Most of us like to be associated with “idealistic” groups that claim that they are doing good, i.e., making the world better. However, this is usually not our strongest motive in choosing to associate with such groups. Instead, we more strongly want to make ourselves look good, and gain good-looking associations. Most idealistic groups quickly learn to cater to this demand by:
Making meetings where people can visibly show off their affiliation with the group, form ties with like-minded others, and affiliate with impressive speakers/leaders.
Making ladders of extra recognition, such as awards, and offices.
Offering training to develop and credential related skills.
Advocating for the world to put more value on the features that this group’s members have, and less value on other features.
Advocating to others to join this and related groups, via arguing the virtues of it and its members.
Of course such groups try to frame these activities in terms of making the world better. And yes, groups that really were trying to make the world better might in fact do some of these. The tipoff, however, is their relative neglect of everything else required to actually make the world better. Groups tend to be far clearer on how to tell who is good than on how exactly good individuals make the world better, on what else exactly is required, and on how they are going to manage that.
Let me give some examples:
Christianity presents itself as good for the world, but its main activity is meetings centered on impressive people, and at meetings most people are mostly thinking about how good or bad they are or have been. They talk a lot about what is good vs bad behavior, but are pretty thin on how more good behavior will help the world.
I recently talked at a conference of ecological spiritual consciousness raising folks. They had impressive speakers who celebrated features of attendees. Some presented an explicit ladder of higher consciousness, ranked famous people on it, and talked in detail about how to move to higher levels. They want a more egalitarian and ecologically sustainable world, but are fuzzy on how exactly spiritual consciousness helps there.
The recent movie Tomorrowland seemed on the surface to be about having hope for and working for a better tomorrow. But in fact a secret society was obsessed with finding the few best people in the world, even though it already had enough secret tech to save the world. Most superhero stories are on the surface about heros struggling to help the world against an opposing villain, but actually more about how cool and impressive it would be to have certain abilities.
Political disputes seem to easily get distracted by issues of who is better. Immigration becomes all about what immigrants are worthy. School becomes all about how it can makes you better and who deserves a chance to get better. Charity debates become ways to show who has enough empathy, or enough toughness. How to promote innovation quickly becomes celebrating particular innovators.
When discussing how to get better predictions, there is far more interest in finding correlates of who personally is a super-forecaster, than in finding better institutions like prediction markets to promote good predictions. Similarly for rationality, there is far more interest in how to spot rational folks, and in rationality training, than in institutions to promote rationality.
Look, yes the world is full of people, and yes the qualities of those people make some different to world outcomes. But a great many other things also matter for outcomes. So if you were really focused on doing good, you’d pay lots of attention to things other than being good. Doing good isn’t just being good, not by a long shot.
Doing Good ≠ Being Good
I agree with your larger point, but your discussion of Christian church is missing a lot of what goes on and is forcing the example to fit your point. I wish you would pick a different example, or at least pick one *part* of Christianity instead of trying to summarize the whole thing and make a talking point out of it.
You say that services (I assume you mean church services) are thin on evaluating how "good" behavior would help the world, but I would say that's the whole point of all the discussion and meditation that goes on. If you are doing things that don't help anyone, then you're not really doing good at all, and that's part of why there is so much discussion and meditation on the topic of what it means to be a good person.
You overlook that a lot of people being helped are right there in that room. In true Hayekian style, much of what a church does--for good or for ill--is to help out the actual membership of the church. That includes children, the injured and unemployed, the elderly, and any other manner of person that is not particularly well off. The people are right there and are greatful for the support; when they aren't greatful, the activity stops happening as much.
It's also true that the meetings promote impressive people, but isn't that only rational? The people in the spotlight at a church service are those who have devoted large portions of their lives to get into that position.
Finally, part of how you make people better, is you showcase them a little bit when they do. It can be overdone, but a little bit of pride can be a good thing when it steers people toward being better.
The foundation of our major social coordinations is self-interest weakly saturated with altruism. Hypocrisy didn't evolve to further societal interests; it evolved out of the striving of individuals to avoid social responsibilities. (That doesn't necessarily mean it can't be turned to different uses, but it makes it less likely.)
Politics is less hypocritical than charity when the central element of self-interest (extended to the interests of others similarly situated and to allies) is frankly admitted. The self-interest of the voter (which isn't pure egoism because it includes the interest of some disparate others) is potentially transparent in political practice, whereas charity depends almost completely on hypocrisy.
I think the best example of rationalist fantasy applied to politics is Political Correctness: if the state encourages hypocritical speech on race, the end result will be adjustment of attitude or at least a less racist society. I don't think the result has been happy, although it has worked to some degree on its own terms.