ChristianKl comments on Notes on Brainwashing & 'Cults' - Less Wrong

35 Post author: gwern 13 September 2013 08:49PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (101)
Tags: psychology

Comments (101)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: private_messaging 14 September 2013 04:44:19PM *  2 points [-]

The low rate of retention is extreme filtering. The cults try to get members to sever ties with the family and friends, for example - and this is a filter, most people get creeped out and a few go through with it. edit: and of course, with such extreme filtering, one needs a lot of proselytism to draw just a hundred very dedicated supporters.

Comment author: ChristianKl 14 September 2013 08:26:46PM 2 points [-]

The cults try to get members to sever ties with the family and friends, for example - and this is a filter, most people get creeped out and a few go through with it.

I'm not sure whether that's true. You have people on LessWrong talking about cutting family ties with nonrational family members and nobody get's creeped out.

I don't think I have ever witnessed people getting creeped out by such discussions in the self help area and I think I have frequently heard people encouraging others to cut ties with someone that "holds them back".

Comment author: yli 15 September 2013 01:42:40AM *  5 points [-]

Really? Links? A lot of stuff here is a bit too culty for my tastes, or just embarassing, but "cutting family ties with nonrational family members"?? I haven't been following LW closely for a while now so I may have missed it, but that doesn't sound accurate.

Comment author: Douglas_Knight 15 September 2013 03:38:52AM 3 points [-]

Here's an example.

Comment author: Mestroyer 15 September 2013 02:56:56PM 3 points [-]

diegocaleiro didn't just say they were just irrational:

(1) Stupid (2) Religious (3) Non-rationalists (4) Absolutely clueless about reality (5) Pushy about inserting their ideas/ideals/weltenshaaung/motifs into you?

I strongly suspect that this isn't a case of "My family members don't believe as I do, therefore fuck those guys." but rather "These family members know that I am nonreligious and aggressively proselytize because of it." This probably isn't even about rationality or LessWrong, rather atheism.

Note also that it is diegocaleiro who initiated the conversation, and note the level of enthusiasm about the idea received from other posters (Only ChristianKI and Benito's responses seem wholly in favor, VilliamBur and drethelin's responses are against, shminux and BenLandauTaylor's responses are neutral).

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 15 September 2013 03:37:49PM 4 points [-]

"These family members know that I am nonreligious and aggressively proselytize because of it."

Outside view: These family members know that [diegocaleiro joined a group with weird non-mainstream religious beliefs] and [are trying to deconvert him].

Comment author: yli 15 September 2013 04:01:21AM *  2 points [-]

Thanks for the link. I don't really see creepy cult isolation in that discussion, and I think most people wouldn't, but that's just my intuitive judgment.

Comment author: ChristianKl 15 September 2013 09:56:07AM 6 points [-]

That's the point. It doesn't look that way from the inside.

If someone would tell those family members that the OP cutted their family ties with them because he made a rational analysis with help from his LessWrong friends those family member might see it as an example of the evil influence that LessWrong has on people.

Comment author: Costanza 14 September 2013 08:48:23PM 6 points [-]

I'm at least mildly creeped out by occasional cultish behavior on LessWrong. But every cause wants to be a cult

Eliezer said so, so therefore it is Truth.

Comment author: wedrifid 15 September 2013 02:10:17AM *  -1 points [-]

I'm not sure whether that's true. You have people on LessWrong talking about cutting family ties with nonrational family members and nobody get's creeped out.

I do not believe you. If it is the case that people talk about cutting family ties with 'nonrational family members' then there will be people creeped out by it.

Note that if the 'nonrational' family members also happen to be emotionally abusive family members this would not match the criteria as I interpret it. (Even then I expect some people to be creeped out by the ties cutting and would expect myself to aggressively oppose such expressions so as to suppress a toxic influence.)

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 15 September 2013 12:55:11PM 5 points [-]

Note that if the 'nonrational' family members also happen to be emotionally abusive family members this would not match the criteria as I interpret it.

You do realize that a lot of cults tend to classify normal family reactions, e.g., attempting to get the person out of the cult, as emotional abuse.

Comment author: wedrifid 15 September 2013 01:33:36PM *  3 points [-]

You do realize that a lot of cults tend to classify normal family reactions, e.g., attempting to get the person out of the cult, as emotional abuse.

I don't care and I'm somewhat outraged at this distortion of reasoning. It is so obviously bad and yet remains common and is all too seldom refuted. Emotional abuse is a sufficiently well defined thing. It is an undesirable thing. Various strategies for dealing with it are possible. In severe cases and in relationships where the gains do not offset the damage then severing ties is an appropriate strategy to consider. This doesn't stop being the case if someone else also misuses the phrase 'emotional abuse'.

Enduring emotional abuse rather than severing ties with the abuser because sometimes cultists sever ties while using that phrase is idiotic. Calling people 'creepy' for advocating sane, mainstream interpersonal strategies is absurd and evil.

Comment author: Kaj_Sotala 18 September 2013 05:44:00AM *  4 points [-]

I don't care and I'm somewhat outraged at this distortion of reasoning. It is so obviously bad and yet remains common and is all too seldom refuted.

Sorry, exactly what is it that you're outraged about? Eugene seemed to merely be pointing out that people inside particular social groups might see things differently than people outside them, with the outsiders being creeped out and insiders not being that. More specifically, that things that we deem okay might come off as creepy to outsiders. That seems correct to me.

Comment author: wedrifid 18 September 2013 06:44:59AM 0 points [-]

Sorry, exactly what is it that you're outraged about?

As a general policy:

  • All cases where non-sequitur but technically true claims are made where the actual implied rhetorical meaning is fallacious. Human social instincts are such that most otherwise intelligent humans seem to be particularly vulnerable to this form of persuasion.
  • All arguments or insinuations of the form "Hitler, Osama Bin Laden and/or cultists do <something superficially similar to X>. Therefore, if you say that <X> is ok then you are Bad."
  • Additional outrage, disdain or contempt applies when:
    • The non-sequitur's are, through either high social skill or (as in this case) plain luck, well calibrated to persuade the audience despite being bullshit.
    • Actual negative consequences can be expected to result from the epistemic damage perpetrated.
Comment author: Kaj_Sotala 20 September 2013 11:38:45AM *  5 points [-]

Thanks, that sounds reasonable. I didn't interpret Eugene's comments as being guilty of any of those, though.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 19 September 2013 07:28:43AM -1 points [-]

All cases where non-sequitur but technically true claims are made where the actual implied rhetorical meaning is fallacious. Human social instincts are such that most otherwise intelligent humans seem to be particularly vulnerable to this form of persuasion.

In my experience nearly all accusations that someone is being "emotionally abusive" are of this type.

Comment author: wedrifid 19 September 2013 10:52:03AM *  2 points [-]

In my experience nearly all accusations that someone is being "emotionally abusive" are of this type.

If that is true then you are fortunate to have lived such a sheltered existence. If it is not true (and to some extent even if it is) then I expect being exposed to this kind of denial and accusation of dishonesty to be rather damaging to those who are actual victims of the phenonemon you claim is 'nearly all' fallacious accusation.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 19 September 2013 08:31:58PM -1 points [-]

If that is true then you are fortunate to have lived such a sheltered existence.

I could say the same thing about you if you've never encountered people willing to make false accusations of abuse (frequently on behalf of children) with the force of the law, or at least child services behind them.

If it is not true (and to some extent even if it is) then I expect being exposed to this kind of denial and accusation of dishonesty to be rather damaging to those who are actual victims of the phenonemon you claim is 'nearly all' fallacious accusation.

This is as good a summery of the "how dare you urge restraint" position as any I've heard.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 15 September 2013 03:29:46PM 6 points [-]

Emotional abuse is a sufficiently well defined thing. It is an undesirable thing.

So could you provide a definition. The article you linked to begins by saying:

As of 1996, There were "no consensus views about the definition of emotional abuse."

And then proceeds to list three categories that are sufficiently vague to include a lot of legitimate behavior.

Enduring emotional abuse rather than severing ties with the abuser because sometimes cultists sever ties while using that phrase is idiotic.

You don't seem to be getting the concept of "outside view". Think about it this way: as the example of cults shows, humans have a bias that makes them interpret Bob attempting to persuade Alice away from one's meme set as emotional abuse. Consider the possibility that you're also suffering from this bias.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit