Hacker News Reader

Comment by benjijay | Hacker News Reader

I am regularly confounded by the existence of scientology; are cults just that popular? Are people really so easily duped? Is this all a social experiment that's gotten way out of hand?

View on HN

When talking about cults, I'd rather shift the description of the target demographic from "gullible" to "desperate" and "vulnerable". Many people don't get an upbringing that produces a self-sustained, emotionally mature adult, many are isolated, are riddled with overbearing negative feelings like loneliness and abandonment. Otherwise not necessarily gullible people are willing to look away if they get what they really want, and these negative feelings make one really want for example human connections, and a part in a structure.

I'm deliberately writing this in this abstract level, because it's not just cults who get their members like this. Extremists employ the same tactics, as does the military, many influencers, self-help as an industry, and even a lot of cheating in relationship happens for the same reason.

The takeaway, I think, is that these bad things happen to normal humans, same as everybody. And the second one is that it really pays off for the individual to look inside, so that nothing festers unchecked. Many of the funny things happen in the dark corner where we're not willing to look.

Plenty of educated and well being people are religious so this is a mix of gullible, desperate, adverse to logical thinking, lazy, ...

I do not blame religious people, though. It is easier to be a believer and have pre-made and comfortable ideas about why you are here and what will happen after you dire than to think that you have a mix of happiness and despair in your life and then it's over.

Lazy is another descriptor that I'm wary of, similar to "gullible" [0]. These are great shortcuts when we want to distance us from somebody, but they are unhelpful when trying to understand behavior, individual scale or society scale.

It's a struggle for me, though, so at the end of the day I'm a mix of judgmental feelings and some conscious empathy. I have learned that when I shut down curiosity with judgment, then I get no further in the topic, but I have strong feelings too, against religion in general for example. Organized religion has not been doing a good job at being morally superior or supportive of the people, despite this being on the forefront of the organizations. Turns out that they behave exactly like how other power structures do, and even if they give some existential comfort at all, they take a lot in return.

Your other point is also well worth of consideration. Being educated doesn't mean that one is not susceptible to whatever false narrative, be that a cult's teachings, or the flat earth movement. It turns out that life is complicated, and just because people are good at one part of it, they can suck at another. It's like many of the facets of life don't have any "cross-talk" at all, you have to pay attention to all of them and "level them up" independently.

And yeah, taking a pre-made idea is pretty attractive, instead of having to deal with all of this all the time. We don't create our food from scratch either, after all.

[0] https://www.psychiatrictimes.com/view/laziness-does-not-exis...

There are only tens of thousands of members[1]. That's comparable to the viewership of a popular Twitch streamer (there's a joke about differing business models in here somewhere...). If you're genuinely interested in the rise and fall of Scientology and have a half-hour to spare, I can recommend [2], and other videos in that series examining fringe religions.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology#Demographics [2]: https://youtu.be/xSlYVGNQiFs

I've seen my share of docu-minis about them - for better or worse I spent an amount of time on the 'chans back when the whole thing with 'anonymous vs scientology' all kicked off, which is partly why I'm so confounded by its apparent success; at risk of setting off some automoderation or angering xyz group - scientology feels more obviously culty and bs than the other bs cults, but people readily (literally) buy into it wholesale

Interesting point, but I doubt many Twitch streamers could convince their audience to break into an IRS building on their behalf.

It's probably more a desire to be part of a group, alongside shared ideological values, than genuine belief. I also think they have pretty attractive subtle recruiting techniques. Across the street from my university they were giving free real IQ tests out near 24/7. That gets lots of people in the door, and if you scored highly they offered quite lucrative (by university side-job standards) positions. That's more than enough to offer an overall quite positive impression, and probably netted them more than a few otherwise quite intelligent individuals who, some fraction of, likely went on to become full-on members.

Cults give actual benefits which is why they are hard to quit. They give a feeling of love and a feeling of being wanted by others, of belonging. The recruitment strategies for young people are often around this kind of enveloping loving community.

Its emotional not rational.

As another sibling comment says, it's how radical and terrorist politics works too. Emotional need for belonging.

Also there is a reinforcement loop where the outside says "you are wrong" and inside they say "the outside hates us".

> They give a feeling of love and a feeling of being wanted by others, of belonging.

They also make it clear that the love will be taken away the minute you stop obeying them.

Yes, people are easily duped. Some of them are lonely and eagerly accept whatever church will take care about them. To feel like you are a part of something more, to feel that your life has a meaning.

Also it is much easier to accept views of the skilled salesman than think by yourself.

It's a private club completely separate from the rest of the world, while still residing in it. I don't think they care if any of that stuff is really true, its all about the dynamics of being part of a controversy but going back to the safety of the group. What baffles me is why famous people would join. It's a stretch but I can only guess it's to be part of an exclusive social club they get to control, without the risk of morally alienating their fan base ("$FamousGuy says he's Christian but then did $badThing").

Famous people are as broken and needy as anyone else. Fame doesn't bring some kind of vaccination nor give them access to VIP external protection agencies. Becoming famous isn't a proxy for intelligence or emotional resilience, as much as many think that they should be role models. Cults give real benefits to people.

They are as susceptible to manipulation tactics too.

At this point, recruitment is pretty much dead. Scientology was only able to exist in the pre-internet era. Their tactics, by definition, cannot change with the times as any deviation from "source" is considered blasphemy.

At this point any "new" members are going to be mainly made up of people born into it, or without internet access.

People become Scientologists in Hollywood as it opens doors in the film business.

This is not true. There are not enough Scientologists with power in the industry for this to be a real thing.

It works on blackmail. You get an 'audit' and they hold it over you for life, implying buying the next level will free you when it just locks you in more. Eventually sunk cost, and the loss of family and social life are the prison, and your soul is gone.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com