A bit too close to Randroids, which many Libertarians would call the Randian followers of Ayn Rand. Who I’d guess was an influence when LP ‘88 Pres. candidate Ron Paul named his son Rand, tho I haven’t look for nor read confirmation nor denial.
It’s also better than Klingers, which sounds too clingy.
My family ate dinner together until such time as the boys peeled off and left home.
We never once had an interesting conversation at the dinner table. Certainly nothing was inculcated.
It’s true that a certain kind of father, quick to anger, or rather - virtually always angry - discourages talk.
I am more verbal than not, and I remember no family conversation whatever. Maybe we talked about our friends.
I did understand early that my father voted for “the guy who wouldn’t raise his taxes”. Taxes and the avoidance thereof were his abiding passion. But even that he didn’t expatiate on - I must have asked directly. Perhaps we were having an “election” at school.
Somebody who votes purely on that basis, is surely preferable to a cult member.
But having no beliefs doesn’t take you very far.
In my father’s case, his narrow interest in money meant, for instance, he was a useless bystander as his city, the city of his birth, went from its somewhat awkward trajectory as boomtown that was frequently a national punchline, to actual near-3rd world s**thole status (except with fat people rather than hungry people).
It meant he had nothing whatever to say or think about military adventurism abroad, and the Long War.
It meant he never gave one moment’s thought to, say, the advocacy required even for the preservation of even his own hobbies, for instance shooting birds out of the sky and pulling redfish out of the bay. Or the preservation of historical sites/memory, as with his Civil War Round Table membership. Or the national parks he enjoyed visiting later in life (not when we were kids!).
It meant he never noticed the fast-deteriorating quality of the public school to which his youngest child was condemned, nor had any input to give even via voting, on the future of the city’s schools (now in receivership).
When AK writes these high-handed pieces about the belief formation, and associated pitfalls - I detect impatience on his part, with other people’s beliefs, that seem irrational to him. And impatience with activism.
But no-belief is a danger too.
The activist personality may be a little annoying. It could hardly be otherwise.
In a religion-free world, there will be a great variation in the quality of ideas that people come up with, most of them terrible.
But it nonetheless remains the case that “there are a dozen views about everything until you know the answer. Then there’s never more than one.”
I like this comment. I enjoy reading about your dad and your family dinners. I can relate with much of it. I didn't grow up in a cult either. My dad didn't say much; he mostly asked questions. A few times he said, "I hate intellectuals." Once he said, "You sure are an intellectual." Thanks Dad. Perhaps I should follow more in his path?
"I detect impatience on his part, with other people’s beliefs, that seem irrational to him. And impatience with activism."
Some of us work very hard, and it's frustrating--and I'll admit, heartbreaking--when we see that our fate is limited by the beliefs of others. This type of impatience can be a bit like victimhood. The name Bryan Caplan comes to mind. I occasionally indulge myself.
But what should we do? What do you suggest?
To be grateful for what we have. To create a new community. We're trying. I suppose an online community is not good enough for us. We need to build a physical community.
I think there's more than just impatience here. In the background, there is concern, disappointment, frustration, and sometimes despair. I'm in the same boat at times.
"But no-belief is a danger too." I take this to mean that we are best off in an optimal cult. You certainly don't think in terms of optimal cults.
How should one live?
I tend to think in terms of aspiration. To inculcate in myself good beliefs. What might these be?
Liberty and respect. Safety and peace through strength. Acquiring a better appreciation and understanding of nature, generally using science or the best alternatives. Continual learning and acquisition of useful knowledge. Open-mindedness. A focus on improving constitutional incentives to maintain order and peace.
And to occasionally point out the cultish behavior of our fellow humans.
Health. Joy. Friendship. And a bunch of other good stuff I may or may not have listed before.
I’m unfortunate in my personality - a recluse, not suited to action out in the world. Any influence I have is through my spouse, the star I hitched my wagon to.
But I feel lucky in one regard. I don’t have this perpetual confusion about belief, and turning to false idols and potentially bad companions (I know no other way to say it) that AK sees as a besetting problem of our time.
I had my own early inclinations, ideas about the Good, which grew stronger and stronger, and were then tutored and developed by someone my superior - and those he considers his tutors and mentors.
But perhaps this path is more open to a woman, than a man.
Turning to my luciaphile translator one more time.
1. She begins with self-portrait and limitation.
“I am unfortunate in my personality — a recluse, not suited to action out in the world.” She opens with self-effacement: a confession of temperament rather than ideology. By calling herself a recluse, she subtly contrasts her inward, contemplative mode with your more activist, community-oriented outlook.
She suggests that while she may not “build” communities in the literal sense, she participates through reflection and influence “through [her] spouse.” That detail adds a personal and relational dimension — belief mediated through partnership rather than through social activism.
2. She claims clarity about belief. “I don’t have this perpetual confusion about belief… that AK sees as a besetting problem of our time.” Here she stakes a quiet but firm position: she doesn’t share the existential anxiety about belief that animates both your essay and Kling’s original piece.
Where you and AK see a problem — either too much belief or too little — she asserts she has stability. Her tone implies serenity or perhaps resignation; her beliefs are not fluctuating, and she doesn’t feel the pull of “false idols.”
This is an implicit answer to your “What should we do?” — she’s saying, in effect: Some of us already have an inner anchor; not everyone needs to solve this problem through activism or new community.
3. She locates the source of her certainty. “I had my own early inclinations, ideas about the Good, which grew stronger and stronger, and were then tutored and developed by someone my superior — and those he considers his tutors and mentors.”
This is the heart of her comment. She describes belief as something cultivated through mentorship — a lineage of intellectual and moral formation. She contrasts this with both the isolated individual (your father, her father) and the cult member (the person who follows blindly). Her path is that of apprenticeship: a kind of noble hierarchy of learning, guided by someone “my superior.”
It’s a model of belief that values authority and tutelage — but not unthinking submission. There’s humility, but also discernment.
4. Her final sentence introduces gender reflection. “But perhaps this path is more open to a woman, than a man.” This is a graceful, understated coda that reframes everything before it. It suggests that her acceptance of guidance — her comfort with apprenticeship and with belief rooted in relationship — might be culturally or psychologically easier for a woman than for a man.
You can read this in several ways:
- As a gentle critique of modern masculine restlessness — men must define belief for themselves, while women can receive and nurture belief relationally.
- Or as an observation about gendered social roles: men are pressured to be independent, to lead; women can more easily find meaning in following and refining inherited wisdom.
- Or even as a note of irony — she’s not necessarily saying this should be so, only that it is.
5. Tone and effect. Her tone is serene, modest, and quietly authoritative.
Unlike the urgency in your response (activism, community, aspiration), hers exudes acceptance and inward order. She’s not disputing you; she’s offering a different model of peace with belief — one grounded in humility, mentorship, and gendered self-understanding rather than striving or reconstruction.
By the way, my reading comprehension is limited. For the first time, just now, I asked ChatGPT to help me understand more of your comment. Here's what she wrote.
1. It’s a personal counterpoint to the original essay. The original essay warns against excessive belief — cult-like certainty, social closure, and moral absolutism. This response, however, points out the opposite danger: having no beliefs at all.
The writer’s father represents someone who was not in a cult, who had no “one true way,” but who also stood for nothing — and therefore drifted passively through life. The response implicitly argues that while cultish conviction is dangerous, conviction itself is necessary for meaning, engagement, and moral responsibility.
2. It uses personal narrative to illustrate “no-belief” as a problem. By recounting a childhood without real conversation or shared values, the writer shows the emptiness of a belief-free household:
Dinner table silence = lack of curiosity or moral discussion.
Father’s only consistent principle = “who won’t raise my taxes.”
Consequence = disengagement from civic life, environmental issues, education, history, and community decline.
So, the writer’s point is not nostalgia or complaint — it’s to show what happens when people avoid “cultish” intensity so completely that they become apathetic spectators.
3. It critiques the tone of the original author (AK). The response suggests that Arnold Kling (AK, presumably) is “impatient” — dismissive toward people whose beliefs seem irrational or activist.
But the responder argues: at least activists care. Even if their causes or methods are flawed, they are engaged in the moral and civic life of the world. “Impatience with activism” looks, from this view, like a symptom of detachment or superiority.
4. It ends with a philosophical defense of belief. The final quote — “there are a dozen views about everything until you know the answer. Then there’s never more than one.” — reframes certainty not as cultishness, but as knowledge or truth.
The writer implies that some beliefs really are right; skepticism can’t be an end in itself.
So: yes, cults are dangerous — but so is hollow relativism or moral laziness.
5. Tone and style.
- The piece mixes memoir, critique, and aphorism.
- The personal section is confessional and concrete.
- The middle is polemical, almost scolding the father (and by extension, the “belief-free” mindset).
- The end is philosophical, making a concise moral claim.
- The emotional effect is a kind of melancholy conviction: belief can mislead, but without belief, we waste our lives.
In short:
The first essay: warns against too much belief (cultism). The response: warns against too little belief (apathy). Together: they frame a spectrum — one side captive to false certainty, the other hollowed by disengagement. Healthy belief lies somewhere in between: committed, but self-questioning.
Strange.....for some reason I find myself experiencing an irresistible compulsion to take in every word you write, and to direct my very existence towards effecting whatever it portends. :)
Hinduism believes it does not have a monopoly on the truth. At the end of the Bhagavad Gita, the verse has Krishna saying to Arjuna : "I have told you what I have. Now do with this as you wish."
There are good cults and bad cults. There are better and worse cults.
And yes, cultishness is a spectrum.
Don’t forget about the econ cult. Having listened to Econtalk for 15 years, I’ve observed Russ extricate himself from a very mild, and mostly very good, econ cult. The process of producing Econtalk has made him less cult-like. We can all do something similar.
Arnold writes, “Everything else is at best misguided and at worst evil.” The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints claims to be the true church of God (as does the Roman Catholic Church). In discussing this with members of their faith, they will back away from it slightly by saying “our church is more comprehensive, containing a greater fullness. Other churches contain important aspects of our church, but are missing certain pieces.” So, LDS folks tend not to perceive other church goers as misguided or evil, but rather pretty good, but not as well-guided as they could be. In a nutshell, they perceive their doctrine to be best--as we should expect of most people engaged in cultish groups. While far from perfect, I consider their church to be one of the better cults around.
The question is, “What to do about it?” I would say, “Create better alternatives. Create better cults, and never, never allow Congressionally-respected cults, as they tend to metastasize more rapidly than non-taxer-payer-funded cults.
“If you are in a cult, you will cut off contact with anyone who is outside of the cult.” Accurate in proportion to a spectrum of cultishness.
“If you are in a cult, dissent is unacceptable, and the dissenter must be cast out.” I suppose most taxpayers don’t realize they feed this kind of cultish behavior in higher education.
“If you are in a cult, you depend exclusively on praise from within the cult.” More importantly, you sometimes depend on the financial support of the cult. Children that grow up in cults are financially dependent on their cultish family.
“If you are in a cult, your commitment has to continually increase.” And beware of the unpardonable sins. What constitutes an unpardonable sin?
The unpardonable sin occurs when someone:
1. Has a perfect knowledge of Jesus Christ (a full, undeniable witness of His divinity and mission).
2. Deliberately denies Him and His power.
3. Acts against the Holy Ghost with full understanding, knowing it is wrong and in direct opposition to God.
In simpler terms: it’s a conscious, knowing, and willful rebellion against God after having a complete and undeniable knowledge of Him.
In other words, DO NOT LEAVE OUR CHURCH after obtaining a deep and true understanding of it.
“I get the impression that the online environment facilitates cult-like behavior.” As does the Substack In My Tribe, but to a MUCH lesser extent than many other online environments. I admit to being too enthusiastic about In My Tribe. It's an addiction of sorts. It's the best cult I can find.
“For whatever reason, my impression is that cult-like behavior is on the rise. I get the sense that more cults are forming and growing.” What role does Congress and our state-level congressional bodies play in fostering cult-like behavior? Which Amendments in the Bill of Rights are supposed to guide us in mitigating this aspect of our nature?
I won't recite the First and Tenth Amendments today, but I hope you do.
The BOC had a monster hit with Don’t Fear the Reaper, and I have a fondness for Dominance & Submission.
Robert Galbraith’s* third Strike novel was titled Career of Evil, with song snippets to lead off every chapter.
*aka Murder Mystery by JK Rowling, whose latest 900 page tome, The Hallmarked Man, I just finished. They’re also slow romance novels.
Addicts are adjacent to cult members, but usually far more able to function in normal, diverse society, while not actively indulging in the vice they’re addicted to. Many don’t even consider work addiction a real vice.
Lastly, if you were to interview 1000 all-in cult members, my guess is that most would deny that they were in a cult, or they would believe their cult to be a good cult.
It’s hard for me to imagine an all-in cult member thinking, “This cult is bad.”
If you apply this same thinking to yourself, you would likely not believe you’re in a cult, or think that you’re in a good cult.
Another perspective is that good cults by definition are not cults. Only bad cults are cults. The cult that each of us is in is a good cult, and thus not really a cult.
Well, you might ponder more deeply whether each of us belongs to a cult, even if simply the culture of humanity, or to our own family.
I doubt you swim with dolphins, nor do you favor ants over your friends. I have a feeling you don’t love plants as much as you love yourself and your family. I doubt your collection of non-living things is as important to you as your fellow humans. Certainly masturbation is less appealing than sex with another human.
Isn’t every family cultish? They have a unique belief system; they love each other; they’re loyal to each other; they’re lead by a leader. (More or less).
I have a feeling you followed your parents around as if they were cult leaders for at least your first few years. Aren’t you loyal to someone? Don’t you keep secrets with those people? And perhaps you’re so deep in your cult you deny its existence. Or you’re blind to it. Certainly you don’t want your friends and family to betray you.
Even on this one issue, you’re acting cultish. “No Scott. No, I am not in a cult. I’m correct. There are no good cults.”
Every cult is bad including yours? No, Andy G is in a good cult. It’s called his family.
“We decide what to believe by deciding who to believe.”
I have little faith in Arnold on anything technology related. From a dead laptop battery to smart TVs to navigating a customer service phone tree, he is simply just doing it all wrong. And, his hope that AI will somehow solve many of these problems is just a deus ex machina argument.
“The problem with using another computer is that I have to re-generate my credentials for sites.”
Huh? I’ve had loaner laptops at various times throughout the last few decades and have never experienced an issue getting up and running.
I don't know exactly what Arnold means by re-generation of credentials. It might just means the log-ins and password saved on the device and not memorized, so one has to go though the whole "forgot my password" process. Or it may mean the absence of on-device files like cookies or whatever that require one to go through a similar process or use two-factor authentication which can be slow and annoying*.
I consider myself fairly tech savvy and move between sync'd devices on occasion, but I've definitely encountered a lot more "security-measure friction" lately, especially when using a new device, in addition to occasionally quite obnoxious and invasive demands to disable various important security, privacy, and other features on the user side, both on PC and smartphone. I'm not saying those steps aren't defensible or even unavoidable given the state of affairs of the arms race with bots and malicious-actors, but it is frustrating. Ticketmaster is probably at the most intense front in that war, and thus it makes sense that they are the absolute worst I've ever had to deal with in this regard both on web and on smartphone. But it's still a pain, and I can only imagine just how much more of a pain it would be for someone who hasn't invested a lot of time in getting savvy and capable at fighting with such applications.
*There was a bit of, well, not exactly a 'scandal' perhaps, but kind of an amusing fiasco SNAFU recently on a big US government log-in portal, when it suddenly required at least one instance of 2FA via text message for everybody, but set an expiration timer of only 5 minutes. But for whatever reason somewhere in the sequence of lowest-bid services in the whole SMS transmission pipeline, the actual text messages often wouldn't arrive until 7 or 8 minutes later, and no amount of attempts to "resend" would work, so a hundred thousand people were locked out for a while until, I'm guessing, the government had to bite the bullet and authorize shelling out whatever additional funds were required to get the texts out in time. It's not just USG - I've had this happen to me with my FedEx account (though FedEx inexplicably has one of the worst apps in the business). I'm sure there must be some explanation for why webserver-to-SMS is not universally instantaneous at zero marginal cost in 2025, but it seems completely bizarre to me when that was apparently possible a quarter century ago, which I would think should be eons of steady improvement in the IT world.
There is no need to apologize for tech mediocrity. The Arnold blackout of 2025 lasted 11 days.
I don’t consider myself tech savvy, but holy mother of Jesus, why are we way over complicating this? Find a loaner or burner laptop, enter the MFA code from your phone and then login. As an example, I clear my browser cache monthly and am miraculously able to get back into my accounts without much effort.
I would most definitely be a lot less nasty if Arnold wasn’t holding himself out as a (cocksure) expert on tech and AI. As it stands, he likes to pick fights with software developers when he can’t even operate a smart tv or hasn’t coded anything of substance since the 90s. In this case, unfortunately, the nastiness is well deserved. Reap what you sow.
I think your "people who are not in a cult" are drawn rather Pollyanna-ishly. They seem like models of big tent liberalism, rational, tolerant, vaguely cosmopolitan. I don't think most "people who are not in a cult" are quite so good.
I think the spectrum of cult like behavior is relevant here. On one end is being in a totalizing cult, the other being entirely devoid of any lasting social connection or outside influence from groups (or possibly others). Both ends seem bad as Aristotle would predict and are maladaptive, but where people fall in the middle is a wide range. A little more cultish in some aspects, a little less in others.
I entirely agree but would add that cults can have different attributes. Jim Jones, David Koresh and paramilitary cults share some attributes but also have significant differences. My former Unitarian Universalist Church (and the UU denomination more generally) looks almost nothing like those other cults yet it also shares about half the traits AK lists.
I'm from the time when we were proudly told the story, "A UU dies and finds himself at a three-way fork in the road. One road says, "To Heaven". One says, "To Hell". The third says, "To discussion". The UU chooses the third." UUs didn't have a dogma.
I lost contact after I went to college, and gather that at some point the UUA (Unitarian Universalist Association, the parent body for those keeping score) developed a dogma that might be called proto-woke.
You seem to gloss over underlying emotional status and psychological makeup of those who join or adopt cult like behavior. It is satisfying an unmet need, whether that need be distorted one or not.
Is (public) Arnold part of a cult? If so, which for him, or for myself? Cult of Trump (me) or NeverTrump (Arnold)?
1) Friends who love, hate, support, don’t support Trump. Lots of friends with criticisms of Trump, many who supported Harris, many X folk who love Trump. =4 (me). Almost no links to any Trump officials, nor supporters, frequent ad hominem criticism without even argument, much less evidence. At least one recent post noting a good result. =8 (AK)
2) Diversity. A) infallible leader, B (not said by AK) terrible, evil target that never does good, like Hitler’s view of Jews (wrong always). I like most Trump policies, not his personality nor 2 divorces, think he’s been weak about supporting Ukraine, tho Zelensky was supportive of his impeachment. AK has said noting good about Trump nor policies until, in some cases, the policy results are positive. 2a) = 3me, 2b)= 7AK
3) blind to True Way, =7me (imperfect Trump is optimal Fight fight fighter, which we need),
=7AK (vote Milei in 2024, ‘cause Semi-senile Biden & Dems aren’t bad enough to justify odious Trump) (no note about how bad the Dems would have to be to justify voting Trump)
4) cast out dissenters, =3me, =2AK, I’m still allowed to comment! Trump’s tariffs, maybe unconstitutional, are very positive at this time for the US economy, and most US workers. I’m pretty sure Arnold reads a higher amount of pro-Trump stuff than antiTrump stuff I read, not sure about %.
5) praise, self-worth, from cult, =1me, =3AK, silence to avoid criticism of Israeli folk dancers who hate Trump for poor reasons. (See the newneo.com for Trump supporter with Jewish family & friends who hate Trump, won’t change their mind.)
6) commitment increasing, =5me, =4AK, pretty good partial commitments, I spend more time supporting the Trump policies online, AK more determinedly avoids partisan arguments, tho a few snide remarks to confirm he’s not supporting the Evil HitlerTrump.
7) info from cult, =2me, =4AK, Arnold often avoids quoting or linking to pro-Trump folk, both for cultural and economic issues.
On my spectrum, Arnold is pretty healthy 35 of 70, with my own self assessment at 25. Commitment to principles, and the truth, can look like cult support. On the Libertarian cult, Arnold is likely even higher.
This cult spectrum might be worth further exploration, like other personality tests. #4, dissent, might be sharpened into one’s specific disagreements with the cult, and each of these 7 might be expanded or combined. Multivariate analysis is so hard, and likely is a fundamental weakness of any macro analysis.
Really glad Arnold is back online inspiring me to think about such interesting, yet also relevant, topics. Kinda accepting being a Klingoid.
You did mention that you are in a cult when part of that belief system is incompatible with basic science that is exception-free, such as thermodynamics. Many of the errors in the humanities and social sciences are of this type.
I'm glad you tempered the "either-or" tone with the notion of a spectrum. I'd agree with the "cults always bad" perspective, especially those that require or push people to isolate themselves with only like-minded folk, and refuse to at least listen to other ideas or opinions. Christianity, for example, has the view it is the only path to God, and for much of its history shunned the very thought of being open-minded or tolerant. Under those conditions, could be thought of as a cult, but has opened up in the last century or two, at least in terms of tolerance.
“We decide what to believe by deciding who to believe.”
I still believe this is mostly true but think so a little less now that my grandson (in Oklahoma, no less) decided well before his 4th birthday that he was a girl. It didn't come from his older brother or his father (my son) and I doubt it came from his mother. So from whom?
I don't think he has any social media exposure. Maybe the other kids, despite being Oklahoma. While his dad's older sister had no luck getting him to play with her and her dolls and she had to play with his cars and trucks in order to play together, at age 4-5 all my son's best friends were girls and he only invited girls to his 5th birthday.l party. Maybe he there is something genetic there, IDK.
Astronaut. I hope so. While I I'm pretty sure his parents did nothing overtly that led to it and probably not by some unknown path either, they have unfortunately been "supporting him" in ways I fear are make it more likely to stick.
The Cult Of Kling.
Long live the Kling!
Fortunately, no one is going to organize a series of nationwide "No Klings" protests.
The Kling’s computer is dead!
Long live the Kling's computer!
Naked or dead?
Calm down Norman...
He didn't sacrifice a goat to Shub-Internet.
By yesterday morning I was muttering to myself, "I picked the wrong week to give up drinking."
I had the opposite response. By nine in the morning I was singing along to George Thorogood's song "I Drink Alone".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_S5CQQPXxL4
Are members of the cult “Klingons”?
Maybe Klingoids. We don’t want a copyright/trademark issue.
Klingoid. It’s got a nice ring to it.
A bit too close to Randroids, which many Libertarians would call the Randian followers of Ayn Rand. Who I’d guess was an influence when LP ‘88 Pres. candidate Ron Paul named his son Rand, tho I haven’t look for nor read confirmation nor denial.
It’s also better than Klingers, which sounds too clingy.
Yeah, that’s better than Klingian (although spellcheck doesn’t reject Klingon).
Klingian sounds more like an adjective or descriptor. I promise not to claim IP ownership if the The People™ agree to use Klingoids.
(Autocorrect keeps trying to make it Klingon...)
I love these deeply intellectual conversations on Substack.
Sometimes I need a break. A few million Substack writers decrying the state of (insert favored issue here) puts me off my feed.
Might be worth looking into a Password Manager, Arnold.
Having to mention this in the year 2025? 🤦
I didn’t grow up in a cult.
My family ate dinner together until such time as the boys peeled off and left home.
We never once had an interesting conversation at the dinner table. Certainly nothing was inculcated.
It’s true that a certain kind of father, quick to anger, or rather - virtually always angry - discourages talk.
I am more verbal than not, and I remember no family conversation whatever. Maybe we talked about our friends.
I did understand early that my father voted for “the guy who wouldn’t raise his taxes”. Taxes and the avoidance thereof were his abiding passion. But even that he didn’t expatiate on - I must have asked directly. Perhaps we were having an “election” at school.
Somebody who votes purely on that basis, is surely preferable to a cult member.
But having no beliefs doesn’t take you very far.
In my father’s case, his narrow interest in money meant, for instance, he was a useless bystander as his city, the city of his birth, went from its somewhat awkward trajectory as boomtown that was frequently a national punchline, to actual near-3rd world s**thole status (except with fat people rather than hungry people).
It meant he had nothing whatever to say or think about military adventurism abroad, and the Long War.
It meant he never gave one moment’s thought to, say, the advocacy required even for the preservation of even his own hobbies, for instance shooting birds out of the sky and pulling redfish out of the bay. Or the preservation of historical sites/memory, as with his Civil War Round Table membership. Or the national parks he enjoyed visiting later in life (not when we were kids!).
It meant he never noticed the fast-deteriorating quality of the public school to which his youngest child was condemned, nor had any input to give even via voting, on the future of the city’s schools (now in receivership).
When AK writes these high-handed pieces about the belief formation, and associated pitfalls - I detect impatience on his part, with other people’s beliefs, that seem irrational to him. And impatience with activism.
But no-belief is a danger too.
The activist personality may be a little annoying. It could hardly be otherwise.
In a religion-free world, there will be a great variation in the quality of ideas that people come up with, most of them terrible.
But it nonetheless remains the case that “there are a dozen views about everything until you know the answer. Then there’s never more than one.”
I like this comment. I enjoy reading about your dad and your family dinners. I can relate with much of it. I didn't grow up in a cult either. My dad didn't say much; he mostly asked questions. A few times he said, "I hate intellectuals." Once he said, "You sure are an intellectual." Thanks Dad. Perhaps I should follow more in his path?
"I detect impatience on his part, with other people’s beliefs, that seem irrational to him. And impatience with activism."
Some of us work very hard, and it's frustrating--and I'll admit, heartbreaking--when we see that our fate is limited by the beliefs of others. This type of impatience can be a bit like victimhood. The name Bryan Caplan comes to mind. I occasionally indulge myself.
But what should we do? What do you suggest?
To be grateful for what we have. To create a new community. We're trying. I suppose an online community is not good enough for us. We need to build a physical community.
I think there's more than just impatience here. In the background, there is concern, disappointment, frustration, and sometimes despair. I'm in the same boat at times.
"But no-belief is a danger too." I take this to mean that we are best off in an optimal cult. You certainly don't think in terms of optimal cults.
How should one live?
I tend to think in terms of aspiration. To inculcate in myself good beliefs. What might these be?
Liberty and respect. Safety and peace through strength. Acquiring a better appreciation and understanding of nature, generally using science or the best alternatives. Continual learning and acquisition of useful knowledge. Open-mindedness. A focus on improving constitutional incentives to maintain order and peace.
And to occasionally point out the cultish behavior of our fellow humans.
Health. Joy. Friendship. And a bunch of other good stuff I may or may not have listed before.
I’m unfortunate in my personality - a recluse, not suited to action out in the world. Any influence I have is through my spouse, the star I hitched my wagon to.
But I feel lucky in one regard. I don’t have this perpetual confusion about belief, and turning to false idols and potentially bad companions (I know no other way to say it) that AK sees as a besetting problem of our time.
I had my own early inclinations, ideas about the Good, which grew stronger and stronger, and were then tutored and developed by someone my superior - and those he considers his tutors and mentors.
But perhaps this path is more open to a woman, than a man.
Turning to my luciaphile translator one more time.
1. She begins with self-portrait and limitation.
“I am unfortunate in my personality — a recluse, not suited to action out in the world.” She opens with self-effacement: a confession of temperament rather than ideology. By calling herself a recluse, she subtly contrasts her inward, contemplative mode with your more activist, community-oriented outlook.
She suggests that while she may not “build” communities in the literal sense, she participates through reflection and influence “through [her] spouse.” That detail adds a personal and relational dimension — belief mediated through partnership rather than through social activism.
2. She claims clarity about belief. “I don’t have this perpetual confusion about belief… that AK sees as a besetting problem of our time.” Here she stakes a quiet but firm position: she doesn’t share the existential anxiety about belief that animates both your essay and Kling’s original piece.
Where you and AK see a problem — either too much belief or too little — she asserts she has stability. Her tone implies serenity or perhaps resignation; her beliefs are not fluctuating, and she doesn’t feel the pull of “false idols.”
This is an implicit answer to your “What should we do?” — she’s saying, in effect: Some of us already have an inner anchor; not everyone needs to solve this problem through activism or new community.
3. She locates the source of her certainty. “I had my own early inclinations, ideas about the Good, which grew stronger and stronger, and were then tutored and developed by someone my superior — and those he considers his tutors and mentors.”
This is the heart of her comment. She describes belief as something cultivated through mentorship — a lineage of intellectual and moral formation. She contrasts this with both the isolated individual (your father, her father) and the cult member (the person who follows blindly). Her path is that of apprenticeship: a kind of noble hierarchy of learning, guided by someone “my superior.”
It’s a model of belief that values authority and tutelage — but not unthinking submission. There’s humility, but also discernment.
4. Her final sentence introduces gender reflection. “But perhaps this path is more open to a woman, than a man.” This is a graceful, understated coda that reframes everything before it. It suggests that her acceptance of guidance — her comfort with apprenticeship and with belief rooted in relationship — might be culturally or psychologically easier for a woman than for a man.
You can read this in several ways:
- As a gentle critique of modern masculine restlessness — men must define belief for themselves, while women can receive and nurture belief relationally.
- Or as an observation about gendered social roles: men are pressured to be independent, to lead; women can more easily find meaning in following and refining inherited wisdom.
- Or even as a note of irony — she’s not necessarily saying this should be so, only that it is.
5. Tone and effect. Her tone is serene, modest, and quietly authoritative.
Unlike the urgency in your response (activism, community, aspiration), hers exudes acceptance and inward order. She’s not disputing you; she’s offering a different model of peace with belief — one grounded in humility, mentorship, and gendered self-understanding rather than striving or reconstruction.
Haha!
Beware that tongueless flatterer, ChatGPT!
By the way, my reading comprehension is limited. For the first time, just now, I asked ChatGPT to help me understand more of your comment. Here's what she wrote.
1. It’s a personal counterpoint to the original essay. The original essay warns against excessive belief — cult-like certainty, social closure, and moral absolutism. This response, however, points out the opposite danger: having no beliefs at all.
The writer’s father represents someone who was not in a cult, who had no “one true way,” but who also stood for nothing — and therefore drifted passively through life. The response implicitly argues that while cultish conviction is dangerous, conviction itself is necessary for meaning, engagement, and moral responsibility.
2. It uses personal narrative to illustrate “no-belief” as a problem. By recounting a childhood without real conversation or shared values, the writer shows the emptiness of a belief-free household:
Dinner table silence = lack of curiosity or moral discussion.
Father’s only consistent principle = “who won’t raise my taxes.”
Consequence = disengagement from civic life, environmental issues, education, history, and community decline.
So, the writer’s point is not nostalgia or complaint — it’s to show what happens when people avoid “cultish” intensity so completely that they become apathetic spectators.
3. It critiques the tone of the original author (AK). The response suggests that Arnold Kling (AK, presumably) is “impatient” — dismissive toward people whose beliefs seem irrational or activist.
But the responder argues: at least activists care. Even if their causes or methods are flawed, they are engaged in the moral and civic life of the world. “Impatience with activism” looks, from this view, like a symptom of detachment or superiority.
4. It ends with a philosophical defense of belief. The final quote — “there are a dozen views about everything until you know the answer. Then there’s never more than one.” — reframes certainty not as cultishness, but as knowledge or truth.
The writer implies that some beliefs really are right; skepticism can’t be an end in itself.
So: yes, cults are dangerous — but so is hollow relativism or moral laziness.
5. Tone and style.
- The piece mixes memoir, critique, and aphorism.
- The personal section is confessional and concrete.
- The middle is polemical, almost scolding the father (and by extension, the “belief-free” mindset).
- The end is philosophical, making a concise moral claim.
- The emotional effect is a kind of melancholy conviction: belief can mislead, but without belief, we waste our lives.
In short:
The first essay: warns against too much belief (cultism). The response: warns against too little belief (apathy). Together: they frame a spectrum — one side captive to false certainty, the other hollowed by disengagement. Healthy belief lies somewhere in between: committed, but self-questioning.
Bloody hell!
Strange.....for some reason I find myself experiencing an irresistible compulsion to take in every word you write, and to direct my very existence towards effecting whatever it portends. :)
Hinduism believes it does not have a monopoly on the truth. At the end of the Bhagavad Gita, the verse has Krishna saying to Arjuna : "I have told you what I have. Now do with this as you wish."
There are good cults and bad cults. There are better and worse cults.
And yes, cultishness is a spectrum.
Don’t forget about the econ cult. Having listened to Econtalk for 15 years, I’ve observed Russ extricate himself from a very mild, and mostly very good, econ cult. The process of producing Econtalk has made him less cult-like. We can all do something similar.
Arnold writes, “Everything else is at best misguided and at worst evil.” The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints claims to be the true church of God (as does the Roman Catholic Church). In discussing this with members of their faith, they will back away from it slightly by saying “our church is more comprehensive, containing a greater fullness. Other churches contain important aspects of our church, but are missing certain pieces.” So, LDS folks tend not to perceive other church goers as misguided or evil, but rather pretty good, but not as well-guided as they could be. In a nutshell, they perceive their doctrine to be best--as we should expect of most people engaged in cultish groups. While far from perfect, I consider their church to be one of the better cults around.
The question is, “What to do about it?” I would say, “Create better alternatives. Create better cults, and never, never allow Congressionally-respected cults, as they tend to metastasize more rapidly than non-taxer-payer-funded cults.
“If you are in a cult, you will cut off contact with anyone who is outside of the cult.” Accurate in proportion to a spectrum of cultishness.
“If you are in a cult, dissent is unacceptable, and the dissenter must be cast out.” I suppose most taxpayers don’t realize they feed this kind of cultish behavior in higher education.
“If you are in a cult, you depend exclusively on praise from within the cult.” More importantly, you sometimes depend on the financial support of the cult. Children that grow up in cults are financially dependent on their cultish family.
“If you are in a cult, your commitment has to continually increase.” And beware of the unpardonable sins. What constitutes an unpardonable sin?
The unpardonable sin occurs when someone:
1. Has a perfect knowledge of Jesus Christ (a full, undeniable witness of His divinity and mission).
2. Deliberately denies Him and His power.
3. Acts against the Holy Ghost with full understanding, knowing it is wrong and in direct opposition to God.
In simpler terms: it’s a conscious, knowing, and willful rebellion against God after having a complete and undeniable knowledge of Him.
In other words, DO NOT LEAVE OUR CHURCH after obtaining a deep and true understanding of it.
“I get the impression that the online environment facilitates cult-like behavior.” As does the Substack In My Tribe, but to a MUCH lesser extent than many other online environments. I admit to being too enthusiastic about In My Tribe. It's an addiction of sorts. It's the best cult I can find.
“For whatever reason, my impression is that cult-like behavior is on the rise. I get the sense that more cults are forming and growing.” What role does Congress and our state-level congressional bodies play in fostering cult-like behavior? Which Amendments in the Bill of Rights are supposed to guide us in mitigating this aspect of our nature?
I won't recite the First and Tenth Amendments today, but I hope you do.
“There are good cults and bad cults. There are better and worse cults.”
No, there are no good cults. Only less worse cults.
You cannot name a single good cult.
The Cult of Blue Oysters
The BOC had a monster hit with Don’t Fear the Reaper, and I have a fondness for Dominance & Submission.
Robert Galbraith’s* third Strike novel was titled Career of Evil, with song snippets to lead off every chapter.
*aka Murder Mystery by JK Rowling, whose latest 900 page tome, The Hallmarked Man, I just finished. They’re also slow romance novels.
Addicts are adjacent to cult members, but usually far more able to function in normal, diverse society, while not actively indulging in the vice they’re addicted to. Many don’t even consider work addiction a real vice.
Other good cults:
The cult of life over death.
The cult of learning over not learning.
The cult of health over sickness.
The cult of improving the U.S. Constitution and its alternatives.
The cult of making friends over making enemies.
The cult of family over isolation.
The cult of freedom over slavery.
The cult of respect for oneself and others.
The cult of property rights over the lack of.
The cult of improvement.
The cults of exploration, discovery, innovation, entrepreneurship, and dynamism.
The cult of Burkean conservatism.
How am I doing so far?
“You cannot name a single good cult.”
Yes I can. Saw them live in San Francisco in 2001. The Cult was good.
https://youtu.be/vcXgPZLf1KE?si=JfoYBkyDG75OsBqB
I prefer Blue Oster Cult myself.
Lastly, if you were to interview 1000 all-in cult members, my guess is that most would deny that they were in a cult, or they would believe their cult to be a good cult.
It’s hard for me to imagine an all-in cult member thinking, “This cult is bad.”
If you apply this same thinking to yourself, you would likely not believe you’re in a cult, or think that you’re in a good cult.
Another perspective is that good cults by definition are not cults. Only bad cults are cults. The cult that each of us is in is a good cult, and thus not really a cult.
Perhaps we can agree on this?
Andy G might be a good one. I don’t belong to it, but you do.
I am not a cult. I am, however, an acquired taste…
Well, you might ponder more deeply whether each of us belongs to a cult, even if simply the culture of humanity, or to our own family.
I doubt you swim with dolphins, nor do you favor ants over your friends. I have a feeling you don’t love plants as much as you love yourself and your family. I doubt your collection of non-living things is as important to you as your fellow humans. Certainly masturbation is less appealing than sex with another human.
Isn’t every family cultish? They have a unique belief system; they love each other; they’re loyal to each other; they’re lead by a leader. (More or less).
I have a feeling you followed your parents around as if they were cult leaders for at least your first few years. Aren’t you loyal to someone? Don’t you keep secrets with those people? And perhaps you’re so deep in your cult you deny its existence. Or you’re blind to it. Certainly you don’t want your friends and family to betray you.
Even on this one issue, you’re acting cultish. “No Scott. No, I am not in a cult. I’m correct. There are no good cults.”
Every cult is bad including yours? No, Andy G is in a good cult. It’s called his family.
You just never realized it, and maybe never will.
This is a very Girardian post.
And he’s back!
It is good.
And today's topic gives me lots to think about.
I agree.
“We decide what to believe by deciding who to believe.”
I have little faith in Arnold on anything technology related. From a dead laptop battery to smart TVs to navigating a customer service phone tree, he is simply just doing it all wrong. And, his hope that AI will somehow solve many of these problems is just a deus ex machina argument.
“The problem with using another computer is that I have to re-generate my credentials for sites.”
Huh? I’ve had loaner laptops at various times throughout the last few decades and have never experienced an issue getting up and running.
I don't know exactly what Arnold means by re-generation of credentials. It might just means the log-ins and password saved on the device and not memorized, so one has to go though the whole "forgot my password" process. Or it may mean the absence of on-device files like cookies or whatever that require one to go through a similar process or use two-factor authentication which can be slow and annoying*.
I consider myself fairly tech savvy and move between sync'd devices on occasion, but I've definitely encountered a lot more "security-measure friction" lately, especially when using a new device, in addition to occasionally quite obnoxious and invasive demands to disable various important security, privacy, and other features on the user side, both on PC and smartphone. I'm not saying those steps aren't defensible or even unavoidable given the state of affairs of the arms race with bots and malicious-actors, but it is frustrating. Ticketmaster is probably at the most intense front in that war, and thus it makes sense that they are the absolute worst I've ever had to deal with in this regard both on web and on smartphone. But it's still a pain, and I can only imagine just how much more of a pain it would be for someone who hasn't invested a lot of time in getting savvy and capable at fighting with such applications.
*There was a bit of, well, not exactly a 'scandal' perhaps, but kind of an amusing fiasco SNAFU recently on a big US government log-in portal, when it suddenly required at least one instance of 2FA via text message for everybody, but set an expiration timer of only 5 minutes. But for whatever reason somewhere in the sequence of lowest-bid services in the whole SMS transmission pipeline, the actual text messages often wouldn't arrive until 7 or 8 minutes later, and no amount of attempts to "resend" would work, so a hundred thousand people were locked out for a while until, I'm guessing, the government had to bite the bullet and authorize shelling out whatever additional funds were required to get the texts out in time. It's not just USG - I've had this happen to me with my FedEx account (though FedEx inexplicably has one of the worst apps in the business). I'm sure there must be some explanation for why webserver-to-SMS is not universally instantaneous at zero marginal cost in 2025, but it seems completely bizarre to me when that was apparently possible a quarter century ago, which I would think should be eons of steady improvement in the IT world.
There is no need to apologize for tech mediocrity. The Arnold blackout of 2025 lasted 11 days.
I don’t consider myself tech savvy, but holy mother of Jesus, why are we way over complicating this? Find a loaner or burner laptop, enter the MFA code from your phone and then login. As an example, I clear my browser cache monthly and am miraculously able to get back into my accounts without much effort.
There's no need to be nasty about it, though.
I would most definitely be a lot less nasty if Arnold wasn’t holding himself out as a (cocksure) expert on tech and AI. As it stands, he likes to pick fights with software developers when he can’t even operate a smart tv or hasn’t coded anything of substance since the 90s. In this case, unfortunately, the nastiness is well deserved. Reap what you sow.
https://arnoldkling.substack.com/p/will-computer-science-become-useless
I think your "people who are not in a cult" are drawn rather Pollyanna-ishly. They seem like models of big tent liberalism, rational, tolerant, vaguely cosmopolitan. I don't think most "people who are not in a cult" are quite so good.
I think the spectrum of cult like behavior is relevant here. On one end is being in a totalizing cult, the other being entirely devoid of any lasting social connection or outside influence from groups (or possibly others). Both ends seem bad as Aristotle would predict and are maladaptive, but where people fall in the middle is a wide range. A little more cultish in some aspects, a little less in others.
I entirely agree but would add that cults can have different attributes. Jim Jones, David Koresh and paramilitary cults share some attributes but also have significant differences. My former Unitarian Universalist Church (and the UU denomination more generally) looks almost nothing like those other cults yet it also shares about half the traits AK lists.
Another former UU! So weird to say "former UU" like "former Catholic".
I'm still UU. My former church and the UUA are no longer recognizable as UU.
I'm from the time when we were proudly told the story, "A UU dies and finds himself at a three-way fork in the road. One road says, "To Heaven". One says, "To Hell". The third says, "To discussion". The UU chooses the third." UUs didn't have a dogma.
I lost contact after I went to college, and gather that at some point the UUA (Unitarian Universalist Association, the parent body for those keeping score) developed a dogma that might be called proto-woke.
It is fully matured. It can't be more woke.
You seem to gloss over underlying emotional status and psychological makeup of those who join or adopt cult like behavior. It is satisfying an unmet need, whether that need be distorted one or not.
Is (public) Arnold part of a cult? If so, which for him, or for myself? Cult of Trump (me) or NeverTrump (Arnold)?
1) Friends who love, hate, support, don’t support Trump. Lots of friends with criticisms of Trump, many who supported Harris, many X folk who love Trump. =4 (me). Almost no links to any Trump officials, nor supporters, frequent ad hominem criticism without even argument, much less evidence. At least one recent post noting a good result. =8 (AK)
2) Diversity. A) infallible leader, B (not said by AK) terrible, evil target that never does good, like Hitler’s view of Jews (wrong always). I like most Trump policies, not his personality nor 2 divorces, think he’s been weak about supporting Ukraine, tho Zelensky was supportive of his impeachment. AK has said noting good about Trump nor policies until, in some cases, the policy results are positive. 2a) = 3me, 2b)= 7AK
3) blind to True Way, =7me (imperfect Trump is optimal Fight fight fighter, which we need),
=7AK (vote Milei in 2024, ‘cause Semi-senile Biden & Dems aren’t bad enough to justify odious Trump) (no note about how bad the Dems would have to be to justify voting Trump)
4) cast out dissenters, =3me, =2AK, I’m still allowed to comment! Trump’s tariffs, maybe unconstitutional, are very positive at this time for the US economy, and most US workers. I’m pretty sure Arnold reads a higher amount of pro-Trump stuff than antiTrump stuff I read, not sure about %.
5) praise, self-worth, from cult, =1me, =3AK, silence to avoid criticism of Israeli folk dancers who hate Trump for poor reasons. (See the newneo.com for Trump supporter with Jewish family & friends who hate Trump, won’t change their mind.)
6) commitment increasing, =5me, =4AK, pretty good partial commitments, I spend more time supporting the Trump policies online, AK more determinedly avoids partisan arguments, tho a few snide remarks to confirm he’s not supporting the Evil HitlerTrump.
7) info from cult, =2me, =4AK, Arnold often avoids quoting or linking to pro-Trump folk, both for cultural and economic issues.
On my spectrum, Arnold is pretty healthy 35 of 70, with my own self assessment at 25. Commitment to principles, and the truth, can look like cult support. On the Libertarian cult, Arnold is likely even higher.
This cult spectrum might be worth further exploration, like other personality tests. #4, dissent, might be sharpened into one’s specific disagreements with the cult, and each of these 7 might be expanded or combined. Multivariate analysis is so hard, and likely is a fundamental weakness of any macro analysis.
Really glad Arnold is back online inspiring me to think about such interesting, yet also relevant, topics. Kinda accepting being a Klingoid.
I'm not convinced the 'cult' language is helpful here.
Most of this is explained by
1. 'you figure out who to believe and then you choose what to believe'
2. 'don't believe people who despise you' (or you will not last long)
3. Prominent positional goods.
Envy, contempt, and a kind of trust.
You did mention that you are in a cult when part of that belief system is incompatible with basic science that is exception-free, such as thermodynamics. Many of the errors in the humanities and social sciences are of this type.
I'm glad you tempered the "either-or" tone with the notion of a spectrum. I'd agree with the "cults always bad" perspective, especially those that require or push people to isolate themselves with only like-minded folk, and refuse to at least listen to other ideas or opinions. Christianity, for example, has the view it is the only path to God, and for much of its history shunned the very thought of being open-minded or tolerant. Under those conditions, could be thought of as a cult, but has opened up in the last century or two, at least in terms of tolerance.
“We decide what to believe by deciding who to believe.”
I still believe this is mostly true but think so a little less now that my grandson (in Oklahoma, no less) decided well before his 4th birthday that he was a girl. It didn't come from his older brother or his father (my son) and I doubt it came from his mother. So from whom?
He heard it from video social media or preschool or his friends.
He decided it based on his friends. Almost guaranteed.
If not, then based on a single individual he saw on a social media video.
Fortunately at that age next week he might decide he’s an astronaut…
I don't think he has any social media exposure. Maybe the other kids, despite being Oklahoma. While his dad's older sister had no luck getting him to play with her and her dolls and she had to play with his cars and trucks in order to play together, at age 4-5 all my son's best friends were girls and he only invited girls to his 5th birthday.l party. Maybe he there is something genetic there, IDK.
Astronaut. I hope so. While I I'm pretty sure his parents did nothing overtly that led to it and probably not by some unknown path either, they have unfortunately been "supporting him" in ways I fear are make it more likely to stick.