Cult logic: Don’t listen to the naysayers?

Cult logic. It’s not just for cults apparently, or at least, nor religious ones.

So I was checking out a post at The Social Media Philosophy Project blog, due to the fact that a fellow Adelaidian blogger had started contributing. This wasn’t one of her posts of couse.

The post in question was about the two-sided nature of social networking and I have to say that I agree with most of what was said. Especially that part about spreading yourself too thin.

I can also empathise with what is says about the nastier side of things; i.e. creepy people who take far too much of an interest in your personal life and the more generally abusive. Albeit from a blogospheric perspective rather than a social networking one.

But, there was a part that admittedly wasn’t elaborated upon that didn’t quite resonate with me and I wanted a bit more detail.

“It seems that when certain people are online, they lose any sense of respect for others. The (sic) enjoy putting you down and telling you how very wrong you are. There is nothing wrong with giving an opinion, but the Naysayers do it in a very low-class way.”

(Kelly, 2008 )

When someone is very wrong, I don’t think one should take too much umbrage at having it pointed out to them, or indeed so if they are merely being contentious. This is especially true when you put your ideas out into the public. I’m not saying you should tolerate abuse by any means, but not all criticism, even the most critical, necessarily comes with abuse or a lack of respect. Nor am I suggesting one tolerate liars and sophists.

Why conflate criticism with disrespectfulness? Indeed, “naysaying” can be a virtue if the topic is important and the criticised argument is flawed. “Hey, George! You can’t fly man! Remember when you jumped off the top of the car? C’mon get down from there”, isn’t particularly disrespectful if you assume that it isn’t disrespectful to try and stop your friends from jumping off a skyscraper.

Of course, Kelly’s terms are ambiguous, so perhaps this isn’t what she was talking about. Or perhaps it was. She links to a post called “One Rotten Apple Spoils the Whole Bunch… Baby!” at the blog of a motivation speaker (or whatever they are called these days) that writes at length about bad attitudes on the web…

“Do they think they look smart because they can argue the “negative” side of a conversation or drag someone down to their level?  I am sure they believe they are – at least in their own eyes and mind.”

(Benny Greenberg, 2008 )

Indeed, some people are simply being contrarian, and a bit rude while at it as well. That’s not news to me. But again, why lump “naysayers” in there? Not that Benny Greenberg used the word himself, but indeed all the same, “naysayer” (along with its cousins like “do-gooder”) itself is commonly used as a disrespectful criticism, and often a fatuous one at that.

Up until this point I wasn’t sure what the angle was although with talk of naysayers, as a group, being disrespectful and negative, it was seeming more like a defense of the inability to handle criticism, and a conflation of criticisms of argument with personal attacks.

Then this popped up in Greenberg’s post.

“This is why when we talk about the 4-step plan to success I emphasize the 3rd step: Your mind tightly closed to all negative influence. Those negative influences can come from places you least expect; friends, family and acquaintances. Many others have a three-step plan and do not include this step, but I feel that it is as important if not THE most important of the steps. It is definitely a step that can trip you up most easily, as we have become accustomed to listening to the opinions of others, especially where friends and family are concerned.”

(Benny Greenberg, 2008 )

His four steps being discussed here, but basically meaning having a clear plan and pursuing it incessantly, a purpose back by desire, having a closed mind to all negative influence and having people around you that will support your plan.

Let’s see how this pans out in the real world. Howard had a plan to go to war in Iraq. He had a desire to support George Bush Jr and to see himself in the history books. He ignored the majority of Australians when they made criticisms, avoided putting it before parliament for scrutiny and basically just had a closed mind. Needless to say Howard surrounded himself with support. Howard was successful.

But just because someone is successful, doesn’t mean that it’s right.

Iraq has a tin-pot faux-Democracy running it, which itself is little better than other tin-pot totalitarian regimes around the world. When the troops of the west retreat, the tin-pot Iraqi government will collapse through civil war. A whole bunch of people have died, more so than if Saddam had remained in power. Terrorists have had a field day recruiting thanks to the war. The allies being as taxed as they are has given Iran vulnerabilities to exploit.

All of these criticisms were either predicted or projected and raised as serious concerns before the war. The Howard-cult would have none of it of course and many still keep their head in the sand on the issue.

Greenberg’s four step plan can be seen in the corporate boardroom. Set a goal, get a plan, make sure the board is stacked in your favour and go ahead with it no matter what people say. Plenty of environmental disasters have resulted from this kind of mentality, not that in many cases, such disasters not withstanding, these corporations have been successful.

Third-world slave labour? Successful! Anti-competitive behaviour? Successful! It’s all a lot easier once you put on the blinkers. Don’t worry about externalities until the lawyers come a-knocking and even then…

But the title of my post says “cult”. That’s because the behaviours in Greenberg’s four step plan, which he devised through the observation of successful people, aren’t unique.

The cult supports you, they are your “Master Mind Alliance” as Greenberg calls it. They support your goals (naturally because they share the same ones). They will help you with your plans to achieve those goals, tenaciously so. And of course, what is a cult without cutting you off from negative thoughts?

Parents wanting to get your teenage child back? Pfft. Ignore them. They’re just being negative when they call a cult a cult.

Many schools use motivation plans with cultish elements in them, largely because schools strapped for cash often have to call in cultists (religious or political) to provide free talks. David Roever, southern preacher, motivation speaker and cult-like George Bush Jr / Iraq war follower came to my High School in the first half of the 1990s. Aside pissing off the atheist and Muslim students who stood up the back, Roever was brought to our school via Paradise Community Church (home of the founders of the Family First Party).

Suffice to say, only the credulous were motivated which of course is par for the course with cult-epistemology motivation. Notably, the notion of shutting out criticism (aka negative thoughts) played a part, which is probably how Roever and his co-Iraq-war-cultists convince themselves the war effort isnt’ a  faliure.

Now, I’m not saying that Kelly or Benny are Iraq war advocates or cultists wanting to take kids away (although the corporate boardroom analogy may be closer for Benny).

What I am telling you is that while this may make people successful in a self-absorbed kind of way, it doesn’t make the world a better place. If meaningful discussion on the net is going to help develop political discourse, then people are going to have to learn how to deal with criticism of their cherished ideas.

Block off abuse and deception by all means, but branching off into echo-chamber Internet-cults isn’t going to give us any solutions. That’s assuming we mean to get anything worth-while out of our online discussions of course.

~ Bruce