I dunno, under this definition isn't pretty much every group a cult? A group that gives outsiders as much influence as insiders isn't really a group at all, and a lot of groups pick their most impactful arguments even if they're somewhat sketchy if you look too closely[1]. Earlier this week I was at a culty Safeway that didn't have any space for competitors to advertise, and which falsely claimed to "Always have the best deals*".
I'm not saying we should do this, and pushing back on arguments you think are bad is a good thing, but the drowning child thought experiment doesn't seem particularly culty.
Yes, pretty much every (large) group has cult adaptations. Otherwise it would have been outcompeted by a similar group with a similar ideology, that hides its inconsistencies a little better. I think there's two important differences between Rationalism and Safeway that make the former culty in a worse way:
The degree of impact it has on people's lives. People will switch careers, or donate percentages of their wealth for Rationalism, but maybe waste $100 on a Safeway membership card.
You get a lot more pushback from a Rationalist than a Safeway employee when you point out inconsistencies. If you go around an EA conference saying, "I don't think it's worthwhile to work on AI safety research, because most of the research groups I've seen haven't put out useful work," every attendee will find a reason you should work on it anyway, and probably switch fields to try to join one of those research groups. If you go around a Safeway store telling the employees, "I don't think you have the best deals, Whole Foods seems to have cheaper eggs," they'll probably shrug their shoulders and say, "I guess so."
If you go around an EA conference saying, "I don't think it's worthwhile to work on AI safety research, because most of the research groups I've seen haven't put out useful work," every attendee will find a reason you should work on it anyway, and probably switch fields to try to join one of those research groups.
This sounds false to me. Have you tried it?
If your definition of cult is any set of beliefs that anyone has ever promoted in bad/dishonest/non-rational ways, then every organization and set of beliefs with more than about two adherents is a cult.
That is consistent with my view. I find some much more culty than others, and some culty in much worse ways than others, but yeah, every cause is a cult and everyone should switch to egoism.
Then saying rationality is a cult is mostly just a game of semantics that says almost nothing about rationality in particular.
Sure, that's why it's useful to put numbers on how culty you think various institutions are. To throw out some completely random numbers, maybe Mormonism is a 9/10 while Rationalism is an 5/10. I'm not sure of the right way to scale the numbers, but it fits a model where Mormonism is much more culty than Rationalism which is much more culty than most of the scientific fields (the bottom of which is maths at 0/10).
Sure, that's why it's
usefulmisleading to put numbers on how culty you think various institutions are.
FTFY. Otherwise you just get "You scored it 1/10! So it is a cult! You said so right there!" You've framed it that way by "counting down", adding up points of cultishness along multiple dimensions. Everything will look like a cult by that standard. Nothing is allowed to count as a positive sign of not-a-cult; not-a-cult is not even a concept in this ontology. All groups are guilty until proven innocent. No group can be proven innocent, they just haven't been found guilty yet. Just being a group is already worth a few points of cultishness, points that can never be removed.
Considering all groups to at least have an incipient potential of cult formation seems sensible?
It might not literally be a point of “cultishness” on a scale out of 10, but on a scale out of 100 that seems more sensible. It is true after all the risk can never be reduced to perfectly zero as long as the group exists.
I can’t think of any exceptions either…
Considering all groups to at least have an incipient potential of cult formation seems sensible?
About as sensible as considering all people to at least have an incipient potential of, oh, insert anything you like here.
"at least have an incipient potential of" means nothing.
Then "is a cult" is not a useful way of describing the question, under your view. You'll want a quantitative (or at least ordinal) metric of cultishness, since almost nothing will be at either 0 or 100 percent. Otherwise this reduces to another "What exactly is a sandwich?" type discussion and we're just trying to decide where along a continuum it makes sense to start or stop using the word in practice.
You know, like the recent 1-10 scoring ASX's post on tight knit communities used.
I feel like a post that was seriously trying to make the case that rationalism is a cult would be significantly longer and more thought out. This post provides a random definition of a set, claims that set = cult, and then makes the true assertion that rationalism is in that set.
You are missing a major issue by characterizing an anti epistemology as a set of abstract principles. What characterises cults is social epistemology...particularly "believe what the leader says" and "believe what everyone else believes". And rationalism certainly has a list of beliefs that are widely held, yet unproven, and it is a close knit group of people who socialise with each other , so the social epistemology mechanism is in play. Rationalism is nonetheless not close to being a fully fledged cult..
..It doesn't score 10/10 on any of these criteria, although it does score above zero on some (notably number 2). And, really, it's not good enough for an organisation dedicated to truth seeking to be avaragely cultish, because any amount of cultishness is inimical to truth seeking.
Yes, rationalism is potentially self correcting. Errors can usually be explained by appealing to rationalist principles.
An anti-epistemology that goes around teaching people the concept "anti-epistemology" is a very weird sort of anti-epistemology, don't you think?
As a constructivist, it seems they are promoting obviously bad beliefs, like an axiom of infinity, which leads to massive confusion around things like fractals, self-reference, and the universe at large.
Spoken like a true member of the constructivist cult!
However, a lot of people who don't get caught with Singer's thought experiment, and don't recognize the inconsistency with their previously held beliefs.
This sentence is not completely grammatical. It looks like the result of an editing mistake. I would love to know exactly what you intended to say here.
Smarter and more honest inductees will report that, "I care about having nice things for myself, and then my friends and family, much more than a random child," leave the room muttering, "cult," and not show up to the next EA reading club.
Could you please elaborate on why you think "smarter and more honest" people will give this answer?
The ellipsis is, "genuinely prefer others' well-being over a marginal increase in their own," from the previous sentence.
They have to be smarter to recognize their actual beliefs and investigate what is consistent with them. They have to be more honest, because there is social pressure to think things like, "oh of course I care about others," and hide how much or little they care.
There are also people that genuinely prefer others' well-being over a marginal increase in theirs—mostly wealthy or ascetic folks—and I think this is the target audience of EA evangelism. However, a lot of people don't genuinely prefer others' well-bing over a marginal increase in their own (or at least, the margin is pretty small), but these people still end up caught with Singer's thought experiment, not realizing that the conclusions it leads them to (e.g. that they should donate to GiveWell) are inconsistent with their more fundamental values.
If you "want to stop smoking" or "want to donate more" but do not, you are either deluding yourself, lacking intelligence, or preferring ignorance. Deluding yourself can make you feel happier about yourself. "I'm the kind of person who wants to help out other people! Just not the kind who actually does [but let's not think about that]." Arguably, this is what you really prefer: to be happy, whether or not your thoughts are conistent with your behavior. If you are smart enough, and really want to get to the bottom of any inconsistencies you find yourself exhibiting, you will, and will no longer be inconsistent. You'll either bite the bullet and say you actually do prefer the lung cancer over the shakes, or actually quit smoking.
Are the majority of rationalists deluded or dishonest? Absolutely. As I said in my post, utilitarianism is not well-defined, but most rationalists prefer running with the delsuion.
Your posts in this thread ooze with contempt for large swathes of people, on and off LessWrong. In this last post you are not doing much analysis; you are mostly just judging.
I get the impression that your reasoning here is motivated less by a desire to genuinely understand the human mind and more by a desire to dismiss people who disagree with you and feel superior to them.
Please note that this is NOT intended as an attack on you. It is intended as constructive criticism. I am suggesting that you could benefit from being more curious and more aware of your own biases.
LessWrong's voting system might bury content which would otherwise make rationalists aware of inconsistencies, but it may also bury content which would otherwise convince rationalists to disregard flagged inconsistencies. I suspect that the voting system does more good than bad for group epistemics, but I think evidence is necessary to defend strong claims for either position.
Every group of people will have some features in common with the prototypical cult. I don't think it's useful to refer to rationalism as a cult because I doubt that it has enough cultish features. For example: there is no authoritarian leader, restrictions are not imposed on rationalists' contact with family and friends, etc.
(I realize many people here are part of this cult, and it may be upsetting to hear that people consider it a cult. But I figure "No, Rationalism is Not a Cult" needs a response.)
My definition of 'cult' is close to
An ideology that employs anti-epistemology to convince you to support it.
The hard part of this definition comes with the word "anti-epistemology". If a university math department teaches the ZFC set theory axioms, and asks their professors to use these axioms for formal proof verification rather than Type Theory (or another ideology), are they promoting anti-epistemology? As a constructivist, it seems they are promoting obviously bad beliefs, like an axiom of infinity, which leads to massive confusion around things like fractals, self-reference, and the universe at large[1].
The difficulty with declaring it anti-epistemic is that you cannot prove a system consistent from within the system. The best you can do is find an inconsistency. As far as we know, the ZFC ideology is internally consistent, so even if another ideology claims it promotes obviously bad beliefs, all we learn is the two ideologies are inconsistent with each other.
Most people find it difficult to hold inconsistent beliefs once they are aware of them, so most people would not be a ZFC set theorist and a constructivist at the same time. This is good, because it means ideologies that claim to have real-world consequences are being constantly tested when their members bump up against the real world. If a Young Earth Creationist learns about radioisotope dating, they may transition to a more modern version of Christianity. Of course, some of them just bite the bullet, but enough will reject the Young Earth that the ideology will not grow as fast as others (or even shrink), and soon be dominated by ideologies that mesh better with the real world[2].
As ideologies get bigger, it becomes more likely someone will discover an inconsistent belief, so the biggest ideologies have adapted to
This second adaptation is what constitutes "anti-epistemology", and makes an ideology a cult. If mathematicians discovered a contradiction in the ZFC axioms, it wouldn't become "metaphorical" and a "still useful belief, even if not literally true". It would get replaced, just like the set theory of the 1800s. Physicists are slightly more culty, and it has been said that the field advances one funeral at a time (Planck's principle), but they are usually pretty good about spreading awareness when an inconsistency is found. They are not hiding the inconsistency between general relativity and quantum mechanics from their own members, let alone the public.
Mormonism is staunchly on the other side of the cultiness scale. It has about as many true believing members as the physicists, but retains them mostly by keeping them unaware of inconsistencies. Do their scriptures say that polygamy is an everlasting covenant that everyone must follow to get to the top-tier heaven? Why yes, but their teachings gloss over this, maybe with a phrase about being temporary or necessary for the times. The members who notice a little confusion are met with apologetics that somehow interpret the clause as its own negation. But of course, very few people get to that point, as they're told that the internet is a very bad, anti-Mormon source of knowledge, and the proper channels for resolving questions is through prayer, the scriptures (just not that passage), and of course, church leaders. Most of the adaptations Mormonism makes—in how it teaches and what it teaches—are to make its members less likely to come across an inconsistency, and if they do, not realize it is an inconsistency.
Rationalism does this too, just not to the same degree. Here are a couple examples of adaptations the ideology has made that has the effect of hiding inconsistencies:
While these adaptations have the effect of hiding some inconsistencies, this seems to be mostly a side-effect of otherwise useful adaptations. The LessWrong voting system is superior to others, even if it creates ideological cementation. Singer's thought experiment is an easy introduction for effective altruism, even if it will convince some people to donate money in an inconsistent manner. Rationalism is a cult, but not intentionally[3].
Edit: As a couple comments pointed out, lots of groups employ anti-epistemology to get you to support them. Why should I care more when Rationalism does this than Safeway? It's due to the degree of impact. If Safeway doesn't actually have the best deals, my friends or I may lose $20. If earn-to-give and 80k hours isn't actually consistent with my or my friends' preferences, we may lose 20% of our wealth. Or, ideologically, Safeway's claims are relegated to a small, peripheral thought you may have the next time you go grocery shopping, while Rationalism's will dominate your decision-making process.