#the atmosphere and social pressure to repeat dogma is a little different from the above tho scientology does seem to try to mix them up.

[wainswright]

This is a guy trying to start a cult when he was around 20 (apparently he tried again in HP after losing all converts in LOTR but I haven’t read that far, putting here for notes.)

https://docs.google.com/document/u/0/d/19GpMh506PQNBB4qeTdASHirmJ2YwzElEjHoOSLiYtLc

Putting this informally because I’ve come to dislike a lurid approach, I think “cult” is a specific word related to a specific approach and idea, and is otherwise not specific enough to describe more formalized/organized for lack of a better word consistent recognition of abuses within high-control groups (a little more specific a term) or the concepts behind extremist political movements or small abusive groups or even, at some stretch, abusive corporate practices present in corporate towns.

Military seems to be a separate concept that has to be approached differently for scale, commonality, and mixing with bureaucracy and greater political system classification.

But for these small, convenient to try to finagle over the internet ‘cult’ affairs, there are a few consistent factors that lead to harm that look pretty noticeable.

This is also informal in rigor, because I’m reading a blog post and bloggin.

1. Vague mythos. Weakest, more like a style or use of mythos in response to specific questions/in relation to behavior. It more represents a path to future harm than guaranteeing harm in itself and would require extremely specific analysis not put here. It is not only possible, but common for people to attend small isolated camps to improve a skill. However, these camps are usually acknowledged by wider society and have a proven track record of success, (ideally) competent teachers with records of knowledgeable cogent skill and success, and an understandable and specific road map to specific kinds of knowledge or skill. To skip to the heuristic, if someone reflexively and seriously answers they are “saving the world” in response to someone completely trusting them to teach erstwhile esoteric knowledge, this is so vague it’s more a requirement of belief in faith than a guarantee of a specific skill. (Not that pseudo science babble is better, but that’s a different analysis.) It’s pretty odd. I’m sure anything sufficiently unmeasurable or elastic with vibes based interpretation like spiritual power or inherent intuition of correctness is also rife with potential promise of idealism/persistent vagueness that can get people invested with a very low chance of actual practical use (its kind of like saying think good thoughts for success), if not necessarily abusive or guaranteeing abuse. It does flag as scam, unintentional or not, to me.

It’s another thing to explicitly try experimental approaches to something, I guess? If the idea is a hook, then “being special, intelligent, a secret elite agent for good,” is universally appealing. But it’s more of an induction to a society than a specific skill guarantee. It’s certainly possible someone might rediscover the benefits of emotional regulation as questionably conveyed by aspiring cult leader, even if this is not necessarily exclusive to the brand. Suggesting 24/7 strictly monitored changes in cognition are also somewhat suspect under most circumstances, belying the fact learning anything new requires some amount of blind trust, at least in more novel-to-a-person areas. (sometimes heuristics such as confidence and looks aren’t accurate. discussion later.) But concern kicks in more when paired with the following-

2. Control. (totalitarian.) Mounting pressure (“that somehow just happens”) to cut off all friends unrelated to the brand, teaching people to repeat alienating rhetoric to people not into the brand, being the sole source of food and shelter and money and positive attention and then intermittently using this to pressure and threaten the inductee, no matter the aspiring cult leader’s seeming “awareness” of this pressure- also, they are always suffering some looming crisis that can only be solved by total subservience that can’t have independent conclusions or analysis. (By this I mean there’s actual ways a prophecy can be proven wrong or changed in any detail or way. expand later.) Prophet-coded. (Life after death is sufficiently vague. A fear of death, fomo, hope for legacy, fame, money, respect, honor- always in style, let’s say.) A need for emotional reliance from inductees, which can just be equivalent to close friendship, with the harmful part being the consistent abuse of trust, emotional abuse, creating a distorted picture of reality and probable eventual financial demands where it essentially just becomes a grift of fake promises and emotional investment by spinning a story and periodically rattling the inductee’s cage for continued crisis support while there is no actual crisis except the refusal to acknowledge there is some endpoint to lying where apparently all the person wants is social (and even excessively monetary) acknowledgement for being gods specialist little guy and war hero without the any of the work required for how similar accolades could be earned irl. Which is common enough, except for all the charity scams and physical or emotional abuse or years stolen from others that seem common to this sort of grift. I suppose the tell would be a weirdly constant state of stress that doesn’t quite match up with real world ups and downs, ever. Thinking of youtuber cult incidents, a miasma of suicidal doom of being the only people who know why there’s no hope and people should just kill themselves and this retroactively justifies [whatever a lot of people seem consistently mad about] seems a pretty common unifying theme. I don’t think this is a logical conclusion unless whoever was declaring it is god. That’s another thing, disavowing knowledge or responsibility or harm reduction when clearly taking up a position of authoritative leadership and ducking behind fervent defenders. On one hand, nobody likes facing criticism or the consequences of their mistakes, unintentional or not. On the other hand, guess what the disqualification is to get someone out of a position of authority? Proven abuses of power. (well, complicated, but in terms of usual base reasoning.) In certain formal situations termed functional this is enforced legally, if not so much on the lands of forum when just chatter. (Just remembered the apology video phenomenon. Makeup youtube analysis sometime eh.)

3. Memory editing. After some thought, thought I should throw this in. Research in court evidence history, psychology, and what I know of scientology point to the fact that people can form false memories. When we first recount an event, this will probably be the most accurate representation. With heavy pressure, prompting, and a kind of forced retelling, people can come to believe something is true that is completely and proven with DNA evidence to be untrue, from the face of the person who raped them to the fact there was an argument or tone at all. There appears to be nuance to this in that it’s more applicable to blurry details (?) or trust in someone’s word or representation when in a state of initial disarray and stress that affects someone forming the memory more. (The reason people are not shown police line ups right after a traumatic event, they can imprint on one of the faces even when it is false.) This is not to discount sometimes you genuinely remember things wrong, but I think this is very uncommon, and it is more common that you may have just misread intent and remember the interpretation. (? needs more research, sorry. For example, I don’t know much about hallucinations but I believe there are emotional states when they can be aggravated?) I am under the impression leaders of cults use this phenomenon to try to gaslight inductees that things progressed or happened that did not strictly happen, and I would imagine discourage any questioning of this with accusations of lack of integrity, belief, things important to the inductee’s identity, and general character. The warning signs of this would be a complete obsession with some impossible standard of feelings, perhaps, or periods of constant emotional breakdowns caused by oddly common “personality/memory editing” sessions.

I don’t doubt that this specific nugget can be packaged with more harmless and common venting with friends or seeking opinions or analysis of past behavior with friends, but maybe a warning sign here is that just having emotional reactions in themselves isn’t a bad thing, and if someone is constantly telling you the feeling in itself “shouldn’t be happening,” this is either ignorant or a fishy attempt at control. Having emotional reactions is just a fact, usually a logical response to something and a personal thing besides, the action you take in response to an emotional response can also be reasoned out without constant insults about your inherent inner character. Some emotional reactions are not even that “inherent” or permanent. Also, people are logical in that empirical evidence such as notes written down in the moment, video recordings, photos, or previous cool headed personal analysis can help refresh your memories to confirm what did or did not happen.

Intersecting topic: this comes up with dementia patients in the hospital. False memory is not in itself harmful. And in cases of hallucinations, a belief is genuine, and there is no overarching purpose to insisting it is false. Ah well, this depends on specifics. Situations differ when a false belief would be a basis to harm someone else or spread mass disinformation. Difficult to phrase, will try again later.

In addition, something like a job performance review shouldn’t be literally demanding your loyalty and enthusiasm, though I imagine this is common. Especially in smaller places of employment where people have a go getter attitude! Not necessarily nefarious in base concept, gets historically bad if systemized. Appeal to a higher up is good for being promoted by that higher up, a lack of impairment is a universal privilege, but I don’t believe there’s real jobs (exceptions for working with very specific sensitive situations, maybe, or ideologically based partnership) that can justify requiring a specific kneejerk emotional reaction/personality more than competence at a specific task. Basic ability to be sociable aside, (i genuinely think think this is a skill more than inherent anything, while easier for some people more than others,) which is also generally helpful.

All of this does not deny the existence of suppressed memories from trauma, witness testimony gathered under standards and in aggregate or specific, contentious friendships, vague yoga summer camps, or jointly paid rent friend groups where everyone is into a similar ideological goal, although the last one might cause a different subset of interpersonal issues, it is not necessarily abusive. (this is why im meh on the word cult, it doesn’t describe dynamics but tries to characterize a more nebulous social “thing.” the jim jones cult was explicitly based off of a religion. i’m also fairly sure the use of cult as an identifying word was championed by news headlines, which often are based off of vibes that excite the imagination, which isn’t always useful for more specific analysis where consistent judgments and accuracy are essential.) (I also think it’s inherently confusing while pushing a supernatural definition- people say cults are bad referring to the abuse, not the “state of mind of feeling belief in a cause” I mean it’s a problem when the methodology seemingly necessitates abuse, ptsd, false beliefs enforced by various means to “disincentivize” having different beliefs. things like that.)

I should rephrase this later, but- it appears the downsides to putting people in a constant state of isolated escalated stakes over tiny signals, or under stress/pressure via lies on hairpin fractures may lead to intentionally aggravated suggestible states of mind from distress, erratic behavior, emotional or physical abuse accepted and dealt out thoughtlessly to surroundings, and make murder look like a reasonable and logical decision when in an ordinary circumstance it would not. If it does not go that far, a constant regret and persisting negative reaction at the mistreatment. Salesman put people in a state of panic to narrow their options and inhibit their calm judgement, but an aspiring cult leader doing this long term to people who trust them in a position of authority goes beyond we-live-in-a-society manipulative and into ‘ruining people’s lives’ and ‘justifiably getting sued for assault or blackmail or fraud.’