Wow my experience checks off so many of these boxes. Couldn't talk to each other about anything other than neutral topics; our mail was read; forbidden from talking to girls who had left; criticism of the leadership was forbidden (for the adults, there was a vow for this); even reading books in the school library had to be individually approved; newspapers were full of holes from the articles that were cut out; we were told to hide things from our parents; we had standard vague explanations we were supposed to give outsiders who asked specific questions.
We weren't told to lie. And yet there was lying. I remember one occasion when, for a solid week, I kept getting in trouble for leaving my personal space (just the area around my bed) messy. This meant I had to leave breakfast and go clean it up before I could eat. I figured out a few days in that it was a test; I had reacted badly the first time so this adult was going to keep finding things to catch me on until I reacted the right way. So I was working on that, but I also took extra care to make sure everything was perfect. One day I checked over everything before leaving the dorm and could see all my space was flawless.
But she came and got me at breakfast again and said I had left my bed untucked on one side. I knew I hadn't. But I carefully thanked her anyway and went up to fix it.
She had *untucked my bed.* It was very obvious and I would have seen it if it had been that way when I left.
I thought about it and concluded that she had simply lied to me, as a test. To see if I would defend myself or obey like I was supposed to. So I decided to just tuck it in and say nothing. After all, it had to be okay to lie to me if it was to help make me holy and obedient.
Apparently I passed the test because it didn't happen again. But it still blows my mind that my automatic conclusion was that my superior had lied to me and that that was okay and good actually…when I was a Catholic who believed all lies were sins!
Later, of course, I found out lying was rampant, but it was that moment when I realized that lying was just part of how we did things. That I was going to have to accept it.
I don't believe anymore that all lies are sins. But I think I would have much less tolerance for this behavior now. Catching someone in a lie should make you trust them a lot less.
Re: importance of the cellarer, "guy in charge of food" very often becomes "guy in charge of logistics". The quartermaster, or the treasurer, are probably similar to the cellarer in the secular world.
If the cellarer is not the abbot or the novice master, then putting someone on an ascetic diet (e.g. bread and water) will involve one more pair of eyes. Sometimes it's ok to engage in ascetic practices and monastic communities especially will want to be able to engage in asceticism, but it can be an area where abuse happens.
> I’m not sure if there’s some deep Chestertonian wisdom in having one of them be in charge of food.
Are meetups the main way people get fed? If yes, I can see the advantages to making the person in charge of deciding how much food everyone gets is not the same person as the one who is in charge of deciding who needs to be punished.
> Norms and standards that aren’t written down can vary with the whim of the superiors or the linchpin. You need something you can point to to go “you shouldn’t do that.” Conferences, coworking spaces, meetups, and forums should have codes of conduct.
Equally important is that these rules be enforced equally. I am told that a common failure mode is to have a set of rules that are enforced more strictly against personal or ideological enemies (or, worse, to have excessively onerous rules that are only enforced as an excuse to get rid of someone disliked). This is difficult, though, because people have a natural tendency to be more lenient/understanding to their friends & ingroup.
Something still seems wrong with this. Why does Catholicism get a free pass here with regard to a lot of red flags? Lots of monastic orders do impose quite a bit of isolation, including things like vows of silence that in effect drastically isolate you from your prior friends and family. And they do impose lots of rules that in effect make it very hard to question fundamental aspects of the religion. And essentially all christian religions threaten your eternal salvation if you doubt since salvation is either through faith (most protestants) or faith and good works (Catholics).
Either these are truly universal principles and they are therefore a strong reason not to join catholic religious orders or they aren't truly universal.
Ultimately, if someone starts the cult of Zoofarianism and insists that God demands you don't ask questions about why the founder takes so many young women back to his room why is that different? Fundamentally, it seems the real difference is just that you are treating catholic beliefs as fundamentally more plausible or reasonable than those of Zoofarianiam.
And look obviously Zoofarianism is bullshit but so is catholicism. The problem still is that if you are someone who is seriously entertaining that Zoofarianism is true that means taking seriously the possibility that God says it's an important test of faith not to ask about all those young women the leader takes back to their room just like the Catholic god apparently doesn't want you questioning the central dogmas of the church.
At this point why not just write: don't join a weird cult? I mean I don't see why someone who is seriously entertaining the possibility that what the cult says is true should find this persuasive anymore than the devoted catholic should find the pressures not to doubt the central dogmas (you are literally threatened with an eternity of, at a minimum, seperation from god) as reasons to leave.
First I (in contrast to Ozy) will advance the claim and the confession of the truth that you should reconcile yourself to Catholicism because you are living in a world ruled by the omnipotent Catholic God and certainly not by any power that would legitimize a sexually exploitative founder.
Second, there is a huge difference between the entire religion of the Catholic Church (or any other overall ideology and overall community) and *specific* groups which are much more strict and demanding. Most Catholic people aren't monks/nuns, and aren't under their very rigid obligations, even if the Catholic Church does make various demands that many people deep in the secular individualist mainstream culture would chafe at. And someone leaving a religious ascetic or other high demand group doesn't necessarily imply an overall renunciation of ideology or religion.
Third, while Ozy clearly has a different view that's at the very least not compatible with the strictest Catholic religious orders, where for example irrevocable vows are a thing, both the author of the book Ozy is reviewing and Ozy are addressing the basic issue of tension between high demand groups which are recognized as potentially valuable, versus personal autonomy needed to be able to resist unjust intrusion into the private conscience. I don't think very much of this has bearing on the ideology except as it directly relates to high-control groups.
Fourth, there are a lot of different levels of doubt and confidence and ideological restriction. A cult that says, not that it is good and right that the founder sleep with many women but that you *must not question it* is engaging in a distinct dislocation of ethics which the Catholic Church has striven to reject. (And in any case the rules of Catholic ascetic communities are not part of the central dogma )
But the question here is epistemic. If that high demand group believes in something mostly false you shouldn't join. If what it claims are true including what it says about what God wants it would be crazy to be like "Yes this is God's prophet on earth and I need to follow them unswervingly to save my immortal soul but they are unjustly intruding into my private conscience so I won't" The very thing the person who is seriously contemplating joining the group is thinking is: what if that normal sense is deeply mistaken and these people actually have it right.
My issue isn't that it is pro-catholic per se (I'm a former catholic but a relatively big fan of the church) but it just illustrates that the advice isn't really taking the question of whether the beliefs of the high demand group are true seriously. A charitable reading of what she is saying is something like: look, when judging whether the beliefs of this group are likely true or false take into account whether it seems they have a bunch of beliefs or rules designed to stop people from realizing the views are mistaken or noticing something isn't right.
My point is that applying that rule epistemically to the Catholic church raises all the same red flags. The fact that you might not be joining those particular orders that take silent vows is irrelevant because it's supposed to be an **epistemic** rule: true beliefs are less likely to result in high demand groups that have rules designed to prevent questioning those beliefs. It can't be that catholicism is true for lay people but false for members of silent orders! And once you take Catholicism seriously and think the pope and priests really are being guided at some level by the holy spirit it would be hard to think that good deeply disapproves of said silent orders (indeed if such a God exists they make a lot of sense).
And I think that shows something is kinda wrong here. I think what is going on is a mixup between what are reasonable steps to maximize your welfare assuming a mostly secular understanding of that and reasonable steps to maximize your welfare taking seriously the possibility that maybe these crazy high demand groups could be right. In other words this advice is in some sense pitched at exactly the people who aren't taking that high demand group's beliefs seriously enough to join.
---
Having said that, I guess there are probably people who join high demand groups as a kind of practical thing and the belief comes later and maybe it's good to give them advice. However I'm not sure it is possible to be both useful to such people and literally correct. So it's totally plausible that the advice is helpful but I don't think it hurts for a random like me to note that there is something about it which is kinda tacitly not entering into the question of whether the group beliefs are really true in the way you probably should before joining such a group.
I mean I could imagine Ozy also approving of another religious or secular group who took vows of silence and isolation to contemplate another deity/their lives/whatever? I'm not aware of any, though I do know of secularish "silent meditation retreats".
My issue isn't that she is being unfair or something. From a practical POV I'm a fan of catholicism and think joining a Catholic high demand group isn't a bad outcome. But I'm fundamentally evaluating that from a secular POV that assumes it is ultimately false.
My point is that this advice isn't really taking the POV of someone who is really thinking that maybe what the high demand group believes is true seriously. Because if all those pieces of advice about what groups were dangerous are epistemic, e.g., if a group has X feature what it believes is less likely to be true, then they are all epistemic reasons to doubt catholicism.
I think the problem here is she is giving perfectly good practical advice if you take for granted the idea that what a good life consists of is what a secular person like her would say is good (you feel satisfied etc). But that isn't treating the person's beliefs who is thinking about joining the high demand group seriously because they are thinking: hey what if that is all wrong.
Wow my experience checks off so many of these boxes. Couldn't talk to each other about anything other than neutral topics; our mail was read; forbidden from talking to girls who had left; criticism of the leadership was forbidden (for the adults, there was a vow for this); even reading books in the school library had to be individually approved; newspapers were full of holes from the articles that were cut out; we were told to hide things from our parents; we had standard vague explanations we were supposed to give outsiders who asked specific questions.
We weren't told to lie. And yet there was lying. I remember one occasion when, for a solid week, I kept getting in trouble for leaving my personal space (just the area around my bed) messy. This meant I had to leave breakfast and go clean it up before I could eat. I figured out a few days in that it was a test; I had reacted badly the first time so this adult was going to keep finding things to catch me on until I reacted the right way. So I was working on that, but I also took extra care to make sure everything was perfect. One day I checked over everything before leaving the dorm and could see all my space was flawless.
But she came and got me at breakfast again and said I had left my bed untucked on one side. I knew I hadn't. But I carefully thanked her anyway and went up to fix it.
She had *untucked my bed.* It was very obvious and I would have seen it if it had been that way when I left.
I thought about it and concluded that she had simply lied to me, as a test. To see if I would defend myself or obey like I was supposed to. So I decided to just tuck it in and say nothing. After all, it had to be okay to lie to me if it was to help make me holy and obedient.
Apparently I passed the test because it didn't happen again. But it still blows my mind that my automatic conclusion was that my superior had lied to me and that that was okay and good actually…when I was a Catholic who believed all lies were sins!
Later, of course, I found out lying was rampant, but it was that moment when I realized that lying was just part of how we did things. That I was going to have to accept it.
I don't believe anymore that all lies are sins. But I think I would have much less tolerance for this behavior now. Catching someone in a lie should make you trust them a lot less.
Was it a Troubled Teen Program? :( my heart breaks for you
No, a Catholic boarding school run by Regnum Christi....an organization which is kind of notorious by now.
I get that this is completely beside the point, but train delays are often announced before the original time the train was supposed to leave
Re: importance of the cellarer, "guy in charge of food" very often becomes "guy in charge of logistics". The quartermaster, or the treasurer, are probably similar to the cellarer in the secular world.
That, and also kinda breaks out operational and ideological authority from each other.
Re: food.
If the cellarer is not the abbot or the novice master, then putting someone on an ascetic diet (e.g. bread and water) will involve one more pair of eyes. Sometimes it's ok to engage in ascetic practices and monastic communities especially will want to be able to engage in asceticism, but it can be an area where abuse happens.
> I’m not sure if there’s some deep Chestertonian wisdom in having one of them be in charge of food.
Are meetups the main way people get fed? If yes, I can see the advantages to making the person in charge of deciding how much food everyone gets is not the same person as the one who is in charge of deciding who needs to be punished.
(Not that I've ever seen anyone punished in my local ACX meetup. But, you know, vague analogies.)
> Norms and standards that aren’t written down can vary with the whim of the superiors or the linchpin. You need something you can point to to go “you shouldn’t do that.” Conferences, coworking spaces, meetups, and forums should have codes of conduct.
Equally important is that these rules be enforced equally. I am told that a common failure mode is to have a set of rules that are enforced more strictly against personal or ideological enemies (or, worse, to have excessively onerous rules that are only enforced as an excuse to get rid of someone disliked). This is difficult, though, because people have a natural tendency to be more lenient/understanding to their friends & ingroup.
Also, the "now that we have the policy paperwork out of the way, now here's how we Actually do things" problems.
Something still seems wrong with this. Why does Catholicism get a free pass here with regard to a lot of red flags? Lots of monastic orders do impose quite a bit of isolation, including things like vows of silence that in effect drastically isolate you from your prior friends and family. And they do impose lots of rules that in effect make it very hard to question fundamental aspects of the religion. And essentially all christian religions threaten your eternal salvation if you doubt since salvation is either through faith (most protestants) or faith and good works (Catholics).
Either these are truly universal principles and they are therefore a strong reason not to join catholic religious orders or they aren't truly universal.
Ultimately, if someone starts the cult of Zoofarianism and insists that God demands you don't ask questions about why the founder takes so many young women back to his room why is that different? Fundamentally, it seems the real difference is just that you are treating catholic beliefs as fundamentally more plausible or reasonable than those of Zoofarianiam.
And look obviously Zoofarianism is bullshit but so is catholicism. The problem still is that if you are someone who is seriously entertaining that Zoofarianism is true that means taking seriously the possibility that God says it's an important test of faith not to ask about all those young women the leader takes back to their room just like the Catholic god apparently doesn't want you questioning the central dogmas of the church.
At this point why not just write: don't join a weird cult? I mean I don't see why someone who is seriously entertaining the possibility that what the cult says is true should find this persuasive anymore than the devoted catholic should find the pressures not to doubt the central dogmas (you are literally threatened with an eternity of, at a minimum, seperation from god) as reasons to leave.
First I (in contrast to Ozy) will advance the claim and the confession of the truth that you should reconcile yourself to Catholicism because you are living in a world ruled by the omnipotent Catholic God and certainly not by any power that would legitimize a sexually exploitative founder.
Second, there is a huge difference between the entire religion of the Catholic Church (or any other overall ideology and overall community) and *specific* groups which are much more strict and demanding. Most Catholic people aren't monks/nuns, and aren't under their very rigid obligations, even if the Catholic Church does make various demands that many people deep in the secular individualist mainstream culture would chafe at. And someone leaving a religious ascetic or other high demand group doesn't necessarily imply an overall renunciation of ideology or religion.
Third, while Ozy clearly has a different view that's at the very least not compatible with the strictest Catholic religious orders, where for example irrevocable vows are a thing, both the author of the book Ozy is reviewing and Ozy are addressing the basic issue of tension between high demand groups which are recognized as potentially valuable, versus personal autonomy needed to be able to resist unjust intrusion into the private conscience. I don't think very much of this has bearing on the ideology except as it directly relates to high-control groups.
Fourth, there are a lot of different levels of doubt and confidence and ideological restriction. A cult that says, not that it is good and right that the founder sleep with many women but that you *must not question it* is engaging in a distinct dislocation of ethics which the Catholic Church has striven to reject. (And in any case the rules of Catholic ascetic communities are not part of the central dogma )
But the question here is epistemic. If that high demand group believes in something mostly false you shouldn't join. If what it claims are true including what it says about what God wants it would be crazy to be like "Yes this is God's prophet on earth and I need to follow them unswervingly to save my immortal soul but they are unjustly intruding into my private conscience so I won't" The very thing the person who is seriously contemplating joining the group is thinking is: what if that normal sense is deeply mistaken and these people actually have it right.
My issue isn't that it is pro-catholic per se (I'm a former catholic but a relatively big fan of the church) but it just illustrates that the advice isn't really taking the question of whether the beliefs of the high demand group are true seriously. A charitable reading of what she is saying is something like: look, when judging whether the beliefs of this group are likely true or false take into account whether it seems they have a bunch of beliefs or rules designed to stop people from realizing the views are mistaken or noticing something isn't right.
My point is that applying that rule epistemically to the Catholic church raises all the same red flags. The fact that you might not be joining those particular orders that take silent vows is irrelevant because it's supposed to be an **epistemic** rule: true beliefs are less likely to result in high demand groups that have rules designed to prevent questioning those beliefs. It can't be that catholicism is true for lay people but false for members of silent orders! And once you take Catholicism seriously and think the pope and priests really are being guided at some level by the holy spirit it would be hard to think that good deeply disapproves of said silent orders (indeed if such a God exists they make a lot of sense).
And I think that shows something is kinda wrong here. I think what is going on is a mixup between what are reasonable steps to maximize your welfare assuming a mostly secular understanding of that and reasonable steps to maximize your welfare taking seriously the possibility that maybe these crazy high demand groups could be right. In other words this advice is in some sense pitched at exactly the people who aren't taking that high demand group's beliefs seriously enough to join.
---
Having said that, I guess there are probably people who join high demand groups as a kind of practical thing and the belief comes later and maybe it's good to give them advice. However I'm not sure it is possible to be both useful to such people and literally correct. So it's totally plausible that the advice is helpful but I don't think it hurts for a random like me to note that there is something about it which is kinda tacitly not entering into the question of whether the group beliefs are really true in the way you probably should before joining such a group.
I mean I could imagine Ozy also approving of another religious or secular group who took vows of silence and isolation to contemplate another deity/their lives/whatever? I'm not aware of any, though I do know of secularish "silent meditation retreats".
My issue isn't that she is being unfair or something. From a practical POV I'm a fan of catholicism and think joining a Catholic high demand group isn't a bad outcome. But I'm fundamentally evaluating that from a secular POV that assumes it is ultimately false.
My point is that this advice isn't really taking the POV of someone who is really thinking that maybe what the high demand group believes is true seriously. Because if all those pieces of advice about what groups were dangerous are epistemic, e.g., if a group has X feature what it believes is less likely to be true, then they are all epistemic reasons to doubt catholicism.
I think the problem here is she is giving perfectly good practical advice if you take for granted the idea that what a good life consists of is what a secular person like her would say is good (you feel satisfied etc). But that isn't treating the person's beliefs who is thinking about joining the high demand group seriously because they are thinking: hey what if that is all wrong.