This easily shades into love-bombing, which is a standard recruitment technique. "Oh, you're so interesting." Etc.

I deliberately went to a private meeting to see how all of this worked, and it was me and two recruiters with a huge picture of the cult leader.

Super awkward. We asked each other a lot of questions.

One of mine was "Are you sure you're not a cult?"

"Oh no. We're definitely not a cult. Why would you think that? Ha ha. Oh dear. No."

As cults go, I didn't get the impression they were very successful.

You should have stood up like "Dammit, I'm looking to join a cult. Sorry for wasting your time."

My experience with cults is that they’re not effective, they simply focus on the minority who are open to their line.

They even try to sound crazy, to discourage well-adapted people.

Like a Nigerian scammer who deliberately uses bad grammar so the only responders are people with dementia.

My experience with cults comes from being part of a large, mainstream church that had cooky and predatory groups operating at the margins of the congregation.

They would target new members who had severe issues: drug abuse, mental illness, having been trafficked.

I’m not sure if the Mormons have anything similar. I read about extreme fundamentalist Mormon groups, but they don’t seem to be recruiting mentally ill/drug addicted mainstream Mormons.

You’re right, but it’s important not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Many people drive cars. Some people kill others with theirs, sometimes intentionally. We should not then assume every person driving a car is on the warpath.

I agree, I'm mostly advocating caution. Just like if you see a car swerving around in front of you, you might want to slow down and avoid. Sure, they might have just swatted a fly or something, but they also might be drunk.

The issue is that cult interactions are crafted to specifically play on social norms. They are HIGHLY manipulative. I'm not saying that you should assume everyone is a manipulator, but you should at least have a little caution while talking to strangers.

I had a college roommate that invited me out to pizza with him and another roommate. I accepted (what could be more normal) and he drove. It was a fucking "pesticide salesman" pitch. That was the last semester I roomed with them.

I think most people have too much caution when talking to strangers for the first time. I think one should be careful when taking things further - maybe meet in public for the first few meetings, so you can easily make excuses and walk away if things turn weird. This also makes recruitment much more expensive for these kind of sales / recruitment tactics,

Asking because I couldn't find the answer after some cursory effort, and feel extremely out of the loop.

What is a "pesticide salesman" pitch?

In my college, one of the more common MLM type things was getting recruited to travel to another state and do door to door sales of alarms and pesticides. With all the hallmark "You'll make a billion dollars!" types sketchiness. All structured as a standard MLM.

indeed, this hackernews page is one of the first page google results for that term. I'm curious!

There's an MLM for everything, including Camel milk.

Aptive Environmental looks to be the pesticide MLM.

> We should not then assume every person driving a car is on the warpath.

So you’ve never been to Boston

To be fair, at least some of that is the streets, not the drivers.

I was in Boston a while back and I came to a crossroads. There was no stop sign, no light, nothing. I eventually just had to... go. I got to my hotel and I asked about it, and the concierge was like, "oh, its just like that". I asked how people are supposed to know to stop (or not to) and he replied, "you just know". It baffled me because _clearly_ you don't just know.. because I was there and I didn't know. What happens if two people just drive through the intersection at the same time.

I get it that crossroads exist like this in the open nowhere. But... in a city? It was mind-boggling to me. Plus... the street layout in Boston was done by throwing pounds spaghetti at a wall and then trying to match the pattern that stuck.

If you know the rules of the road then there is no ambiguity about which car has the right of way at such an intersection. But most people do not know these rules, and therefore are mystified when there’s no light or sign telling them how to drive.

Exactly. It's all about having a mental model of how other people will probably behave.

In Boston, even though everyone drove aggressive, they were predictable. So I felt fine.

Whereas in San Fran, while not as aggressive, other drivers were just random. So I was terrified.

I'm older now, with much reduced acuity and reaction times. My recent visit to El Paso was the most nervous driving experience that I remember. Way worse than LA. I felt like a dog trying to paddle upstream, surrounded by river otters playing.

YMMV.

Given the confusion a lot of people have with the situation, it is absolutely ridiculous not have signs at such an intersection in a city. Arguing that people "should know" is pointless when the end result of not having signs is just going to be more accidents.

I agree that even in a small city like Boston it’s reckless to have uncontrolled intersections, precisely because people don’t know the rules of the road.

My comment was a response to ‘I asked how people are supposed to know to stop (or not to) and he replied, "you just know". It baffled me because _clearly_ you don't just know.. because I was there and I didn't know.’

When I got my license in New York I studied for the written test from a booklet that the DMV gave out. This exact situation was in there. It’s not complicated. But you’re right, there will be accidents, because, even though there are still driving tests, people drive around with “red means stop, green means go” as the only rule that’s stuck in their heads. At least in the US.

I did a bunch of driving in France and what struck me most was the near complete absence of stoplights and even stop signs. Where I was, admittedly smaller places, big intersections are usually roundabouts, and smaller ones have a yield sign or follow "priorité a droit" which is basically a 4-way yield where you yield to the person on the right.

I don't know the traffic accidents stats, but overall the system really does rely on people knowing the rules as opposed to signalization, and it (mostly) seemed to cut down on time spent waiting.

>I was in Boston a while back and I came to a crossroads. There was no stop sign, no light, nothing. I eventually just had to... go. I got to my hotel and I asked about it, and the concierge was like, "oh, its just like that". I asked how people are supposed to know to stop (or not to) and he replied, "you just know". It baffled me because _clearly_ you don't just know.. because I was there and I didn't know. What happens if two people just drive through the intersection at the same time.

You got there without incident didn't you?

Those sorts of intersections get treated like N-way rolling stops in practice. If there's someone who'll obviously be there first everyone adjusts speed so everyone can roll it without stopping. If multiple vehicles arrive at the same time negotiations ensue.

Does US have different rules about intersections of "equal" roads?

In Europe you give way to the car to your right and that's it. In the rare case where there's a car going in every possible direction, you just honk it out or light signal until one goes first.

The US doesn't really have those basic rules of the road the way most of Europe does. There are essentially no intersections that are not controlled at all by either specific signs or lights. Often, if one road outranks the other, and you're on the lesser road, they will have a stop sign for you and then reinforce it with "CROSS TRAFFIC DOES NOT STOP".

For example, in the UK, roundabouts will be perhaps signposted as coming up - but when you get there, you just yield to the cars already in it, because that's the base law. In the US, roundabouts are less common, and they have a yield sign at every entrance.

Boston is, however, a deviation. Many roads date to the founding of the city and are much like older European cities in terms of layout, but lack any modern signposting.

We do. Example from Oregon:

ORS 811.275

(1) A person commits the offense of failure to yield the right of way at an uncontrolled intersection if the person is operating a motor vehicle that is approaching an uncontrolled highway intersection and the person does not look out for and give right of way to any driver on the right simultaneously approaching a given point, regardless of which driver first reaches and enters the intersection.

https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_811.275

There are a lot of state laws that resemble each other, but there are often subtle differences. My point is that there is no overarching coordination other than maybe AASHTO (which can only make recommendations), and legislators are often only interested in the highway department if there's a contract they can steer to a friend.

Similar rules exist in New York as well.

I'd expect they exist in most places in the US.

> The US doesn't really have those basic rules of the road the way most of Europe does.

Yes, it does. But getting permission to drive is cheap and easy in the US, and many people don't know the rules of the road.

> There are essentially no intersections that are not controlled at all by either specific signs or lights.

There are lots of intersections without signs or lights, IME (admittedly, I haven't driven everywhere in the US.)

We also have a constant influx of new drivers from other areas, so local norms don't have time to gel.

This is wild, are you telling me that the United States has no concept of the four-way stop?

If I encountered an intersection with no signage at all, the default expectation would be four-way stop.

> This is wild, are you telling me that the United States has no concept of the four-way stop?

The US has the concept, but it's not (in California, at least) the default rule for an uncontrolled intersection. For a regular uncontrolled intersection, it is treated as a four-way yield, only a blind intersection (one with less than 100 foot visibility in any direction in the last 100 feet of approach) is treated as a four-way stop.

That's pretty much the same as all the states I've lived in. It does vary some from state to state, but I'd be surprised if that one did.

I love my city but I can see how this would be true for non-Bostonians. If Boston is your home you do just know, in the sense that you know other drivers may not know or care so you are on the lookout for them. You just curse those drivers when you think the've done the wrong thing and move on.

Still have to say though that this is less of an issue recently. Many fewer missing traffic signs than there used to be. I don't care for it :)

All true. That and even the kindliest Bostonian suddenly becomes a sociopath once behind the wheel.

On the other hand, the normally vicious Boston cops have true kindness by not enforcing any traffic laws. I remember a cop car pulling over to let us pass one time when my then gf drove the wrong way* down a one way street.

And a friend was stopped when driving on the wrong side of mass ave (a divided road with a barrier). The cop stopped us, give us both a stern talking to, and then let us go on our merry way.

* She is a physicist and her defense to me was “I was only driving in one direction”

Or South Florida.

A looong time ago, after the business part of a phone interview, I was chatting with a recruiter who'd moved from Boston to South Florida and he asked me 'Is traffic ...different... here?'

I gave him Dave Barry's explanation: "Everyone here drives according to the rules of their country of origin."

Which reminds me of Sao Paulo. I've never seen more aggressive driving or been gladder that I wasn't driving than in Sao Paulo.

For me it was SE Asia. No rules of the road, only the rules of a school of fish.

> Other cults are certainly worse (NEVER go to a "private" meeting!)

I’ve had friends joke about going into the scientology temple in Hollywood as a joke. I always warn against it; cult recruiters are practiced and you are not.

While not required, it is socially expected that 18-19yo mormon men serve missions.

People don't choose the religion they are born into

Bingo

I expect people to have sufficient cognitive capacities by the time they are 18 to choose their religion. Even earlier if you know English and have access to the internet. Although financial dependence on one’s family could require putting on a show.

Do you expect people to have sufficient cognitive capacities by the time they are 18 to choose their language? ¿Hablas español?

One could very well argue "yes", but first and foremost speaking the language of their offline communities is pretty likely, if only through sheer inertia and a lack of concrete reasons to question that choice.

At 18, one stands a very good chance of having spent one's entire life roughly within the confines of a single monoculture and it's morals, social pressures, religion, language, etc etc etc. - quite possibly with contact intentionally limited by one's parents (not all of us were blessed/cursed with unrestricted, unmonitored, and unfiltered internet access, and many parents do a lot of meddling when it comes to friends and other social connections as well.)

It's often shortly after, when said people go to college, that they experience their first true culture shock. To the point where some communities will outright discourage college (pressuring boys to inherit a trade, or girls to marry and become homemakers), or at least discourage going out-of-state, pressuring children to stay closer where they can be - if not controlled - at least kept in a similar social environment, where they obstensibly won't "lose their way", where they can be more readily influenced.

Not saying one can't break away at 18, but for many people, the question isn't "Why [become a mormon missionary]?" but "Why break with tradition, family, friends, and one's entire support network, just to skip a little missionary work?"

It really doesn't work like that. As proof of the large barrier to entry, look at the number of people who follow the religion they were raised with. The rational decision is "These people I know and trust have this belief, so maybe they are right".

A rational decision is still a choice, and I do not find it accurate to label it as "being born into". However, there is religion (assumptions held by someone in their mind) and religion (behavior that allows one to be part of a certain tribe). I can see the latter not being described as a choice if the person is dependent on the tribe.

> However, there is religion (assumptions held by someone in their mind)

If your entire community holds the same assumptions (or at least publicly claims to), and you haven't been exposed to meaningful dissent and opposing viewpoints to challenge those assumptions, one is likely to uphold the same assumptions without ever having meaningfully questioned them, or ever having made any kind of active "decision" about said assumptions.

To take a non-religious example, many of us grew up being taught and believing there were 9 planets in our solar system, and most of us accepted that without ever having meaningfully questioned the taxonomical decisions going into what exactly defines a "planet" versus smaller planetoids and how different Pluto might be from Ceres. We were born into a culture that seeded our assumptions, and we had no great need or reason to overturn them.

This doesn't mean we can't break away from the culture we were born into given sufficient resources and/or reason (one can form dissenting opinions, one can move, ...) but it often explains default behavior, and what one might chose if they don't even realize they're making a choice, if only through inaction.