Copied from the stubsack:
The Inside story of Leverage Research
This should be interesting, it's about an organisation in the EA milieu that even other EAs though might be a bit too culty. Don't know who the writer Lydia Laurenson is, but she does come off as a bit of a cult enthusiast herself, and is probably more than a bit rationalist adjacent.
edit: The companion piece about the background of why she wrote it is quite a ride, if only for the biographical tidbits: she is indeed very cult adjacent, she had a spiritual experience and now believes in capital G god, she got engaged to an unnamed far-right writer but they broke up when she got pregnant.
Also the Leverage article was contracted to appear in the New York Magazine but she pulled the story because of uh declining trust in the field of journalism, but then she goes on to imply that the real problem was that the article was shaping up as a bit too pro-Leverage:
I pulled the story once I started feeling like it simply wouldn’t be possible for me to publish a version with NYMag that didn’t carry a subtle hostility towards Leverage, not to mention affiliated communities in Silicon Valley — and, more importantly to me, hostility towards a core spiritual sensibility that I see in both myself and in the people the story describes.
edit edit: Why can't these people ever be normal: Why I Was Part Of The Neoreactionary or Dissident Right Movement In 2020
edit edit edit: Jesus fucking christ she's Curtis Yarvin's baby momma.
edit x 4: Index of the read along posts, part titles are from the original:
I guess I'll just do a read along write up:
Part 1:
This is the author by the way:
A lot of this unintentionally reads like what here's what the cultic milieu looks like from the point of view of those especially vulnerable to cult influence:
On definitely not cult building:
Most sanitized description of nrx ever, and also diversity is great when it comes to letting the fascists in:
But for the rationalists it was Tuesday:
You don't say:
There's also a lot of subtext that the people at Leverage never seem to actually do anything besides talk about stuff and cultic self care, that doesn't rise to the surface because the writer is overly sympathetic to them. She tries to counterbalance this with reminders about how there was a semi-constant rotation of ultra rich casual guests and that some Leverage adjacent people went to do Important Things, like Dario and the wealthy longevity guy.
Gradually, a cult of personality with the stated purpose of self-replicating in other organisations emerged:
Cultic self-care:
Then there's some stuff about how our benevolent leader Geoff decided that academic psychology isn't a real science and should instead be replaced with his own Connection Theory, which as far as I can tell is basically a brainwashing framework:
He also cured some guys caffeine addiction by laying hands at the start of the article, which I didn't think much of at the time because I thought the author just threw it in for flavour, and that her overall approach would be uh different. Later CT also cured his nagging worries about being a creep, good for him I guess:
ConTheory apparently also cured some guys cluster headaches, others not so much:
Eventually the slovenian nrxer reinvents founders' mythos from first principles and they decide to monetize it by creating a become-a-founder self-help seminars thing with a shared profits arrangement with the wanna-be founders:
Part 2 soon, or eventually.
Actually, taking a closer look at this line:
So unless we're already getting into some very culty language where words like "Basic Goals" or "logic" are cult jargon that only loosely resemble their more general use this sounds less like an overview of a theory and more like an incredibly obvious statement that would have to fit into basically any psychological paradigm other than maybe hard behaviorism.
When I first read this I zeroed in on 'problematic behavior' to mean anything not matching Geoff's idea of optimal behavior, in line with rationalist notions of how you can't really disagree with rat tenets, you can only have bad epistemics that you should fix by reading the sequences and rationalist influencers.
In retrospect, the part where he considers his theory to be a do-over of traditional psychology except we'll make it scientific this time was probably the more load bearing bit, in the sense that maybe the whole point of Leverage 1.0 was having an isolated group of unsuspecting test subjects on whom he could do experimental psychology on.
It's weird to see the Great Founder Theory laid out so clearly because it's basically explicitly declaring allegiance to what I was starting to call the Great Man Theory of Everything - the belief that rather than being historically contingent and reliant on circumstances as much as any personal characteristics some people are just innately "agentic" in a way that others aren't and the key to success isn't in finding a way to navigate the world but in unlocking this "agentic" quality in yourself. Notably the corollary of doing this (or of being one of those special innately "agentic" people) is that you have the right and duty to impose your will on the malleable clay of the world and people around you. I maintain that this is the rotten kernel at the heart of so many of the batshit weird things that the rats believe and do, and the fact that it simply isn't true is why their broader schemes keep sputtering out or failing, though with enough money and power behind them that they continue to leave a frankly impressive amount of human suffering in their wake.
They admit it!