraception is considered intrinsically evil, but methods of natural family planning may be used, as they do not usurp the natural way of conception."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_birth_contr...

Having a strong stance in one domain != moral totalitarianism. Some branches of Jainism recommends brushing the sidewalk ahead of you so as to avoid destroying any insects unnecessarily. A totalitarian religion controlling all aspects of life? Or just a profoundly intense moral doctrine that, naturally, has ramifications throughout many aspects of life if you accept it?

This is a doctrine that's famously ignored by most practicing Catholics. I could write paragraphs of criticism of the Catholic Church, but it's not really any more cult-like than lots of other organizations that people belong to (the most obvious example being the organizations that they work for).

> every religion

The world's beliefs are many and varied. There are plenty of religious groups that provide a foundation for a healthy life instead of insisting they are the only means to achieving it.

You'll be hardpressed to apply this list of grievances to the average Buddhist community, for instance. Sikhs, Jains, Baha'i, Quakers -- many more come to mind.

You know, I was just thinking about how closely the Baha'i communities I knew fit this definition. #1 and #6 apply to Baha'u'llah, of course, but since he's been dead for quite a while it's less of an issue. More concerningly, they could plausibly be applied to many LSA, NSA, and UHJ members: there are explicit injunctions in the writings against using the secular legal system to resolve disputes among Baha'is, and in most communities there are people in the LSA who the LSA will definitely never rule against in any dispute. In general, criticizing members of the LSA, NSA, or UHJ is strongly discouraged as "creating disunity", even more strongly than publicly criticizing other people.

#2 and #3 are pretty extreme. If you have social contact with a Covenant-Breaker you are likely to lose your voting rights.

#4 is of course somewhat true because most Baha'is know someone who has been imprisoned or killed (in Iran) for being Baha'i, or at least know someone who knows someone. You'd have to be pretty irrational not to be somewhat paranoid under those circumstances.

I'm not sure what is meant by #5, but shame of course has a prominent place in the Baha'i faith, as in any religion.

Going through the list, though, I think that to a significant extent it's just a rough definition of "religion" or "culture", plus elements of leadership. Is Thomas Jefferson "above the law"? Is Muhammad? Of course they are, you can't prosecute them. Is the US Government? Yes, it has "sovereign immunity". You'd be hard-pressed to find any culture that didn't consider itself superior to the outgroup, yet vulnerable to attacks from it, or that didn't enforce some degree of ideological conformity, or that didn't shame deviations from its norms.

This may be a fun r/atheism tier quip, but most eastern religions don't fit this mold, being too vaguely defined/unorganized for any cult analogies to apply.

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/2MD3NMLBPCqPfnfre/cached-tho...

What I like about this article is that the author suffers from the very phenomenon they are describing, demonstrating how ubiquitous and hard to detect in oneself it is.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com