The reason why I asked was not just "who can we be pattern-matched with?", but also "what can we predict from this pattern-matching?". Not merely to say "X is like Y", but to say "X is like Y, and p(Y) is true, therefore it is possible that p(X) is also true".

Here are two answers pattern-matching LW to a cult. For me, the interesting question here is: "how do cults evolve?". Because that can be used to predict how LW will evolve. Not connotations, but predictions of future experiences.

My impression of cults is that they essentially have three possible futures: Some of them become small, increasingly isolated groups, that die with their members. Others are viral enough to keep replacing the old members with new members, and grow. The most successful ones discover a way of living that does not burn out their members, and become religions. -- Extinction, virality, or symbiosis.

What determines which way a cult will go? Probably it's compatibility of long-term membership with ordinary human life. If it's too costly, if it requires too much sacrifice from members, symbiosis is impossible. The other two choices probably depend on how much effort does the group put into recruiting new members.

Having too many young people is some evidence of incompatibility. Perhaps the group requires a level of sacrifice that a university student can pay, but an employed father or mother with children simply cannot. What happens to the members who are unable to give the sacrifice? Well... in LW community nothing happens to anyone. How boring! It's not like I will become excommunicated if I stop reading the website every day. (Although, I may be excommunicated from the "top contributors, 30 days" list.) So the question is whether members who don't have too much time can still find the community meaningful, or whether they will leave voluntarily. In other words: Is LessWrong useful for an older person with a busy family life? -- If yes, symbiosis is possible; if no, it's probably virality as long as the website and rationality seminars keep attracting new people, or extinction if they fail to.

In this light, I am happy about recent Gunnar's articles, and I hope he will not be alone. Because the cult (or Mormonism) analogy suggests that this is the right way to go, for long-term sustainability.

The other analogy, with shining self-improvement seminars, seems more worrying to me. In self-improvement seminars, the speakers are not rewarded for actually helping people; they are rewarded for sounding good. (We know the names of some self-help gurus... but don't know the names of people who became awesome because of their seminars. Their references are all about their image, none about their product.) Is rationality advice similar?

This is an old problem, actually the problem discussed in the oldest article on LessWrong: if we can't measure rationality, we can't measure improvements in rationality... and then all we can say about CFAR rationality lessons is that they feel good. -- Unless perhaps the questionnaires given to people who did and didn't attend rationality minicamps showed some interesting results.

And by the way, whether we have or don't have an applied rationality subreddit, doesn't seem too important to me. The important thing is, whether we have or don't have applied rationality articles. (Those articles could as well be posted in Main or Discussion. And the new subreddit will not generate them automatically.)