Saturday, April 18, 2020

On Leaders of Mass Movements - Gurus, Cult Leaders



I have gone through some literature on cults and mass movements and found that often some ideas and themes are presented again and again or interesting variations come up.



Obviously this doesn't validate any particular view by itself but if we are interested in any of these ideas I think it is useful to both see the claims and who is making them so we can look further into their work if what is said or how it is said makes us curious.



I think that if we look at three of the following quotes about leaders of mass movements it becomes apparent that certain ideas are widespread on the topic.



“The chief qualification of a mass leader has become unending infallibility: he can never admit an error.”
― Hannah Arendt


“The secret of rulership is to combine a belief in one’s own infallibility with a power to learn from past mistakes.”
― George Orwell





“The quality of ideas seems to play a minor role in mass movement leadership. What counts is the arrogant gesture, the complete disregard of the opinion of others, the singlehanded defiance of the world.”

― Eric Hoffer



Arendt, Orwell and Hoffer recognized that mass movement leaders need to be infallible, they need to act like they make no mistakes. Obviously Arendt gave us Origins of Totalitarianism, Hoffer gave us The True Believer and Orwell gave us Animal Farm, 1984 and several superb essays on political language.



We have Ronald Hubbard and current Scientology leader David Miscavige to compare and contrast with these descriptions but I think the trait of the follower not seeing flaws in the leader and the leader acting as if he is perfect and superhuman or godlike (and almost all cult leaders are men) is essential.



A follower can idealize a person who doesn't display cult leader behavior but I think it discourages zealous fanatics to have a leader encourage moderation, critical or independent thinking or followers displaying tolerance of everyone, and similar behavior serves to deflate fanatics and counter radicalization.



If a leader admits flaws and errors, defers to experts and more experienced people, admits ignorance and weaknesses and doesn't lie or offer exaggerated claims or promises they are discouraging cultic followers but you can still get some as some people are used to such relationships or some followers between the leader and other followers may encourage this.








“A movement is pioneered by men of words, materialized by fanatics and consolidated by men of action.”
― Eric Hoffer


“The weakness of a soul is proportionate to the number of truths that must be kept from it.”
― Eric Hoffer


“The leader has to be practical and a realist yet must talk the language of the visionary and the idealist.”
― Eric Hoffer




“When the weak want to give an impression of strength they hint menacingly at their capacity for evil. It is by its promise of a sense of power that evil often attracts the weak.”
― Eric Hoffer



“The totalitarian mass leaders based their propaganda on the correct psychological assumption that, under such conditions, one could make people believe the most fantastic statements one day, and trust that if the next day they were given irrefutable proof of their falsehood, they would take refuge in cynicism; instead of deserting the leaders who had lied to them, they would protest that they had known all along that the statement was a lie and would admire the leaders for their superior tactical cleverness.”
― Hannah Arendt


“The chief qualification of a mass leader has become unending infallibility: he can never admit an error.”
― Hannah Arendt

“The secret of rulership is to combine a belief in one’s own infallibility with a power to learn from past mistakes.”
― George Orwell

“For men to plunge headlong into an undertaking of vast change, they must be intensely discontented yet not destitute, and they must have the feeling that by the possession of some potent doctrine, infallible leader or some new technique they have access to a source of irresistible power. They must also have an extravagant conception of the prospects and potentialities of the future. Finally, they must be wholly ignorant of the difficulties involved in their vast undertaking. Experience is a handicap.”
― Eric Hoffer

“The most striking difference between ancient and modern sophists is that the ancients were satisfied with a passing victory of the argument at the expense of truth, whereas the moderns want a more lasting victory at the expense of reality”
― Hannah Arendt


“Absolute power does not corrupt absolutely, absolute power attracts the corruptible.”
― Frank Herbert

“Power attracts the corruptible. Suspect any who seek it.”
― Frank Herbert

“All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities.”
― Frank Herbert


“All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible.”
― Frank Herbert

“The people I distrust most are those who want to improve our lives but have only one course of action.”
― Frank Herbert


“motivating people, forcing them to your will, gives you a cynical attitude toward humanity. It degrades everything it touches.”
― Frank Herbert



“Small souls who seek power over others first destroy the faith those others might have in themselves.”
― Frank Herbert


“Privilege becomes arrogance. Arrogance promotes injustice. The seeds of ruin blossom.”
― Frank Herbert


“If you put away those who report accurately, you’ll keep only those who know what you want to hear. I can think of nothing more poisonous than to rot in the stink of your own reflections.”
― Frank Herbert

“The wise despot...maintains among his subjects a popular sense that they are helpless and ineffectual.”
― Frank Herbert


“We shouldn't be looking for heroes, we should be looking for good ideas.”

― Noam Chomsky







“What a monument of human smallness is this idea of the philosopher king. What a contrast between it and the simplicity of humaneness of Socrates, who warned the statesmen against the danger of being dazzled by his own power, excellence, and wisdom, and who tried to teach him what matters most — that we are all frail human beings.”
― Karl Popper


“If our civilization is to survive, we must break with the habit of deference to great men.”
― Karl Popper

“And it implies that if we respect truth, we must search for it by persistently searching for our errors: by indefatigable rational criticism, and self-criticism.”
― Karl Popper


“For the powerful, crimes are those that others commit.”
― Noam Chomsky



“In the center of the movement, as the motor that swings it onto motion, sits the Leader. He is separated from the elite formation by an inner circle of the initiated who spread around him an aura of impenetrable mystery which corresponds to his “intangible preponderance.” His position within this intimate circle depends upon his ability to spin intrigues among its members and upon his skill in constantly changing its personnel. He owes his rise to leadership to an extreme ability to handle inner-party struggles for power rather than to demagogic or bureaucratic-organizational qualities. He is distinguished from earlier types of dictators in that he hardly wins through simple violence. Hitler needed neither the SA nor the SS to secure his position as leader of the Nazi movement; on the contrary, Röhm, the chief of the SA and able to count upon its loyalty to his own person, was one of Hitler’s inner-party enemies. Stalin won against Trotsky, who not only had a far greater mass appeal but, as chief of the Red Army, held in his hands the greatest power potential in Soviet Russia at the time. Not Stalin, but Trotsky, moreover, was the greatest organizational talent, the ablest bureaucrat of the Russian Revolution. On the other hand, both Hitler and Stalin were masters of detail and devoted themselves in the early stages of their careers almost entirely to questions of personnel, so that after a few years hardly any man of importance remained who did not owe his position to them.”
― Hannah Arendt

Perhaps the following quote sums up Ron Hubbard's character and details of his cult and personal life as well as any I have ever seen:

"The overinflated narcissist is often someone much more like the original Narcissus of Ovid's Metamorphoses, as I understand the Narcissus myth: reveling in being wanted and adored by others, contemptuously deeming no one good enough, reinforcing his grandiose overvaluation of himself by sadistically negating the value and worth of others; and ultimately trapped and destroyed by his delusional obsession with what he perceives to be his own perfection. This narcissist in real life, a myth in his own mind, is so well defended against his developmental trauma, so skillful a disavower of the dependency and inadequacy that is so shameful to him, that he creates a delusional world in which he is a superior being in need of nothing he cannot provide for himself. To remain persuaded of his own perfection, he uses significant others whom he can subjugate. These spouses, siblings, children, or followers of the inflated narcissist strive anxiously to be what the narcissist wants them to be, for fear of being banished from his exalted presence. He is compelled to use those who depend on him to serve as hosts for his own disavowed and projected dependency, which for him signifies profound inadequacy and is laden with shame and humiliation. To the extent that he succeeds in keeping inadequacy and dependency external, he can sustain in his internal world his delusions of shame-free, self-sufficient superiority."
Daniel Shaw

Traumatic Narcissism: Relational Systems of Subjugation Page 11


Shaw went on to describe his opinion on the key difference between a psychopath and traumatizing narcissist in his concepts.

"When we say "pathological," what do we really mean ? When this term is used by psychoanalysts, it seems to me that some level of psychopathy is what is really being implied. However, the narcissist who seduces others in order to control and exploit them, who attacks and negates other's subjectivity in order to create hegemony for his own, and who does so while being firmly convinced of his unquestionable entitlement and righteousness, does not fit the meaning of psychopath as I understand it. The difference is the psychopath knows he breaks the law and behaves with no regard or empathy for others. The narcissist I am describing is very firmly convinced of his righteousness. This kind of narcissism involves a delusional sense of omnipotence, buttressed by the paranoid belief that all who question the narcissist's perfection are merely envious and malicious (paranoid in the sense that the malice and envy are disavowed and projected). The terms "pathological narcissist," often used to describe this set of character structures, is also used, problematically, to label and describe the people he typically exploits and victimizes, whose sense of self-esteem he has traumatically destabilized." Daniel Shaw


Traumatic Narcissism: Relational Systems of Subjugation Page 11

He sees the psychopath as knowing the difference between what others see as right and wrong and the psychopath knows he violates the standards of acceptable conduct and breaks the law and doesn't care, doesn't care about hurting people or breaking rules or what anyone thinks about it or him. The ultimate no fucks given attitude.

While in contrast the traumatic narcissist is deeply wounded and has tremendous unresolved trauma motivating him. He has to avoid it by erecting manic defenses. He perpetually uses denial of negative qualities regarding himself including behavior. This in my opinion is the genesis of profound hypocrisy. A traumatizing narcissist can do anything and find justification for it in his self-righteousness while condemning anything in others, particularly those who criticize him.

This is completely obvious with Hubbard who said his critics always had crimes in their pasts and to always meet criticism with attacks against the attacker and to ruthlessly and relentlessly ask "what are your crimes ?" of any critic.


Shaw goes on:
"Since, for the traumatizing narcissist, insufficiency is equated with mortifying dependency and the ensuing sense of impotence and inferiority, it is crucial for him to keep the destabilizing shame of these repudiated aspects of self from being released into consciousness."
Daniel Shaw

Traumatic Narcissism: Relational Systems of Subjugation Page 35

"Externalization of shame. Rather than feel self-loathing and the helplessness of unrequited dependency needs, the traumatizing narcissist arranges for dependency and its accompanying shame to be kept external, assigned to belong only to others, so as to protect himself from self-loathing and ultimately from decompensation-literally, mortification, or (psychic) death by shame."
Daniel Shaw

Traumatic Narcissism: Relational Systems of Subjugation Page 35


Eight Criteria for Thought Reform by Robert Jay Lifton excerpt




Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism
The University of North Carolina Press/Chapel Hill and London
By Robert Jay Lifton, M.D.



Mystical Manipulation. There is manipulation of experiences that appear spontaneous but in fact were planned and orchestrated by the group or its leaders in order to demonstrate divine authority or spiritual advancement or some special gift or talent that will then allow the leader to reinterpret events, scripture, and experiences as he or she wishes.

Sacred Science. The group's doctrine or ideology is considered to be the ultimate Truth, beyond all questioning or dispute. Truth is not to be found outside the group. The leader, as the spokesperson for God or for all humanity, is likewise above criticism.
Robert Jay Lifton, M.D.

M







Write your reply...
 

Thursday, April 16, 2020

The Main Barriers to Critical Thinking 2 Pro Self Biases

The following group of cognitive biases serves to make us prone to fail to see our biases, to see biases (or flaws in thinking and character) in others and to see our own ideas as better than they are or unbiased and the ideas of others (especially if they disagree with or oppose us) as worse
than they are or wrong. (Note: all definitions are quoted from

50 COGNITIVE BIASES TO BE AWARE OF SO YOU CAN BE THE VERY BEST VERSION OF YOU


  1. Blind Spot Bias: We don’t think we have bias, and we see it in others more than ourselves.
  2. Self-Serving Bias: Our failures are situational, but our successes are our responsibility.
  3. Halo Effect: If you see a person as having a positive trait, that positive impression will spill over into their other traits. (This also works for negative traits.)
  4. Naïve Realism: We believe that we observe objective reality and that other people are irrational, uninformed, or biased.
  5. Naïve Cynicism: We believe that we observe objective reality and that other people have a higher egocentric bias than they actually do in their intentions/actions.
  6. Dunning-Kruger Effect: The less you know, the more confident you are. The more you know, the less confident you are.
  7. Confirmation Bias: We tend to find and remember information that confirms our perceptions.
  8. Backfire Effect: Disproving evidence sometimes has the unwarranted effect of confirming our beliefs.
  9. Third-Person Effect: We believe that others are more affected by mass media consumption than we ourselves are.
  10. Belief Bias: We judge an argument’s strength not by how strongly it supports the conclusion but how plausible the conclusion is in our own minds.
Blind Spot Bias is an obvious one to start with, we naturally are blinded by our biases and usually only learn about biases by observing them in others and realizing that we as human beings must also have them too, without the benefit of direct observations of the biases in ourselves. A lot of research on psychological priming and biases has good evidence to support the idea that we all have biases and are profoundly unaware of them in our direct observations of our daily lives. They are well hidden.

Regarding Self-Serving bias, seeing OUR failures as caused by circumstances and the failures of OTHER PEOPLE as caused by their character makes us biased to see ourselves as both more moral than others and better in our decision making. Seeing ourselves through rose colored glasses and others through a dark tint gives us a false sense of superiority and competence that is undeserved.

The Halo Effect serves as a one two punch with the Self-Serving Bias because it lets us see any alleged flaws in someone as "proof" they are wrong, stupid, irrational, and so on in their claims and beliefs, conveniently whenever they disagree with us ! This is irrational as a person who is usually or generally wrong can have a valid claim or idea and a person who is generally right or intelligent or agrees with us can have an incorrect claim or idea.

The Halo Effect is one of the most frequently abused biases as politicians and media and people online frequently comment "that guy was SO WRONG about this other entirely unrelated topic ! No one should EVER listen to anything he says !" or "That person complains about an issue and consequences but they are not perfect in their own past behavior and conduct ! So they have no right to bring up the issue until they go back in time and live a life that cannot be criticized in any way because a flawed person only creates flawed arguments and claims !" Well, I may have exaggerated the last one a little to show that saying someone has to be perfect or have impeccable character and conduct to be listened to is just silly, since no human being has perfect behavior that is beyond any criticism.

We when it is convenient pivot to thinking of flaws in people, especially people who disagree with us and to think of good traits in people who agree with us as if the unrelated and irrelevant traits support or disprove claims that they have nothing to do with.

You can find thousands of comments online each day that follow this. A politician proposes a policy and many people attack or praise the policy based on their general attitude towards the politician or party.

Naive Realism has been written about a bit by psychologists and is well worth considering, it primes us to be overconfident in our own perception, memory and thinking and to arrogantly think WE have a better grasp on reality than others.

Naive Cynicism together with Naive Realism sets us up to see OTHER people as needing to learn critical thinking, scientific method and other subjects and to not see that we ourselves are part of the problem.

Dunning-Kruger Effect is a monster. Research has shown we are not built to dig into many or most subjects in depth, we lack the time and we work together as groups.

So, consequently, we have usually only a few subjects we learn in depth and we are prone to think we understand others far better than we really do. Even if we understand one or several subjects well we don't understand others and we and others can mistake knowledge or expertise in one area for the same thing in others.

I have seen people who have degrees even master's degrees and PhDs in some subjects give incredibly wrong and uneducated opinions in other subjects and seen that most people think a doctor or professor is an expert in everything when a little digging in the subject can show that they don't know what they're talking about.

This doesn't mean experts are worthless and always wrong. It means that they are just as vulnerable to Dunning-Kruger Effect in areas outside their expertise as the rest of us. Dunning-Kruger Effect is not about stupidity, it is about expertise.

I have seen thousands of comments that incorrectly identify Dunning-Kruger Effect as "stupid people don't know that they are stupid" that is not what it is, so you are claiming something incorrect if you say that.

Confirmation Bias is easy to understand as we can see it in others, but we have to work hard to monitor and acknowledge it in ourselves and to fight it. It goes against the easiest way to deal with information to fight confirmation bias, it takes willpower, self discipline and a lot of work to go against our first nature.

The ideas from A Theory Of Cognitive Dissonance by Leon Festinger and On Liberty by John Stuart Mill go a long way to deal with the basic problem. Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman is a superb compliment to those ideas.

The Backfire Effect is a neat little cognitive trick in which we convince ourselves we are right even when evidence shows we are not. It debunks the deficit model of information in which it was believed that availability of true information was the barrier to people knowing the truth. You can provide true information and good evidence all day and it doesn't always help.

Third Person Effect is summed up by a little cartoon showing a half dozen or so stick figure people together. One thought bubble is above them all with a thought like "look at those poor fools, robots controlled by propaganda. Poor devils, I am the only one who is thinking for myself." We tend to see ourselves as having unrestrained free will, regardless of evidence, and others as being influenced by all sorts of things we ourselves somehow escaped.

Belief Bias is very subtle and hard to get people to understand because it operates below conscious awareness and only a lot of experiments and research in psychology and social psychology revealed the subconscious has tremendous unnoticed influence on our beliefs and behavior. The book Subliminal by Leonard Mlodinow gives a terrific description of how this works and great evidence to support the claims.

Beliefs that feel good or not threatening to us and our identity and prior beliefs are much easier to perceive, accept, think of and remember than beliefs that disagree, especially with beliefs that have deep emotional impact and our fundamental values about ourselves, our groups and whatever deep underlying assumptions serve to frame and define everything else for us, they could be emotional, psychological, religious or other types depending on what has strong emotional associations for us as individuals.

Belief Bias is described by the logical fallacy personal incredulity. If I don't consider the evidence and arguments for a claim because I cannot stand the idea of thinking of it because of a strong compulsion to reject it or to not endanger an idea or belief or value it could throw into doubt then the belief bias is at play. It can have a strong emotional or intellectual component or both simultaneously but one way or another considering an idea is unacceptable. But sometimes unthinkable ideas are true.


This grouping is sadly not complete but meant to give a taste of why "I think that I am not wrong and others are" exists and how this is unfortunately in each of us. This tendency serves as a primary obstacle to education on critical thinking, everyone knows it is lacking in society when they hear about it but they also know someone else needs to learn and that I am doing it just fine.