Elizabeth

Wikitag Contributions

Comments

Sorted by

Fixed a foot problem my physical therapist whiffed on, and no. 

Elizabeth*104

This theory feels insufficient to me, or like it's missing a step. It makes sense to me for people to pay when their preferred porn is undersupplied, but incest porn is now abundant. You need a more specific reason incest fans will pay even when they don't have to. 

Additionally, "but you're my stepdad" isn't equivalent to a couple of foot shots. Lots of people are (or at least were) turned off by incest. 

It looks like you're right that he didn't receive much funding via networks or sending churches. The podcast describes initial support coming from "friends and family", in ways that sound more like a friends and family round of start-up funding than normal tithes. 

I'm still under the impression that he received initial endorsements, blessings, and mentorship from people who should have known better. 

In practice, newly planted churches[1] are cults of personality (neutral valence) around the planting team, or sometimes just the lead pastor[2]. "developing a theme which highlights the vision and philosophy of ministry" and "establishing a clear church identity related to the theme and vision" is inevitably[3] about selling yourself as a brand. 

It's possible to be a non-narcissist and pass this checklist, including the vision part. But it's a lot easier if you have a high opinion of yourself, few doubts, don't care about harming others, and love being the center of attention . 

  1. ^

    of this type. Presumably there are other types we hear less about because they don't seek growth and publicity.

  2. ^

    Sources: Rise and Fall of Mars Hill Church, Terminal: The Dying Church Planter

  3. ^

    in this type

Elizabeth*266

Last week I got nerdsniped with the question of why established evangelical leaders had a habit of taking charismatic  narcissists and giving them support to found their own churches[1]. I expected this to be a whole saga that would teach lessons on how selecting for one set of good things secretly traded off against others. Then I found this checklist on churchplanting.com. It’s basically “tell me you’re a charismatic narcissist who will prioritize growth above virtue without telling me you’re a…“. And not charismatic in the sense of asking reasonable object-level questions that are assessed by a 3rd party and thus vulnerable to halo effects[2]

The first and presumably most important item on the checklist is "Visioning capacity", which includes both the ability to dream that you are very important and to convince others to follow that dream. Comittment to growth has it's own section (7), but it's also embedded in, but there's also section 4 (skill at attracting converts).  Section 12 is Resilience, but the only specific setback mentioned is ups and downs in attendance. The very item on the list is "Can you create a grand Faith" is the last item on the 13 point list. "displaying Godly love and compassion to people" is a subheading under "6. Effectively builds relationships".

There are other checklists that at least ask about character, so this isn’t all church planting. But it looks like the answer to "why do some evangelicals support charismatic narcissists that prioritize growth above all else..." is “because that's what they want, presumably for the same reason lots of people value charm and growth."

  1. ^

    This is church planting, where the churches may advise, or fund but not have any authority over like they might in mainline denominations.

  2. ^

    nor in the Christian sense of Charismatic

Elizabeth*20

From Auren. Note we had just been talking about church planting, and Auren has no way to reset state. We'd also previously talked about my taste in stand-up comics. 

 

Elizabeth9-1

My biggest outstanding question is "why did church network leaders give resources to a dude who had never/barely been to church to start his own?" There were probably subtler warning signs but surely they shouldn't have been necessary once you encountered that fact and the fact that he was proud of it. If anyone has insight or sources on this I'd love to chat. 

Elizabeth519

Sometimes people deliberately fill their environment with yes-men and drive out critics. Pointing out what they're doing doesn't help, because they're doing it on purpose. However there are ways well intentioned people end up driving out critics unintentionally, and those are worth talking about.

The Rise and Fall of Mars Hill Church (podcast) is about a guy who definitely drove out critics deliberately. Mark Driscoll fired people, led his church to shun them, and rearranged the legal structure of the church to consolidate power. It worked, and his power was unchecked until the entire church collapsed. Yawn.

What's interesting is who he hired after the purges. As described in a later episode, his later hiring was focused on people who were executives in the secular world. These people were great at executing on tasks, but unopinionated about what their task should be. Whatever Driscoll said was what they did. 

This is something a good, feedback-craving leader could have done by accident. Hiring people who are good at the tasks you want them to do is a pretty natural move. But I think the speaker is correct (alas I didn't write down his name) that this is anti-correlated at the tails- the best executors become so by not caring about what they're executing. 

So if you're a leader and want to receive a healthy amount of pushback, it's not enough to hire hypercompetent people and listen when they push back. You have to select specifically for ability to push back (including both willingness, and having good opinions).

Elizabeth270

PSA: If you are older than ~30 you may have only received 1 dose of MMR vaccine (which includes measles), and should consider a second one. I have not done the EV math on this.

in 1989  the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), and the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) all shifted from recommending 1 dose of the MMR vaccine to 2, with the second dose coming between 4-6 years old, because of outbreaks in adults who received only 1 dose. This means almost everyone who was 7 or older in 1989 received only one shot, people between 1-6 in 1989 may or may not have received a second, and I'm unclear how fast pediatricians adopted the standard so I'm not sure what the chances of a second shot are for people between ~30 and 35.

A third shot is generally considered harmless but if you're being cautious it's possible to check your childhood vaccine records. I was able to get mine from my school district; if your pediatrician's office is still around you can also try them.

I wanted to publish this with actual math on the costs and benefits, but the post was suffering from serious feature creep and I at least wanted to get this one fact out there quickly. 

Elizabeth*212

Recently Timothy TL and I published a podcast on OpenPhil and GoodVentures. As part of this, we contacted 16 people and organizations asking for comment. They were given access to the full recording as well as a searching transcript.

  • Responded with small correction- 2
  • Responded with medium size correction- 1
  • Responded with long correction- 2
  • Asked for more time- 2 (counted in other categories as well)
    • We offered one week to tell us if they were going to respond, an additional week to give a response that would be included in the recording, and longer for something we would link to in text but not include on the recording.
  • Responded to say no comment- 4
  • No response: 7

Last time I did this the results were impressive, with over half of respondents answering in <24 hours and only 2 non-responders. I walked away thinking asking for comments was a surprisingly cheap norm with a lot of upside. This time it felt like a slog, with the process dragging on for weeks beyond what I felt was a quite generous initial deadline. 

Load More