What a fun article. It's not about cults at all, it's about "In what order should I communicate my points to best get the point across, and are some orders unet

What a fun article. It's not about cults at all, it's about "In what order should I communicate my points to best get the point across, and are some orders unethical?" I think about this a lot in terms of argument graphs. Imagine a DAG where premises are on the bottom and the conclusion (or conclusions) are on top. And, like most compelling arguments, the premises are unsurprising and widely held, while the conclusion is wildly counterintuitive. Finally, pretend that the argument is actually valid and true - it's legitimately something new. In what order should you communicate the argument? Do you start top-down? The author tried that with humidifiers and it didn't work at all. Do you start at the very bottom, with the uncontroversial friendly stuff? Well, that's pretty much what the cult did. I prefer a blend of sorts, but it's difficult to systematize. Basically, you're kind of starting at the bottom, but with little spoilers and hints of where you're trying to lead the presentation.