zeuszor:

Excuse me for going off topic a bit, but it's an illustration of Steve Hassan's serious ethical problems.

You have been working two years for Steve Hassan and you are a former cult member.

Are you aware that Steve Hassan has a history of exploiting the former members of cults for personal profit?

For example, Hassan is billing your time at $125.00 per hour according to his Web site. But he is probably paying you substantially less than that amount. And my guess is that you are working as a subcontractor, so you probably have no benefits and pay self-employment tax.

Right?

This is nobody's business and is not the topic of the thread besides. And at least he did not name his organization, "The Steve Hassan Institute."

Quote
zeuszor
I have worked for FOM since late July of 2010, to be exact.

For the record: my work for FOM has nothing to do with my work against the JCs. I was working against them well before I ever came into contact with Steve Hassan.

After the 2010 ICSA conference, he offered me a job, and I accepted. And how much I am paid to do what I do for FOM is nobody's business.

And as an added bit of background: I was first introduced to Steve at ICSA 2010 by my friends and mentors, Bob and Judy Pardon (from Meadow Haven, of which I am a graduate).

I have seen many "world renowned" psychologists for example, write a response to a critical review of their work by another professional. They write the paper themselves, or perhaps with an associate, and then publish it.
It can serve to point out any errors, or clarifications.
Example, in Cognitive therapy, many criticized it as they said the patient/therapist relationship didn't matter in CBT. But then people from CBT released papers saying in fact, CBT admits the patient/therapist relationship is very important. etc etc.

So Mr Hassan should in fact write some kind of response to a paper like the one from this thread, as its from a professional.
It happens every single day in any type of field like this.

Quote
rrmoderator
The Anticult:

What you say makes perfect sense, but as Dr. Mann pointed out, that's not Steve Hassan's history.

He typically responds through surrogates like zeuszor.

zeuszor:

Attempting to attack the Ross Institute won't change the facts concerning Steve Hassan and/or his history.

The Ross Institute is an educational nonprofit and is free to the public. For example, rather than paying Mr. Hassan's for-profit corp. $125.00 an hour for a research report, anyone can come to this Web site and its archives and do their own research at no cost.

See [www.culteducation.com]

This tutorial provides a step-by-step process for retrieving information easily.

The Ross Institute also does not exploit the former members of cults for profit.

Judging from your response, it would appear that you are being exploited. That is, being paid a fraction of the fees collected for your work. You probably also function as a subcontractor without benefits, etc.

No that's not my business, but it seems like an unethical business to me.

Bob and Judy Pardon have worked quite closely with Steve Hassan over the years. Robert Pardon and Hassan did intervention work together.

Steve Hassan doesn't seem to do many interventions by himself. Instead, he appears to rely heavily upon others to help him. Frequently this help is provided by people that are former cult members, i.e. a former member of the cult that is the focus of the intervention. Of course this adds to the expense of the intervention.

Mr. Hassan has charged various fees over the years, such as $2,500.00 to $5,000.00 per day plus expenses. He also charges additional fees and expenses for ex-members that apparently do much of the work.

Steve Hassan has publicly acknowledged that families have mortgaged their homes to pay his fees.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/20/2012 05:49AM by rrmoderator.

In all honesty, I have not read Steve's new book yet, and so I cannot comment on it. Though I did help to compile the bibliography, which was never published as it was over thirty pages long. Thank you.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/20/2012 06:24AM by zeuszor.

zeuszor:

Interesting.

So Steve Hassan doesn't do all the writing and/or research on his own books.

I had heard that.

You might read Dr. Mann's review. She mentions your missing biliography.

Quote
yasmin
And asking for scientific proof of this theory is perhaps similar to asking for proof of Freuds id/ego/superego.

It's noteworthy for me to point out that Freud himself, did not see himself as a scientist but instead as an adventurer, a "conquistador of the mind" as he put it in one of his letters.

Yes, I've carefully reviewed this bibliography that was not published with the book, but was published as a separate document on Hassan's website. The bibliography was a document drop, in that it contained major works by various authors related to general cultic studies and some that were just thrown in there, like the DSM, which, of course, was not relied on in Hassan's book at all. This goes contrary to every publishing and documentation standard I've ever heard of. To not cite by inserting either footnotes or in text citations does not tell the reader just where the borrowed ideas are in the book. To have a very poorly formatted bibliography somewhere other than in the book itself is odd, to say the least. I doubt very much that Hassan has carefully reviewed the bibliography, because it contains names and citations that he scarfed up from somewhere. At the very least, it is a bibliography that does not absolve Hassan of his responsibility to attribute ideas in the context of his book.

When I write expert reports for lawyers or the courts, I always cite the ideas of others both in text and at the end in full citation as a reference list. This is being done even if I've learned the material 20 years ago. The responsibility to cite the ideas of others never expires, and it must be clear to the reader that you are separating out your ideas from somewhere/someone else. It seems that Hassan wants it both ways: to be viewed as a former cult member who is writing for the layman, yet he includes a bibliography to give the impression that he is doing academic work as well. If he's really just a practitioner, and a UC (Moonie) survivor, why include a bibliography at all? It's very duplicitious IMO.

I taught psychology both on the undergraduate and graduate university level for over 5 years. It is NOT true that only "academics" use and acknowledge work this way, but it is necessary for others to do so. I submitted students for plagiarism violations that had copied and/or paraphrased various portions of their work without attribution, and this was always upheld by thr University. Many students were expelled or placed on acdemic probation due to even once incidence of plagiarism. The rule applies to paraphrased ideas, too. The fact is that Hassan's book contains many ideas that come from various sources in social psychology, family systems theory, NLP and other sources, emphasizes that Hassan's ideas are not 'groundbreaking' or "new."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/20/2012 07:13AM by Cathleen Mann, PhD.

zeuszor:

"An adventurer, a 'conquistador of the mind'"?

Are you now comparing Steve Hassan to Freud?

Did Freud condone plagiarism?