I can't figure out whether to upvote this to expose this person, or downvote it to avoid giving this person exposure.
It never ceases to amaze me just how many fools are out there just waiting to fall for something like this. It's terrifying. Instagram douche meets cult leader has got to be the worst personality combo I've ever seen in my life.
On another note, this stuff makes scientologists sound completely reasonable and sane by comparison.
I agree. But despite the bizarre fact is that there is a real market for these kind of "Gurus" to fill, but unless someone is forced to join or kept in the cult by force then what's the problem?
he chooses to lead and followers choose to follow.
They are forced to stay in the cult through coercion. Members join willingly, and the cult slowly isolates them, encourages to shut out family and friends, takes all their money and makes them financially helpless. By the time they realize what's going on, they have no safe way to leave the cult. That leaves the members vulnerable to all sorts of abuse. That's why joining a cult should be seen as a problem, and not just as someone's preference.
The problem with narcissistic personality disorder is that all attention is good attention, all absence of attention is bad and drives the rage that leads to the abuse.
I can take a guess. After the Buddha was enlightened, he went back to his old friends the ascetics, and they didn't believe he was enlightened. But they talked and after a while they were convinced. Later, doubters would visit the Buddha and they'd have something like debates in front of the other monks. So I think Horn is saying he wants to show through debate that Massaro's views are bad, i.e., not the dhamma (truth).
I mean... something like a battle over fulfilling your life's purpose, according to certain religious/philosophical points of view. Most religions have a concept of internal struggle, and most cults are just slight retellings of previous religions.
This is just a guy with a cult. It's similar to a startup/technology company in only the most superficial ways. The guy who runs this cult plays ping pong and wears sunglasses indoors? Oh what a scathing indictment of Silicon Valley culture.
The NYT hardly "found" Esalen. The thing is around since the early 60s. And has been home to people like Timothy Leary, Buckminster Fuller, B.F.Skinner, Virginia Satir, Allen Ginsberg, Joan Baez...
It's a rather well-known home of counter culture. Silly Valley simply hopes something rubs off on them. Because the realization is starting to set in that you, after all, really cannot take your toys with you.
But really, "finding" is a pretty strong word for writing about one of the major touch stones of 60s culture.
> The NYT hardly "found" Esalen. The thing is around since the early 60s. And has been home to people like Timothy Leary, Buckminster Fuller, B.F.Skinner, Virginia Satir, Allen Ginsberg, Joan Baez...
> It's a rather well-known home of counter culture.
..which makes it both sad and amusing that it has become a place for a bunch of Silicon Valley executives to go try to "find themselves" and look for affirmation that their advertising and surveillance companies aren't detrimental to society.
> "It means that we reach a level of maturity to where we as a collective are able to be contacted openly without us freaking out anymore, without it needing to be kept secret anymore, we have become > are < own government.”
Apparently being god means you don't have to use the right words when communicating.
I couldn't get through it. Rarely have I seen more words used to say absolutely nothing while completely avoiding actually addressing anything in the article supposedly being addressed.
"Love and Light,"
It looks like this guy might be getting his ideas from a certain show on Hulu.
These types of cults pop up in America, and usually at least once in a generation there is one that somehow captures peoples imaginations (People’s Temple, Branch Davidians, Heaven's Gate, etc). I don't include Scientology in this list - no matter how insidious that organisation is, it's never lead to a mass suicide.
The people who follow these leaders are lost, usually from broken background - some run away from home and fall in to it.
The leaders tend to be diagnosed (mostly after the fact though analysts) as narcissists. Polyamory is usually a feature of their style, as well as mental and physical abuse of their followers. They have no problem in "breaking" people for their own sick fantasy.
Especially the early ones where he just seems to be making shit up on the fly and taking really long pauses to think about a good answer. Then again, maybe that makes him more relatable to the average person?
The shit-eating grin must work for a particular kind of audience. It counter-signals hard to me.
I know some real narcissists, and I think there's a moment before their narcissism is confirm-able that their "power" has more currency than it will later. I guess we can call it "charisma", but once it turns... it can feel rancid. I guess for some people, that rancid-ness doesn't show up.
I kind of hoped that we were moving towards an age of rationality and reasoning where people will finally be able to think for themselves but it seems that the opposite is happening.
Literally everything these days is a cult. Including companies (e.g. Apple), and money itself (e.g. cryptocurrencies).
It makes me think that there must be some really powerful evolutionary processes in place which make it so that irrational idolists have more children and live longer than rational people.
People don't need to understand everything, but they should understand that nobody has the answers and that's why independent thinking is so important.
Independent thinking is simply about questioning everything you're taught.
Most people believe that if some idea is popular, then it must be right; but in reality, most of the time the opposite is true.
What does that mean? Brains are their own little worlds of thought, but they also communicate-- thinking has a social component as well. Both are absolutely crucial and trivially present in all thinking. The scientific method, for example, is founded upon a tension between independent and social examinations of scientific ideas.
Clearly there's a good way to think independently and a bad way; a good way of thinking as a group and a bad. How is the line drawn? It's certainly not a line that can be drawn in advance.
In your post you said:
> It makes me think that there must be some really powerful evolutionary processes in place which make it so that irrational idolists have more children and live longer than rational people.
That seems rather essentialist to me: Do you really think people are so transparent that you can not only judge whether they are intrinsically rational or irrational but also that quality is hereditary and also that there is a mysterious force that makes us idiots via natural selection?
Better instead to ponder what social and psychological processes can draw someone into a cult and how those processes play out in your own life. We take for granted how thin the margin is between our own lives and the lives of others. It is almost surely the case that all of us hold absolutely absurd delusions about our lives and how we should go about them.
The advantage of the scientific method over humanities is that the problem domain is narrower and therefore the rules that you can use to verify statements are simpler to understand for an individual.
If you look at mathematics, an individual who understands the basic rules can prove a statement to themselves without having to defer any judgement to a higher intellectual authority.
In most aspects of life, people tend to defer the majority of their thinking to intellectual authorities; 'thought leaders'.
>> Do you really think people are so transparent that you can not only judge whether they are intrinsically rational or irrational but also that quality is hereditary and also that there is a mysterious force that makes us idiots via natural selection?
It's probably both genetic and environmental. I think that there is an evolutionary reason why humans are so bad at making the distinction between cause and effect (and nature vs nurture) - There is often a self-reinforcing feedback loop between the two.
At one point about a decade ago, not long after college, I had this conviction that over time with more available granular information about the world, people would start to be more epistemic [1] about how they viewed the world. In fact what I found though, was that more information seems to have led to the opposite. That people's interpretation of the same information seems to reinforce already held beliefs about the state of things rather than update their beliefs.
Not sure where that leads the zeitgeist with ever increasing barrage and availability of information, skewed or otherwise.
"Most people" don't care why they know what they know, they just know it. I imagine it's a less stressful existence.
That said, every age, every transformation, has its dissidents. Counterarguments for that are Utopia and "global unity" type sentiments, but history tells us those aren't realistic goals. YMMV.
I think a bit part of the blame can be put on the internet. When I was a kid most of my information came from one source, the TV - or via books which I could read in my own time.
Now information barrages us from multiple outlets, in real time and at times too fast to comprehend the changes.
With this I think a large part of the population has essentially "switched off" to rational thinking, maybe an evolutionary reaction to what the brain perceives as a something that can harm us.
The world is complicated so we evolved these lumps of neurons on the ends of our spines to help navigate it. They are only as large as they have to be, and their primary purpose is to (re-)program the motor cortex and then go to sleep.
There is a strong evolutionary "pressure" to keep the brain in an "idle state".
If it seems like the evolutionary goals of the organism can be met with a simplified degenerate model then the organism will naturally adopt that model.
There is a possibility to notice that you're mostly-robotic and deliberately strive to become real but this is vanishing rare in practice.
It does seem almost like he started off just trolling people, then decided to run with it when he realized people were willing to pay and/or have sex with him in exchange for that trolling.
Seems like the people who follow him are already predisposed to believe in fanciful ideas like gods and other supernatural beings. Doesn't seem so hard to fool people who already are willing to accept beliefs beyond evidence.
> I’ve watched him control the weather a lot of times. We’ll be at a party and I’ll be like ‘Bentinho these clouds are not good, it looks like rain. Within ten minutes they’re gone.
That's a laughably low standard of proof to accept for anything. Let me guess, he can turn invisible too when there's no one looking.
42 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 88.7 ms ] threadRun roh, bit of a flashing red warning sign with hints of Jonestown.
It never ceases to amaze me just how many fools are out there just waiting to fall for something like this. It's terrifying. Instagram douche meets cult leader has got to be the worst personality combo I've ever seen in my life.
On another note, this stuff makes scientologists sound completely reasonable and sane by comparison.
/s
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/04/technology/silicon-valley... (the Esalen Institute)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10906754 (the rationality cult related to Eliezer Yudkowsky and LessWrong)
It's a rather well-known home of counter culture. Silly Valley simply hopes something rubs off on them. Because the realization is starting to set in that you, after all, really cannot take your toys with you.
But really, "finding" is a pretty strong word for writing about one of the major touch stones of 60s culture.
> It's a rather well-known home of counter culture.
..which makes it both sad and amusing that it has become a place for a bunch of Silicon Valley executives to go try to "find themselves" and look for affirmation that their advertising and surveillance companies aren't detrimental to society.
Apparently being god means you don't have to use the right words when communicating.
It contains a sentence that may be the most perfect thing an "Instagram guru" could ever write:
I have modeled many different jackets, teachings and examples within a short period of time.
"Love and Light,"
It looks like this guy might be getting his ideas from a certain show on Hulu.
These types of cults pop up in America, and usually at least once in a generation there is one that somehow captures peoples imaginations (People’s Temple, Branch Davidians, Heaven's Gate, etc). I don't include Scientology in this list - no matter how insidious that organisation is, it's never lead to a mass suicide.
The people who follow these leaders are lost, usually from broken background - some run away from home and fall in to it.
The leaders tend to be diagnosed (mostly after the fact though analysts) as narcissists. Polyamory is usually a feature of their style, as well as mental and physical abuse of their followers. They have no problem in "breaking" people for their own sick fantasy.
Neither did the Davidians, to be fair
I know some real narcissists, and I think there's a moment before their narcissism is confirm-able that their "power" has more currency than it will later. I guess we can call it "charisma", but once it turns... it can feel rancid. I guess for some people, that rancid-ness doesn't show up.
Literally everything these days is a cult. Including companies (e.g. Apple), and money itself (e.g. cryptocurrencies).
It makes me think that there must be some really powerful evolutionary processes in place which make it so that irrational idolists have more children and live longer than rational people.
Independent thinking is simply about questioning everything you're taught.
Most people believe that if some idea is popular, then it must be right; but in reality, most of the time the opposite is true.
Clearly there's a good way to think independently and a bad way; a good way of thinking as a group and a bad. How is the line drawn? It's certainly not a line that can be drawn in advance.
In your post you said:
> It makes me think that there must be some really powerful evolutionary processes in place which make it so that irrational idolists have more children and live longer than rational people.
That seems rather essentialist to me: Do you really think people are so transparent that you can not only judge whether they are intrinsically rational or irrational but also that quality is hereditary and also that there is a mysterious force that makes us idiots via natural selection?
Better instead to ponder what social and psychological processes can draw someone into a cult and how those processes play out in your own life. We take for granted how thin the margin is between our own lives and the lives of others. It is almost surely the case that all of us hold absolutely absurd delusions about our lives and how we should go about them.
If you look at mathematics, an individual who understands the basic rules can prove a statement to themselves without having to defer any judgement to a higher intellectual authority.
In most aspects of life, people tend to defer the majority of their thinking to intellectual authorities; 'thought leaders'.
>> Do you really think people are so transparent that you can not only judge whether they are intrinsically rational or irrational but also that quality is hereditary and also that there is a mysterious force that makes us idiots via natural selection?
It's probably both genetic and environmental. I think that there is an evolutionary reason why humans are so bad at making the distinction between cause and effect (and nature vs nurture) - There is often a self-reinforcing feedback loop between the two.
Isn't this just as dangerous a heuristic as the reverse?
Flat earth, fake moon landing, 9/11 was an inside job...
At one point about a decade ago, not long after college, I had this conviction that over time with more available granular information about the world, people would start to be more epistemic [1] about how they viewed the world. In fact what I found though, was that more information seems to have led to the opposite. That people's interpretation of the same information seems to reinforce already held beliefs about the state of things rather than update their beliefs.
Not sure where that leads the zeitgeist with ever increasing barrage and availability of information, skewed or otherwise.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology
That said, every age, every transformation, has its dissidents. Counterarguments for that are Utopia and "global unity" type sentiments, but history tells us those aren't realistic goals. YMMV.
Now information barrages us from multiple outlets, in real time and at times too fast to comprehend the changes.
With this I think a large part of the population has essentially "switched off" to rational thinking, maybe an evolutionary reaction to what the brain perceives as a something that can harm us.
Like actual ATP molecules.
The world is complicated so we evolved these lumps of neurons on the ends of our spines to help navigate it. They are only as large as they have to be, and their primary purpose is to (re-)program the motor cortex and then go to sleep.
There is a strong evolutionary "pressure" to keep the brain in an "idle state".
If it seems like the evolutionary goals of the organism can be met with a simplified degenerate model then the organism will naturally adopt that model.
There is a possibility to notice that you're mostly-robotic and deliberately strive to become real but this is vanishing rare in practice.
> I’ve watched him control the weather a lot of times. We’ll be at a party and I’ll be like ‘Bentinho these clouds are not good, it looks like rain. Within ten minutes they’re gone.
That's a laughably low standard of proof to accept for anything. Let me guess, he can turn invisible too when there's no one looking.