This is a problem with the cargo cult analogy, the observer assumes to be an outsider, while it would be more useful to the observer to assume of being part of it.

It is very difficult to be a part of a different group. Even if you move there it would often take years to become a member, if you ever can get that much trust.

The idea is sound, but don't assume you understand the members enough to do a good job.

I think they meant you should assume that YOU are part of a cargo cult. You should look for ways your own viewpoints/society/etc are cargo-cultish

Like Feynman says “The first principle is not to fool yourself, and you are the easiest to fool.”

Case in point:

>> I think a better example of a cargo cult than bad science is climate change denial. The followers see the potential loss of "cargo" in the form of their current way of life as a problem and the leaders apply the skills that brought them success in politics to that problem. Someone good at reading legal documents is going to think that there is something wrong with scientific papers.

Specifically: "The followers see..." - it is not known what climate change "deniers" believe - rather, people tell each other stories about what they believe, and believe these stories to be true. Some humans are currently smart enough to realize that this behavior is flawed in certain scenarios (race/gender/etc stereotypes), but when it comes to ~political stereotyping the mind (and mainstream "right thinking" culture/media/etc) will defend the delusional practice to the death.

Typically these topic are argued primarily using memes (Gish Gallop, Whataboutism, Brandolini's Law, etc) and rhetoric (rendering it not possible for a strict logical perspective to "win"), with some stats and studies included to give the appearance of objectivity, permanently locking humans into this ~conceptual Overton Window.

If humans could analyze and evaluate the system we are embedded in with the same emotional/psychological detachment we analyze computer systems with it would be a big improvement, but I do not see it happening anytime soon.

One does not have to look far from our current field to find similar rituals.

More than one capital-A style agile consultants have told me that they don't really believe their scripture but the job pays well.

I can believe that. I work with Kubernetes-shaped objects, and the rituals we go through can not in any way be technically motivated. But there are conferences held and new software written so who cares, really. Nobody really needs this stuff and we all know it.