Informative. Not black and white like some of the posts I've seen. The links reference info. that seems a little dated though. And it seems to call into question some of Margaret Singer's theories. Yet the moderators in this forum take the most extreme positions in Singer's work and paint all "offending" groups with this broad brush.

Wouldn't the posts be more credible if brainwashing theories were tossed around more prudently?

Surely you don't believe that millions of "Manchurian Candidates" are wandering the streets waiting for a magic cue from "Weenie Airhead" or sign from the great beyond from L. Ron Hubbard?

At least the links you supplied on your last post didn't seem to suggest that.

On a different topic, I understand the Unification Church owns a lot of media outlets? Does Scientology also have it's hands in media? This could be a topic of concern.

Thanks in advance.

Death threats from massage therapists????????

This is full of bees wax! if not bee doo doo!

I am highly skeptical! sounds like overreaction over nothing. :shock:

Warytraveller2

Margaret Singer was one of the most famous and influential psychologists and researchers of her time.

See [www.culteducation.com]

Her writings and Lifton's are definitive.

There are degrees of influence and thought reform. And not all groups that use "brainwashing" are equally destructive.

See [www.culteducation.com]

See [www.culteducation.com]

Archived news articles, reports, personal testimonies, court documents, etc. about various groups that are listed within the Ross Institute database make it clear why each group is listed with material at the website.

See [www.culteducation.com]

Landmark has a large section, due to its very troubled history of bad press, complaints, lawsuits and reported breakdowns.

rrmoderator wrote:

Margaret Singer was one of the most famous and influential psychologists and researchers of her time.

See [www.culteducation.com]

I'm impressed. Good links and I did some "independent" research to verify your assertions.

Some of her definitions of thought-reform would seem to include most major religions also. Is it possible to employ these methods unknowingly or to have an over all good intention but just take it to a zealous extreme?

My guess is some Christians think their "saving" people and some Muslims follow a similar doctrine. I've seen Landmark and Sterling zealots that believed they had to share their "transformational" experience with everyone.

But I've met people from all four "religions" who do not take such an extreme position. They take something positive from it but don't fall into the category I call the"true believers".

I have always found the "true believers" to be offensive with their self-righteous beliefs that they try to impose on others.

Although I see a similar trend on this message board at times also. People so strong in their beliefs that any dissenting opinion is from someone that has been a victim of "thought-reform."
And of course they don't know any better because they don't know they have been brainwashed.

Who knows, they could be right. Or they could also be a victim of thought reform.

But your links have shown me that your website has some substance to it.

warytraveller2:

There are people that have posted on this message board with the agenda of promoting and/or defending Landmark.

The fact that these apologists or "true believers" don't seem to consider and/or willfully ignore the group's history has caused some here to suppose they are somewhat "brainwashed."

Such Landmark groupies don't really come to this message board to dialog, but rather to attempt to undermine or discredit it.

Margaret Singer makes distinctions between education, indoctrination, propaganda, advertising and thought reform.

See [www.culteducation.com]

The links previously offered demonstrate the problems with Landmark.

The overwhelming majority of religous and self-help groups don't generate complaints or cause concern like Landmark.

I have noticed a knee jerk reaction to those that have said they liked Landmark on this Forum. I always viewed Landmark as the "Macdonalds" of the LGATS. Insight and Lifespring always appeared to be just a little further to the edge of wierdness to me. But I'm looking at it from the outside in.

I actually came to your sight looking for Insight info but couldn't find anything on your website. Do you have any links? I know a friend that spent a lot of time and money participating in this and I thought it seemed unhealthy. But when I saw some of the vitriolic responses to those that defended Landmark I questioned whether I was going to get a fair and accurate response about Insight.

I've known many who have done Landmark but didn't spend a lot of time or money after they did the Forum. One or two who definitely went overboard with their time and credit card!!! But I have heard of a number of people who have done Insight and have spent loads of money in advanced courses. Sometimes flying to California for week long courses.

When I see people spending lots of time and money I get suspicious. What's the Insight story? I heard they closed their Boston office.

Also, I read one of Singer's articles about some poor woman who wound up in a psych ward after a Lifespring pop psychology session. Opening up about some traumatic experiences in her past. Terrible.

warrytraveler2:

There is a link that mentions Insight.

See [perso.wanadoo.fr]

It appears to be a spin-off of Lifespring.

See [www.culteducation.com]

The most complaints about LGAT groups comes in about Landmark and they are quite serious.

Perhaps that's why people here are wary about your posts. Your observations about Landmark don't match up with the complaints, level of complaints, or their serious nature.

we have plenty of links about Landmark.

Just go to the main menu on the RR.com homepage, look at the left sidebar, go to the 'groups database', then go to 'L' . Click 'L', and then click 'Landmark.'

You'll find articles by research psychologists, mental health professionals and many, many reports from persons who have done Landmark.

And this thread gives quite a lot of info about how the Landmark room set up. [board.culteducation.com]

The link to Drew Kopp's paper is highly informative. Kopp spent years in Landmark took many of their advanced training courses and served as a volunteer. He gives a detailed, analysis of how the room is set up and this affects people in ways they are not aware of.

[www.u.arizona.edu]

The orientation material stresses the philosophy but says nothing about the exhausting nature of the room set up.

It will take you at least a good 2 to 3 days to read this material thorougly, especially if you use a pencil and notepad to list the recurring themes.

rrmoderator wrote:

"Perhaps that's why people here are wary about your posts. Your observations about Landmark don't match up with the complaints, level of complaints, or their serious nature."

I don't know much about Landmark at all. In a "previous lifetime" I did the original Est Training. I never followed up with any of their other programs and I wouldn't "volunteer" for a profit making organization. I was surprised so many did.

I think some of the people I knew who did "volunteer" were intoxicated by the desire to be the man or woman with the wireless microphone, the trainer. The desire to be the "tranforming" vehicle for others. Of course those people actually became the "pains in the ass" that many on this forum complain about.

Now here is the punch line, I did like the Est training. I learned some valuable things in those 2 weekends. It was like a long movie, some parts dragged and were boring. And other parts were good. I'm not at all surprised that there are mixed reactions.


Of course I never did any followup on the other participants in the room to see how they were doing. I actually moved to another part of the country soon after doing Est. But I would occassionally meet someone that used the "jargon". I always thought speaking english served me well enough. I guess I was picking up on the"thought stoping cliches" and not buying into it. Does this "confession" now make me an apologist for Landmark? I guess they're the same people with a different name now.

I saw some similar things with my Insight friends. I could see a similar dynamic, the LAGAT M.O. My concern for them arose around the amount of time they were volunteering and the very expensive "advanced" courses they were taking. It sent up a red flag. By the way, these friends are also highly educated and successful.

I guess I was a little leary when I saw so much negativity about Landmark, so I wanted to test the waters before asking about Insight. I don't want to be unduly prejudiced about my friend's personal life. When I saw such one sided posts I question the validity and motivations of the info. Maybe things have change for the worse over the years. Or I just missed it way back when.

Don't worry, I'm not considering doing Insight or any other LGAT. One was enough.

Long post. Sorry. I still couldn't find anything but a link to insight.org on the previous post. Thanks.

Warrytraveller2:

I think you must have missed it.

See [www.culteducation.com]

Note the abstracts about psychosis in EST.

Lifespring/Insight is another LGAT.

They all seem to have the same problems.

See [www.culteducation.com]