7 ms·

How to spot cult leader personalities

61 points by insightcheck 3y ago

monero-xmr 3y ago
Context is very important. With close friends anyone can say anything and it’s brushed off. In a tense business meeting where the difference in big money is how two groups speak and act, it makes sense to be calculating.
- whatshisface 3y ago
  It's not talking about people who are "calculating," it is talking about people who switch between negging you and complementing you in a way that causes you to think about them too much.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
infogrind 3y ago
An accurate description of a good many politicians.
- dijit 3y ago
  Charismatic, polarizing and tactical. I think politics only works for people with these traits.
- thefourthchime 3y ago
  Yah, but one really stands out.
doctormanhatten 3y ago
I feel like this is something where everyone does it to some extent I don't know. To me it makes more sense to focus on propensity towards behaviors that you find undesirable rather than labelling someone a bad name.
alexb_ 3y ago
It's interesting how many of these traits line up perfectly with the actions of Eliezer Yudkowsky. Especially the parts about lacking humility to the point where they think their ideology will save the universe from certain doom. Or making people who follow his words say that everyone who thinks he's crazy just "doesn't get it" and is tragically unable to absorb the wisdom or goodness.
- gwern 3y ago
  That's not interesting at all, because it was written partially to target Yudkowsky, with the goal that you won't "Pascal's mug"* yourself eg https://twitter.com/sashachapin/status/1657063187655843841 https://twitter.com/sashachapin/status/1657063187655843841 Keep in mind that a lot of tech-adjacent writing these days is just AI debates (and this is why he is not engaging with the actual cult literature or providing examples); this is not the place to debate the object-level arguments, but I will say I disapprove of Chapin writing like this, and not owning up to the real purpose of this essay and the Bay Area dynamics he's criticizing. It is deceptive in precisely the way you inadvertently illustrate. * His use is wrong, incidentally, both in the original abstruse decision-theory sense of the phrase as coined by Yudkowsky, ironically enough, and in the vulgarized sense of 'you should ignore small probabilities of very bad things' (because we are now far beyond some 'small' probability of AI, and AI risk is now considered so probable people like Geoff Hinton are quitting their jobs so they can speak out about it https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/bLvc7XkSSnoqSukgy/a-brief-collection-of-hinton-s-recent-comments-on-agi-risk https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/bLvc7XkSSnoqSukgy/a-brief-co... )
  - alexb_ 3y ago
    I'm saying more that it's "interesting" in an argumentative way, not that it's actually of interest about how this is about EY. It should be interesting to followers of EY because all of these traits are things that cult leaders do, and are things that EY does, because EY is (intentionally or not) running a doomsday cult. It's impressive how much reach he's been able to get, to the point where his ideas of control and morality have seeped into the most important technology of our time, but it's still a cult founded on shaky conjecture nonetheless. I think it's pretty clear if you are interested in AI who this article is about, although I do agree it should have been much more explicitely followed up with "Here's how EY is these things". It's made me very sad to see extremely smart people, who I once looked up to and really found very interesting (you're included in here!) fall victim to the irrational fear of AI spurred on by Eliezer. You can create as much literature as you want, and you can create as many hypothetical scenarios as possible, but it's not going to change the fact that dedicating your life into controlling AI so that you can "logically" justify your own life is nonsense. It's not that I don't get it. I just disagree. I don't think AI will create a science fiction horror show to end all of humanity. I don't think AI will cause humans to stop being humans. I don't think AI will create the end of the world. Yes, I am not 100% sure. There is a 0.01% chance of this all happening. But that doesn't mean that we need to pay attention to it just because multiplying 0.0001 by 1,000,000 yields a big number. I think basing your morality and existence on trolley problems and mental experiments is abhorrent. And no, I can't give you an exact spelled out reason as to why. Do I have to justify basic human morality? You're an extremely smart person. I love your blog posts, and I love the depth and time you put into them. It's incredible how disappointing it is for me to see you become another "rationalist" obsessed with a fantasy of AI doom. Edit for your edit: Someone who is wealthy and has nothing to lose quitting his job to join the cult of AI doomerism is, in no way, proof that AI xrisk is meaningful. You're using someone else coming to a conclusion as a reason you are correct. I trust you are smart enough to know why this is awful logic.
imwillofficial 3y ago
The author sounds like he has some jealousy issues to get sorted. I found the last section shocking. Wanting to joust, jealous of this personality type? That’s.. really strange.
- seattle_spring 3y ago
  I didn’t read it that way at all, and felt that section ring particularly true. “Joust” really just seems like another word for willing to engage in well-intentioned debate. The realization the author likely made was that the so-called “cult leaders” were not at all engaging in good faith, despite them and their followers insisting otherwise. Some really great examples of this would be Jordan Peterson or Eric Weinstein. The moment you think you can engage with these sorts in good faith is the moment you’ve fallen into their trap.
- mattw2121 3y ago
  I came away from the article thinking, "Where is he finding all these cult leaders?"
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
zzzeek 3y ago
There's lots and lots written about cults and cult leaders, which is worth reading, such as Combatting Cult Mind Control by Steven Hassan, or if you prefer a more traditional take, "Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism" by Robert Jay Lifton. Or any of other dozens of good authoritative takes on the subject by people who have spent their careers formally studying such phenomena, which can draw lines between all kinds of different groups and political movements that actually have lots in common. What's wrong with this blog post is that the author does not seem to have read any books at all on the subject, which IMO is fairly irresponsible considering how much there is to read about it and how critical it is that "cult behavior" is widely understood in order for society to progress. Seems to be off the cuff musings about the topic, alarmingly even considering that some "cult leaders" are "good" (no) or that they can be "reformed" (irrelevant, but also REALLY doubtful considering what it means to be a cult leader; cult leaders generally remain such leaders well after they've been sentenced to prison for decades, their followers show up to visit, etc., there is no "reform" here, sorry), and overall a lot of muddy, uninformed and made-up thinking that will only get more people into cults.
- dnissley 3y ago
  This post is about "cult leader personalities", not literal "cult leaders". I imagine we've all had the experience of meeting such magnetic personalities, but probably only a tiny percentage have met an actual cult leader.
  - zzzeek 3y ago
    use a different word then
    - matchapples 3y ago
      > What's wrong with this blog post is that the author does not seem to have read any books at all on the subject, Lol and you didn't read the blog post apparently
      - 3y ago
Loveaway 3y ago
No, we judge people by actions, not by random categorizations or 'fits type' or 'Polarizing Charisma'. Here's how to Spot Cult Leader proper: They manipulate people and exploit them by taking their money. Otherwise it's not a cult leader.
- tomjakubowski 3y ago
  There is post-facto judgment of those who have done harm, and then there are heuristics we can use to help us avoid people who would do harm before it's been done.
  - jbm 3y ago
    What is the false positive rate of these heuristics?
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
kelipso 3y ago
My impression is this is a common phenomenon in the software engineering community, probably mainly because a significant fraction of the community are young and/or inexperienced (e.g. number of programmers double every 5 years, which means 50% of programmers have less than 5 years experience). There are plenty of examples from streamers to serious programmers but the most common is probably the benevolent dictator for life personalities for numerous software projects.
- bityard 3y ago
  > There are plenty of examples from streamers to serious programmers but the most common is probably the benevolent dictator for life personalities for numerous software projects Can you provide any examples from either of these? I feel like you may be confusing "people with strong opinions" with "narcissistic cult leader."
  - er4hn 3y ago
    Richard Stallman is a classic example of this. Brilliant man who produced many valuable things while having a strong philosophical basis underpinning them. As a person he has also engaged in concerning behavior that was hard to separate from his contributions to the Open Source community.
beerpls 3y ago
I’ve always been fascinated by personality, and spent a decent amount of time in and out of school studying it. One thing that gets me about the way this author talks is it’s condescending. As though he’s an enlightened observer staring down over his spectacles at this type of person. (Like the final quote about cult leaders being mundane or boring…) Sorry to say, but that person you’re talking down on is probably way more clever and motivated than you are. He’s putting you in the bucket not the other way around! But the thing that fascinates me is how personalities evolved in general. Like why do people have these set ways of being? The apparent answer is that personalities evolved as a symbiotic trait. If I have a few people in my village: one’s an asshole to defend from enemies, one’s passionate and emotional to rear children, one’s a narcissist who wants to unite and lead us (under him), one’s a thinker who will improve our hunting and killing tools, and a few people just don’t think that much and view life as hard and are willing to “just go along with things”… Before you know it we have a mini society. A village of people who work together automatically bc it’s just who they are and it works for (most of) them So the question is: are cult leaders actually something that thousands of years ago was a benefit? Has society changed so that now they just don’t fit like they otherwise would in a healthy village? Or do parasitic personalities also evolve that have always been a detriment to the rest of us?
hn8305823 3y ago
I was confused reading this. Is the author talking about literal suicide cult leaders like Jones, Koresh, and Applewhite, or "cult of personality" types like Jobs and Elon?
- narag 3y ago
  ..."cult of personality" types like Jobs and Elon? I haven't met Elon, but the impression I got from videos is very different to Jobs. He has a cult following indeed, but is it really because his magnetism or PUA tricks like in the article?
- danjoredd 3y ago
  I have a LOT of problems with Koresh and the Branch Davidians, but he def wasn't leading a "suicide cult." They were actually the opposite...they believed that in the End Times they needed to stick it out on their property as long as possible even if it came to violence. They stockpiled weapons believing that it would come down to a final showdown between them and the antichrist's forces. Obviously they were unbiblical, and the child abuse is absolutely unforgiveable, but I take issue with people calling the Branch Davidians a suicide cult when that was against their beliefs. That being said, I think the author is talking about cult of personality types. People with a personality that gears towards being the leaders of a cult, or getting a cult-like status. That is how it reads to me anyway.
- nonethewiser 3y ago
  Did you read the part where he said they’re not always a net negative?
  - goodpoint 3y ago
    That does not help clarify which group you are talking about.
    - nonethewiser 3y ago
      Is Jones a net positive or neutral?
kiachnish 3y ago
[dead]
neilk 3y ago
Good observations and I've observed more than a few in computerland, especially in startups. However, it's not true that cult leaders are always grandiose. They can be strategically vulnerable too! When confronted -- especially by someone too smart to be fooled by their facade -- they can take that critic aside, in a private setting, and suddenly express vulnerability, maybe even fragility. The critic is taken aback, maybe even worries that they've gone too far, but also feels honored to have become a confidant of the leader. The critic may now even feel compelled to help cover for the leader's failings! But this, too, is an act. Remember, as Sasha said, such people are always being strategic, and strategic vulnerability is part of how they operate.
BaculumMeumEst 3y ago
blow/muratori
pawelduda 3y ago
Is cult leader an extreme version of narcissistic personality? A lot of overlap it seems.
- switch007 3y ago
  I was reading it thinking it sounds like a description of a narcissist/psychopath
RangerScience 3y ago
Some related thoughts, sorted by brevity: (1) All pathos are healthy behaviors "gone wrong" - wrong time, or, wrong place, or (mostly), wrong magnitude. (2) I wondered for a very long time: what's the difference between being convinced, and being manipulated? Stumbled across something on the 'net that finally gave an answer: Manipulation begins with diminishment, and (bringing it back to cults), "isolation" is one of the powerful forms of manipulation. (3) Recently been thinking about "responsibility" in terms of the physics of a 'bounce' - Drop a ball on sand, it goes thud; the force involved is the weight of the ball. Drop a bouncy ball on concrete, the force is ~2x (stopping the downward motion, then enough for the upward motion). When someone comes to you and says: "This thing you did had this negative impact on [me/them/us]", if someone rejects any possible responsibility for it, that's a "bounce". It ends up looking like any of the forms of "pushing your reality onto others" - "you do this to me", gaslighting, etc etc etc.
- akiselev 3y ago
  > Drop a ball on sand, it goes thud; the force involved is the weight of the ball. Drop a bouncy ball on concrete, the force is ~2x (stopping the downward motion, then enough for the upward motion). The force in both scenarios is exactly the same. In the first the force goes into displacing the sand while in the second - since the concrete is a rigid lattice - the force goes into deforming the ball, which causes it to bounce back due to its elasticity. Objects with no elasticity (like another piece of concrete) will not bounce. Beware of physical metaphors.
  - RangerScience 3y ago
    Hmmm good point about the sand deformation but I think you're off on "exactly the same". AFAICT - The force to bring the ball to rest is exactly the same. As you point out, either the sand or the ball's structure (or the ground's structure, such as a trampoline) absorbs that force. After that however, one ball remains at rest, and the other ball accelerates back up. The force producing that acceleration is exerted (keeping in mind newton's third). If the ball returns to 80% of the original height, then that's 100% of the force to bring it to rest (same in both situations), and then an additional 80% of the force to re-"throw" it, which is only present in the bounce. So in a "thud" there's 100% of the force, and in the "bounce" there's 1xx% of the force.
j3s 3y ago
the author seems to actually be upset by self centered ladder climbers, not actual cult leaders. post is lame
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
Brendinooo 3y ago
Not sure if it should be on the list but I think that epistemic certainty should be on the list as something distinct from personal humility. You can command a room by saying something like "I'm not all that smart, smart people overcomplicate this, but this is so simple..." I tend to be a "only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing" sort of guy, but when I run into someone who isn't like that, who seems to have it all figured out and says it with conviction, it definitely pulls at me. It does one of these: 1. Makes me think that I've overcomplicated it 2. Makes me think I have to convince him he's wrong (which is very hard to do unless you're as laser-focused as he is and he's engaging in good faith) 3. Makes me think it's not worth the effort because of what the other two options are If you follow 1 or 3, you're ceding the argument. 2 is hard to do well.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- rdiddly 3y ago
  "This is so simple..." Reminds me of "One weird trick." Really they're two specimens of the same phenomenon. Some people essentially spam and clickbait the world with ads for themselves.
Quinzel 3y ago
This just comes across to me as a nice description of the dark triad of personality traits which actually exist in all types of organisations and social situations, which is not very exclusive to cult leaders at all. Below are some interesting resources on this topic that I have read as I have an interest in this subject. You may have read them already, but I thought I would pop them below as there were no resources in the article. Hogan, J., Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2011). Management derailment. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (vol. 3, pp. 555–575). American Psychological Association. Tourish, D. (2018). Dysfunctional leadership in corporations. In P. Garrard (Ed.), The Leadership hubris epidemic: Biological roots and strategies for prevention (pp. 137–162). Palgrave Macmillan. Tourish, D. (2013). The dark side of transformational leadership: A critical perspective. Routledge. Chapter 3: Coercive persuasion, power and corporate cults Alvesson, M., & Blom, M. (2019). Beyond leadership and followership: Working with a variety of modes of organizing. Organizational Dynamics, 48(1), 28–37. However, as was pointed out in the post it is never just a cult leader, there are always those who are complicit, and additionally there are those who just want someone to follow, which is really what gives cult leaders their "power" or their "authority". This is where the concept of relational leadership is interesting: Hughes, R. L., Ginnett, R. C., & Curphy, G. J. (2014). Leadership: Enhancing the Lessons of Experience. McGraw-Hill Higher Education. Chapter 1: What do we mean by leadership Haslam, S. A., & Reicher, S. D. (2016). Rethinking the psychology of leadership: From personal identity to social identity. Daedalus, 145(3), 21–34. Cunliffe, A. L., & Eriksen, M. (2011). Relational leadership. Human Relations, 64(11), 1425–1449. I don't think there is necessarily anything wrong with the traits described here, but rather there can be a problem with the way certain people abuse their power once they have it. The burning question that bugs me in life, is why do so many humans just follow the leader, even when the leader is a total piece of shit.

61 points by insightcheck 3y ago

Context is very important. With close friends anyone can say anything and it’s brushed off. In a tense business meeting where the difference in big money is how two groups speak and act, it makes sense to be calculating.

whatshisface 3y ago
It's not talking about people who are "calculating," it is talking about people who switch between negging you and complementing you in a way that causes you to think about them too much.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

infogrind 3y ago

An accurate description of a good many politicians.

dijit 3y ago
Charismatic, polarizing and tactical. I think politics only works for people with these traits.
thefourthchime 3y ago
Yah, but one really stands out.

doctormanhatten 3y ago

I feel like this is something where everyone does it to some extent I don't know. To me it makes more sense to focus on propensity towards behaviors that you find undesirable rather than labelling someone a bad name.

alexb_ 3y ago

It's interesting how many of these traits line up perfectly with the actions of Eliezer Yudkowsky. Especially the parts about lacking humility to the point where they think their ideology will save the universe from certain doom. Or making people who follow his words say that everyone who thinks he's crazy just "doesn't get it" and is tragically unable to absorb the wisdom or goodness.

gwern 3y ago
That's not interesting at all, because it was written partially to target Yudkowsky, with the goal that you won't "Pascal's mug"* yourself eg https://twitter.com/sashachapin/status/1657063187655843841 https://twitter.com/sashachapin/status/1657063187655843841 Keep in mind that a lot of tech-adjacent writing these days is just AI debates (and this is why he is not engaging with the actual cult literature or providing examples); this is not the place to debate the object-level arguments, but I will say I disapprove of Chapin writing like this, and not owning up to the real purpose of this essay and the Bay Area dynamics he's criticizing. It is deceptive in precisely the way you inadvertently illustrate. * His use is wrong, incidentally, both in the original abstruse decision-theory sense of the phrase as coined by Yudkowsky, ironically enough, and in the vulgarized sense of 'you should ignore small probabilities of very bad things' (because we are now far beyond some 'small' probability of AI, and AI risk is now considered so probable people like Geoff Hinton are quitting their jobs so they can speak out about it https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/bLvc7XkSSnoqSukgy/a-brief-collection-of-hinton-s-recent-comments-on-agi-risk https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/bLvc7XkSSnoqSukgy/a-brief-co... )
- alexb_ 3y ago
  I'm saying more that it's "interesting" in an argumentative way, not that it's actually of interest about how this is about EY. It should be interesting to followers of EY because all of these traits are things that cult leaders do, and are things that EY does, because EY is (intentionally or not) running a doomsday cult. It's impressive how much reach he's been able to get, to the point where his ideas of control and morality have seeped into the most important technology of our time, but it's still a cult founded on shaky conjecture nonetheless. I think it's pretty clear if you are interested in AI who this article is about, although I do agree it should have been much more explicitely followed up with "Here's how EY is these things". It's made me very sad to see extremely smart people, who I once looked up to and really found very interesting (you're included in here!) fall victim to the irrational fear of AI spurred on by Eliezer. You can create as much literature as you want, and you can create as many hypothetical scenarios as possible, but it's not going to change the fact that dedicating your life into controlling AI so that you can "logically" justify your own life is nonsense. It's not that I don't get it. I just disagree. I don't think AI will create a science fiction horror show to end all of humanity. I don't think AI will cause humans to stop being humans. I don't think AI will create the end of the world. Yes, I am not 100% sure. There is a 0.01% chance of this all happening. But that doesn't mean that we need to pay attention to it just because multiplying 0.0001 by 1,000,000 yields a big number. I think basing your morality and existence on trolley problems and mental experiments is abhorrent. And no, I can't give you an exact spelled out reason as to why. Do I have to justify basic human morality? You're an extremely smart person. I love your blog posts, and I love the depth and time you put into them. It's incredible how disappointing it is for me to see you become another "rationalist" obsessed with a fantasy of AI doom. Edit for your edit: Someone who is wealthy and has nothing to lose quitting his job to join the cult of AI doomerism is, in no way, proof that AI xrisk is meaningful. You're using someone else coming to a conclusion as a reason you are correct. I trust you are smart enough to know why this is awful logic.

imwillofficial 3y ago

The author sounds like he has some jealousy issues to get sorted. I found the last section shocking. Wanting to joust, jealous of this personality type? That’s.. really strange.

seattle_spring 3y ago
I didn’t read it that way at all, and felt that section ring particularly true. “Joust” really just seems like another word for willing to engage in well-intentioned debate. The realization the author likely made was that the so-called “cult leaders” were not at all engaging in good faith, despite them and their followers insisting otherwise. Some really great examples of this would be Jordan Peterson or Eric Weinstein. The moment you think you can engage with these sorts in good faith is the moment you’ve fallen into their trap.
mattw2121 3y ago
I came away from the article thinking, "Where is he finding all these cult leaders?"
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

zzzeek 3y ago

There's lots and lots written about cults and cult leaders, which is worth reading, such as Combatting Cult Mind Control by Steven Hassan, or if you prefer a more traditional take, "Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism" by Robert Jay Lifton. Or any of other dozens of good authoritative takes on the subject by people who have spent their careers formally studying such phenomena, which can draw lines between all kinds of different groups and political movements that actually have lots in common. What's wrong with this blog post is that the author does not seem to have read any books at all on the subject, which IMO is fairly irresponsible considering how much there is to read about it and how critical it is that "cult behavior" is widely understood in order for society to progress. Seems to be off the cuff musings about the topic, alarmingly even considering that some "cult leaders" are "good" (no) or that they can be "reformed" (irrelevant, but also REALLY doubtful considering what it means to be a cult leader; cult leaders generally remain such leaders well after they've been sentenced to prison for decades, their followers show up to visit, etc., there is no "reform" here, sorry), and overall a lot of muddy, uninformed and made-up thinking that will only get more people into cults.

dnissley 3y ago
This post is about "cult leader personalities", not literal "cult leaders". I imagine we've all had the experience of meeting such magnetic personalities, but probably only a tiny percentage have met an actual cult leader.
- zzzeek 3y ago
  use a different word then
  - matchapples 3y ago
    > What's wrong with this blog post is that the author does not seem to have read any books at all on the subject, Lol and you didn't read the blog post apparently
    - 3y ago

Loveaway 3y ago

No, we judge people by actions, not by random categorizations or 'fits type' or 'Polarizing Charisma'. Here's how to Spot Cult Leader proper: They manipulate people and exploit them by taking their money. Otherwise it's not a cult leader.

tomjakubowski 3y ago
There is post-facto judgment of those who have done harm, and then there are heuristics we can use to help us avoid people who would do harm before it's been done.
- jbm 3y ago
  What is the false positive rate of these heuristics?

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

kelipso 3y ago

My impression is this is a common phenomenon in the software engineering community, probably mainly because a significant fraction of the community are young and/or inexperienced (e.g. number of programmers double every 5 years, which means 50% of programmers have less than 5 years experience). There are plenty of examples from streamers to serious programmers but the most common is probably the benevolent dictator for life personalities for numerous software projects.

bityard 3y ago
> There are plenty of examples from streamers to serious programmers but the most common is probably the benevolent dictator for life personalities for numerous software projects Can you provide any examples from either of these? I feel like you may be confusing "people with strong opinions" with "narcissistic cult leader."
- er4hn 3y ago
  Richard Stallman is a classic example of this. Brilliant man who produced many valuable things while having a strong philosophical basis underpinning them. As a person he has also engaged in concerning behavior that was hard to separate from his contributions to the Open Source community.

beerpls 3y ago

I’ve always been fascinated by personality, and spent a decent amount of time in and out of school studying it. One thing that gets me about the way this author talks is it’s condescending. As though he’s an enlightened observer staring down over his spectacles at this type of person. (Like the final quote about cult leaders being mundane or boring…) Sorry to say, but that person you’re talking down on is probably way more clever and motivated than you are. He’s putting you in the bucket not the other way around! But the thing that fascinates me is how personalities evolved in general. Like why do people have these set ways of being? The apparent answer is that personalities evolved as a symbiotic trait. If I have a few people in my village: one’s an asshole to defend from enemies, one’s passionate and emotional to rear children, one’s a narcissist who wants to unite and lead us (under him), one’s a thinker who will improve our hunting and killing tools, and a few people just don’t think that much and view life as hard and are willing to “just go along with things”… Before you know it we have a mini society. A village of people who work together automatically bc it’s just who they are and it works for (most of) them So the question is: are cult leaders actually something that thousands of years ago was a benefit? Has society changed so that now they just don’t fit like they otherwise would in a healthy village? Or do parasitic personalities also evolve that have always been a detriment to the rest of us?

hn8305823 3y ago

I was confused reading this. Is the author talking about literal suicide cult leaders like Jones, Koresh, and Applewhite, or "cult of personality" types like Jobs and Elon?

narag 3y ago
..."cult of personality" types like Jobs and Elon? I haven't met Elon, but the impression I got from videos is very different to Jobs. He has a cult following indeed, but is it really because his magnetism or PUA tricks like in the article?
danjoredd 3y ago
I have a LOT of problems with Koresh and the Branch Davidians, but he def wasn't leading a "suicide cult." They were actually the opposite...they believed that in the End Times they needed to stick it out on their property as long as possible even if it came to violence. They stockpiled weapons believing that it would come down to a final showdown between them and the antichrist's forces. Obviously they were unbiblical, and the child abuse is absolutely unforgiveable, but I take issue with people calling the Branch Davidians a suicide cult when that was against their beliefs. That being said, I think the author is talking about cult of personality types. People with a personality that gears towards being the leaders of a cult, or getting a cult-like status. That is how it reads to me anyway.
nonethewiser 3y ago
Did you read the part where he said they’re not always a net negative?
- goodpoint 3y ago
  That does not help clarify which group you are talking about.
  - nonethewiser 3y ago
    Is Jones a net positive or neutral?

kiachnish 3y ago

[dead]

neilk 3y ago

Good observations and I've observed more than a few in computerland, especially in startups. However, it's not true that cult leaders are always grandiose. They can be strategically vulnerable too! When confronted -- especially by someone too smart to be fooled by their facade -- they can take that critic aside, in a private setting, and suddenly express vulnerability, maybe even fragility. The critic is taken aback, maybe even worries that they've gone too far, but also feels honored to have become a confidant of the leader. The critic may now even feel compelled to help cover for the leader's failings! But this, too, is an act. Remember, as Sasha said, such people are always being strategic, and strategic vulnerability is part of how they operate.

BaculumMeumEst 3y ago

blow/muratori

pawelduda 3y ago

Is cult leader an extreme version of narcissistic personality? A lot of overlap it seems.

switch007 3y ago
I was reading it thinking it sounds like a description of a narcissist/psychopath

RangerScience 3y ago

Some related thoughts, sorted by brevity: (1) All pathos are healthy behaviors "gone wrong" - wrong time, or, wrong place, or (mostly), wrong magnitude. (2) I wondered for a very long time: what's the difference between being convinced, and being manipulated? Stumbled across something on the 'net that finally gave an answer: Manipulation begins with diminishment, and (bringing it back to cults), "isolation" is one of the powerful forms of manipulation. (3) Recently been thinking about "responsibility" in terms of the physics of a 'bounce' - Drop a ball on sand, it goes thud; the force involved is the weight of the ball. Drop a bouncy ball on concrete, the force is ~2x (stopping the downward motion, then enough for the upward motion). When someone comes to you and says: "This thing you did had this negative impact on [me/them/us]", if someone rejects any possible responsibility for it, that's a "bounce". It ends up looking like any of the forms of "pushing your reality onto others" - "you do this to me", gaslighting, etc etc etc.

akiselev 3y ago
> Drop a ball on sand, it goes thud; the force involved is the weight of the ball. Drop a bouncy ball on concrete, the force is ~2x (stopping the downward motion, then enough for the upward motion). The force in both scenarios is exactly the same. In the first the force goes into displacing the sand while in the second - since the concrete is a rigid lattice - the force goes into deforming the ball, which causes it to bounce back due to its elasticity. Objects with no elasticity (like another piece of concrete) will not bounce. Beware of physical metaphors.
- RangerScience 3y ago
  Hmmm good point about the sand deformation but I think you're off on "exactly the same". AFAICT - The force to bring the ball to rest is exactly the same. As you point out, either the sand or the ball's structure (or the ground's structure, such as a trampoline) absorbs that force. After that however, one ball remains at rest, and the other ball accelerates back up. The force producing that acceleration is exerted (keeping in mind newton's third). If the ball returns to 80% of the original height, then that's 100% of the force to bring it to rest (same in both situations), and then an additional 80% of the force to re-"throw" it, which is only present in the bounce. So in a "thud" there's 100% of the force, and in the "bounce" there's 1xx% of the force.

j3s 3y ago

the author seems to actually be upset by self centered ladder climbers, not actual cult leaders. post is lame

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

Brendinooo 3y ago

Not sure if it should be on the list but I think that epistemic certainty should be on the list as something distinct from personal humility. You can command a room by saying something like "I'm not all that smart, smart people overcomplicate this, but this is so simple..." I tend to be a "only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing" sort of guy, but when I run into someone who isn't like that, who seems to have it all figured out and says it with conviction, it definitely pulls at me. It does one of these: 1. Makes me think that I've overcomplicated it 2. Makes me think I have to convince him he's wrong (which is very hard to do unless you're as laser-focused as he is and he's engaging in good faith) 3. Makes me think it's not worth the effort because of what the other two options are If you follow 1 or 3, you're ceding the argument. 2 is hard to do well.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
rdiddly 3y ago
"This is so simple..." Reminds me of "One weird trick." Really they're two specimens of the same phenomenon. Some people essentially spam and clickbait the world with ads for themselves.

Quinzel 3y ago

This just comes across to me as a nice description of the dark triad of personality traits which actually exist in all types of organisations and social situations, which is not very exclusive to cult leaders at all. Below are some interesting resources on this topic that I have read as I have an interest in this subject. You may have read them already, but I thought I would pop them below as there were no resources in the article. Hogan, J., Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2011). Management derailment. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (vol. 3, pp. 555–575). American Psychological Association. Tourish, D. (2018). Dysfunctional leadership in corporations. In P. Garrard (Ed.), The Leadership hubris epidemic: Biological roots and strategies for prevention (pp. 137–162). Palgrave Macmillan. Tourish, D. (2013). The dark side of transformational leadership: A critical perspective. Routledge. Chapter 3: Coercive persuasion, power and corporate cults Alvesson, M., & Blom, M. (2019). Beyond leadership and followership: Working with a variety of modes of organizing. Organizational Dynamics, 48(1), 28–37. However, as was pointed out in the post it is never just a cult leader, there are always those who are complicit, and additionally there are those who just want someone to follow, which is really what gives cult leaders their "power" or their "authority". This is where the concept of relational leadership is interesting: Hughes, R. L., Ginnett, R. C., & Curphy, G. J. (2014). Leadership: Enhancing the Lessons of Experience. McGraw-Hill Higher Education. Chapter 1: What do we mean by leadership Haslam, S. A., & Reicher, S. D. (2016). Rethinking the psychology of leadership: From personal identity to social identity. Daedalus, 145(3), 21–34. Cunliffe, A. L., & Eriksen, M. (2011). Relational leadership. Human Relations, 64(11), 1425–1449. I don't think there is necessarily anything wrong with the traits described here, but rather there can be a problem with the way certain people abuse their power once they have it. The burning question that bugs me in life, is why do so many humans just follow the leader, even when the leader is a total piece of shit.