You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Tenoke comments on Open Thread, October 27 - 31, 2013 - Less Wrong Discussion

2 Post author: mare-of-night 28 October 2013 12:59AM

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

Comments (382)

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

Comment author: Tenoke 29 October 2013 01:24:56PM *  1 point [-]

You too are using an even looser definition of a cult. Surely you know that 'cult' carries some different (negative) connotations for other people?

Comment author: JDelta 29 October 2013 01:33:37PM 0 points [-]

I never stated LW is a cult. It clearly isn't. It does however have at least several, possibly many, members who appear to think about LW in the way many cult members think of their cult.

Comment author: RichardKennaway 29 October 2013 02:14:30PM 3 points [-]

Observe the progression:

Yes, I get definite cultist vibes from some members.

...

Many LW people often appear to behave like this.

...

It does however have at least several, possibly many, members who appear to think about LW in the way many cult members think of their cult.

At this point, are you saying anything at all?

Comment author: JDelta 29 October 2013 02:20:15PM -1 points [-]

I assume an educated reader will infer the massive negative social connotations of any movement or organization that has a reputation, no matter how small at this point, as being 'cultish' -- such a reputation inevitably makes achieving goals, recruiting members, etc., more difficult.

Thus being careful not to create that image is very important (or should be) to the membership of the site.

Comment author: RichardKennaway 29 October 2013 02:27:30PM 1 point [-]

I assume an educated reader will infer the massive negative social connotations of any movement or organization that has a reputation, no matter how small at this point, as being 'cultish'

From saying almost nothing you have switched to overblown hyperbole. (BTW, I believe you mean "be aware of", not "infer".) It appears that LW does have, in some circles (like RationalWiki, ha) a cultish reputation, but I do not see "massive" consequences arising from that.

Comment author: JDelta 29 October 2013 11:25:51PM 0 points [-]

In a highly chaotic system like our society, small differences (e.g. a reputation in some circles as cultish) can decrease the odds of something gaining influence or acceptance incredibly.

People spend their whole lives researching sales, and any time someone is spreading an idea, sales comes into it. If you think any marketing department of a major company would accept the idea that some website likely visited by many, many, potential members discusses their organization in such a negative light, you are very mistaken. When even the regular members are discussing openly, are we getting a reputation as a cult, that is a terrible 'branding' failure.

For LW to achieve the potential most of it's members (I would assume) hope it will... yes there are consequences.

Any time a large group of potential members or future 'rationalists' (not to confuse LW with rationalism) is skeptical or inclined to disinterest in LW because they heard it had some sort of 'cultish' reputation, is a massive potential loss of people who could contribute and learn for the betterment of themselves and society as a whole.

Don't underestimate the impact of small differences when you are dealing with something as complex, and unpredictable as society and the spread of ideas.