Comment by wpietri
9 years ago
Oh god. I'm horrified by this.
> People think of a cult as a bad thing [...] really, it’s just a social organization structure which is a basic built-in thing to human beings
This is the naturalistic fallacy, or the is-ought fallacy. Other basic built-in things to human beings include ignorance, rage, greed, abuse, exploitation, and violence.
A core part of civilization is deciding which of our basic built-in things are valuable, amplifying the useful bits, and circumscribing the ones that aren't. Treating something as good because it's natural is a giant error. A very convenient one for him here.
Don't read too much into it.
He's only using "cult" as a provocative term to describe a tribe of fans who passionately like a particular brand. Nobody's going to be committing human sacrifices or burning heretics on behalf of Mr Money Mustache any time soon.
> Don't read too much into it.
It's hard not to especially when comes to people in power and leadership.
In all fairness, I do think it's a bit more than that although I think it's mostly harmless if not positive in this particular case. A fair number of people do feel the need to jump into systems/philosophies/brands with both feet whether it's MMM or GTD. Personally, I am more the pick and choose useful ideas from here and there sort, but if committing wholeheartedly is what someone has to do develop better spending habits I have trouble finding a lot of fault with that.
It's also important to figure out which of our built-in behaviors are ineradicable, so that we can develop systems that help route around our worst impulses. Much of conventional society and its norms was geared toward this and it's something we do a really poor job of understanding as we tear those walls down.
If cult behavior is built-in, then directing that energy into reverence for Mr. Money Mustache seems like a positive to me.
I've been re-evaluating the reflexive "cults are bad" instinct that Americans like myself seem to have.
Your implication is that 'cult' and 'ignorance, rage, greed...' are the same levels of undesirable. And like this guy said, when we think of cults we think of Kool-Aid and Waco.
But "cult" is a little word that covers a lot of territory:
- a system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object
- a relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister
- a misplaced or excessive admiration for a particular person or thing
- a person or thing that is popular or fashionable, especially among a particular section of society
(Oxford)
The first one would be analogous to calling Christianity the Cult of Jesus, as a statement of fact. Neutral connotation, I think.
The second would include something along the lines of Jonestown, but really is just any cohesive group that believes something differently than you do. Really, that definition is so flexible and relativistic that it can be tagged to anything you disagree with. And it's possible that those beliefs and practices are edifying in nature, but you just get called a cult because your friends all do it together with you and everyone else just thinks it's weird.
The third would be something like Bieber fever or Beatlemania. Negative connotation.
The fourth would be something like iPhone/Android people, or a cult film. Neutral-ish connotation.
No definition truly captures what we think of as a cult: The charismatic leader that probably wants to have sex with all of his adherents, the coercion and conformity, the inability to leave.
I don't really know how he's using the word so I don't have a strong opinion about what kind of cult he's formed, but I wouldn't write him off instantly because he used the word.
At least I don't think so; I'm trying this argument out in public for the first time right now.
Well on the whole people who sell sensible advice for free in the personal fincance sphere, though living off their blog income, are probably not the bad guys. Although you might have to exercise some independent thought to figure out what sensible advice means for you.
I'm going to use your comment to go on a bit of a rant. What is the purpose of your comment? Like, really. What are you trying to attain by stating what you did?
Your comment is pedantic and completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. Derisive thing to say, perhaps, but this is classic HN. Miss the big picture for a useless little nugget that is of zero consequence.
For the current case, for example, a certain amount of a lot of those supposed "vices" that you listed are healthy. Greed and jealousy make you strive, ignorance give you peace of mind, rage is cathartic. So, OK, I'm guessing we both agree that there should be limits on such things. Scientology, bad. Cult involving biking to work, good.
"A very convenient one for him here". Huh?
Your comment just seems to be a portal into a conversation involving endless squabling about a topic that has nothing to do with MMM.
I am mainly trying to point out a common and dangerous philosophical error.
Arguing for creating a cult because it is beneficial on its own is reasonable (although I'd argue it's wrongheaded). Arguing for it on the basis of it being natural is wrong. All sorts of terrible things have been justified this way. Slavery, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornerstone_Speech
And when you say "vices" I'm not sure who you're quoting, but it's not me. Those are just natural features of the human organism. My point is exactly that they're not intrinsically good or bad. It's in how we structure our society to use them.
> Cult involving biking to work, good.
Just to be clear, in case you;re confused. Biking to work doesn't involve you being forced to cut off ties and communication with family and friends who don't bike. Neither does it require you to hand over a large proportion of your income to a church.