ImthatDave:

I have never heard of you or your books before you posted here and contacted me.

You make some of the same mistakes many naive observers of cults have made regarding cult coercive persuasion techniques.

Not all forms of the influence and/or persuasion are the same.

See [www.culteducation.com]

There are distinctions to be made between various forms and degrees of persuasion such as education, advertising, propaganda, indoctrination and thought reform. Note the distinctions made regarding this by psychologist Margaret Singer through her chart linked above.

Also see [www.culteducation.com]

Psychiatrist Robert Jay Lifton explains here explicitly the criteria that qualify a group program as thought reform, commonly called "brainwashing."

Lifton has said that a group must display six of the eight criteria to qualify as thought reform program.

Also see [www.culteducation.com]

Sociologist Richard Ofshe expounds on Lifton and expands this theme in an examination of coercive persuasion.

You seem confused about all of this, blurring the lines between influence and brainwashing.

See [www.culteducation.com]

Professor of Psychology Robert Cialdini explains the common characteristics of influence in his book titled "Influence." Cialdini recognizes how influence is used in sales and business schemes.

But Cialdini is not confused between how the influence of such business concerns is used quite differently by cults (distinctions that Singer makes succinctly).

See [www.culteducation.com]

In his paper "Cult Formation" Lifton explains how to define a cult and recognize its distinctive dynamics.

I cannot recall Lifton, Singer, Ofshe or Cialdini endorsing the idea that anyone employ cult coercive persuasion or "brainwashing" techniques in any context, as that would be unethical and potentially destructive.

Quote
ImthatDave
And, to be sure, many people on your hit parade (whom I regularly criticize as well) do in fact continually upsell people into mindless programs that don't do anything. Until you audit one of my high priced programs ($3000 to learn how to build a speaking business is hardly considered high priced) then everything you say is based at best on your best guess about what happens. Be factual or clearly identify that what you are saying is at best your guess about what happens at my events.

Dave thinks that paying "$3000 to learn how to build a speaking business is hardly high priced"?

I happen to have a friend who works as a spokesperson for a major corporation.

How did she learn her craft?

From Toastmasters!

Toastmasters being an exceedingly inexpensive and apparently well-regarded organization that teaches public speaking.

So I'd say that paying $3000 to learn public speaking IS high-priced. And I don't even know how good Dave is at teaching.

Actually the word "rip-off" pops into mind.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/17/2010 10:44PM by helpme2times.

Dave seems to want to sweep his glaring error re the Cult Awareness Network under the carpet. "Christa - It happens, no excuse, now I know and I'm moving on."

Er, is not Dave deeply concerned now re having recommended CAN in his online interview about cults?

Some listeners might reach out to CAN based on that recommendation, and might be harmed in some way by that. Is Dave just going to let that sit, so he can "move on"?

I would think that knowing what he knows now, he would at least tell us that he is going to do some sort of damage control, such as issue a disclaimer on the web page where that interview is situated, and then go and do it.

And.... it continues to make zero sense to me that someone alleging decades of cult expertise has been clueless re CAN. It sure makes me wonder how much of what he says can be trusted.

Quote
ImthatDave
Christa -

It happens, no excuse, now I know and I'm moving on. I'm a big fan of Anonymous, I think that organization does great work in many cases.

We all have different ways of getting to the same result, mine may be different than yours but they don't make them any less effective or less honorable.

'I'm not threatening you but you need to not suggest that people commit crimes.'

An artful bit of reframing, Dave. If you read what I wrote you will see that I was making an observation, as well as speculating as to what might have caused you to re-engage here. It was speculation, I accept that you may have very different reasons for returning here.

However, at no time did I suggest that people commit crimes, so your not threatening me is irrelevant.

In reference to CAN, I'm going to have an addition made to the page where the interview is hosted to correct the error about CAN. As much as you'd like to make it an issue, it was simply an oversight and I'll correct it there and in the future.

Stoic, ridiculous.

Moderator, seriously? Can you demonstrate anywhere that I've suggested anyone use brainwashing techniques? Nowhere. Brainwashing and many of the other very coercive techniques employed by cults typically don't happen until someone is already a member. What I'm speaking of specifically are the techniques used to get someone to join in the first place when I talk about cult mind control techniques and persuasion being two sides of the same coin. If you want to test my knowledge of cults and cult behavior, I'm happy to debate you in public and put that recording here as well. Lipton is not the only expert to be studied or quoted when it comes to coercive group behavior though I accept that he is exceptionally well studied and written. And, it would appear that you are saying that the work Cialdini has written applies only to business and those influence principles are not the very same ones that allow people to be drawn into cults? And, you've yet to address the issue of leaving a post up suggesting people break the law if in fact you are the moderator of this forum.

Helpme2times there is a significant difference between being a corporate spokesperson and running a speaking business. A spokesperson is an employee of another company and probably has limited responsibility for profit. Toastmasters is an excellent organization and does a great job of teaching people the basics of effective public speaking, it does virtually nothing in any of its training to teach people how to build a speaking business. The National Speakers Association does have those tracks and they charge way more than I do as do many others. Are you saying that learning to be a chef gives you all the skills you need you to open a restaurant?

I'm unlikely to respond to this thread again with the exception of completing my response to Buffman if I didn't answer all his questions as mentioned in my last major post.

People will always see what they want to see the way that makes them most comfortable. If you find me to be as dangerous as you'd like to portray me then fine, ignore me, continue to rally around those who believe like you do, resist other ideas and possibilities, shut out those who would disagree, feel safe in your anonymous group. In the meantime, I'll continue to do the real work of sharing the knowledge with as many people as possible, of how not to get caught up in coercive groups. I've wasted all the time I intend to with people who apparently limit their experience to a forum where they can be anonymous rather than actually doing something to make the world a better place. There is a huge difference between being anonymous in a forum and a group like Anonymous.

Wishing you all success in whatever it is that you do.

Dave Lakhani

This board has cost a lot of hucksters, frauds, plastic shamans, and false gods a LOT of money. For every person who's come here and posted "I was on my way to this 9-day School, that Week-end Seminar, this Week-long Retreat and then I came here and I changed my mind" there must be 100 people who read this board, cancelled a registration for something, and didn't post.

So we're costing a lot of people a lot of money. Lakhani is the first person to come here and directly mention the threat to his income (other salespeople tend to send trolls who blather on and on about how wrong we are about their enlightened master) but I've always understood that loss of income is the major threat this board presents to all of the abusive persuaders out there.

I've benefited from many of this board's posts. I'm really grateful for everyone who takes the time to post, and for Rick Ross, who's been dragged through courtrooms around the nation fighting cults and defending our right to free speech.

But from time to time I've chuckled over the fact that many exploitative persuaders would LOVE to know the true identity of The Anticult. TAC posts often dissect advanced methods of persuasion, and they reflect a high level of learning in a fairly obscure area. Any entity that wanted to use the fewest resources to eliminate the single biggest threat to its income would want to knock TAC out of the game, absolutely.

So it doesn't surprise me that Lakhani, who nakedly expressed his concern for his income via some trumped up accusation about a torrent link, would just come here and ASK The Anticult to take off his Web mask.

After all, that's the first thing they teach in sales trainings and in a lot of LGATs -- if you want something, ask for it. So he asked.

But Lakhani can't give greed (or wounded pride) as his reason for wanting to know who TAC is, so he keeps blathering about how TAC should give his name BECAUSE of TAC's claims to expertise. That's where his little game falls apart.

ImthatDave Quote 1
"I'd like to ask both of you to be as transparent as I am, identify yourselves and your background. Show my your research, your books, your scholarly works other than posts that you put up here many of which are not well reasoned at best."

ImthatDave Quote 2
"if you are as skilled as you say you are then you shouldn't have any trouble debating me and an honest open debate should expose me if there is something to expose. I'm perfectly willing to do it with you hiding behind your avatar here and we can have Rick moderate it"

ImthatDave Quote 3
"but he does present himself as a bonafide expert so he should establish his credentials, especially in a forum frequented by people who have been harmed by cults."

Unfortunately for Lakhani, TAC, in nearly 2800 posts, hasn't made any claims to expertise. Lakhani imputed them so that he could call them into question. It's another lame red herring, with straw man elements. IOW, more distraction, in this case with a goal of smearing TAC.

I pay attention to TAC's posts because I've found them helpful and interesting. My respect and consideration have never once been demanded. TAC's posts stand on their own merit. Although I rarely use the word expert, I'll use it here to say I've concluded TAC's is one, because my experience with the posts supports that conclusion.

Lakhani's learned to manipulate a system where journal articles, association with big names, and braggadocio can confer legitimacy and the appearance of expertise. One aspect of this tactic is Werner Erhard's attempt to make Harvard Business School's case study of Landmark look like an endorsement, and Byron Katie's attempt to make a talk near Harvard appear to be a talk at Harvard.

Lakhani doesn't realize he's operating in a new environment, so his incessant chatter about his expertise is weird and very noticeable. Internet message boards, especially anonymous ones, operate on a system of earning merit only through the quality of what you write.

No one cares who you are, and demanding validation because you think you're somebody is the sure route to ridicule and distrust. Because if you could earn respect through the usefulness of your posts, you'd just do that. If you want to debate, debate on the board, in this format. The desire to drag people somewhere else, when we're all right here, is suspicious at best. (And once again, Dave, if you have problems with this environment, adapt or go away. Those really are the only options.)

Everyone, ask yourself, how useful have Lakhani's posts been to you? What have you learned? Look up some of his other offerings. What do you get out of them? How much would you pay to learn more from him?

Evaluate his claim of expertise. Stoic, for example, commented a couple of posts ago that s/he doesn't claim to be a cult expert, yet even a quick Google revealed that Scientology took over CAN years ago. (Interestingly, I've learned a lot from Stoic's posts on many threads, yet s/he explicitly rejects the "expert" label. Hmmm.)

Quote from rrmoderator:
"You make some of the same mistakes many naive observers of cults have made regarding cult coercive persuasion techniques."

"Naive" is an antonym for "expert". Someone who's naive cannot possess expertise. (BTW, I think rrmoderator's estimation is extremely generous.)

I actually had heard of Lakhani before, in fact, in connection to his "I'm a cult expert; I was raised in one" claims. I'd listened to a couple of podcasts where he and some other people circle-jerk about how brilliant, learned, independent, and, well, just gosh-darned unique they all are. I learned nothing about the topic areas of the podcasts, just how swell the podcasters think they are. Actually, it was a lot like Lakhani's posts here. A lot of ego inflation and bluster, very little substance.

Lakhani lays claims to expertise because that's what he has -- claims to expertise. All I've seen in his posts are threats, pouts, and boasts. Which, I'm sad to say, will get you over in a lot of places in the world. But not here.

To put all this in a wider context, the Internet is a very big threat to shysters everywhere. Scientology is now crumbling largely because of the interaction and information the Web makes possible. They used to be invincible, now they're reportedly telling people in at least one Org "we know you're going leave, please just don't talk to the press." Quite a change, eh? It really wasn't possible to take them on before, and now it is.


*************
Link to article about the harm done to a parent who was accidentally sent to CAN after the Scientology takeover. It's from 1997, when there was still some excuse for not knowing. How many people might Lakhani's ignorance -- I mean, naivete-- have harmed?

[www.lermanet.com]

Excellent point regarding Toastmasters, helpme2times. According to Toastmasters International, fees for joining Toastmasters are a $20 new member fee and $27 twice a year, with additional fees charged by the local group which vary from group to group:
[www.toastmasters.org]

For instance, the total fees for TCU Toastmasters are $57 initially, then $37 every six months thereafter.
[tcu.freetoasthost.info]

In other words, for $3000 one could be a member of Toastmasters for 40 years...and have $20 left over!

Quote
helpme2times

Quote
ImthatDave
And, to be sure, many people on your hit parade (whom I regularly criticize as well) do in fact continually upsell people into mindless programs that don't do anything. Until you audit one of my high priced programs ($3000 to learn how to build a speaking business is hardly considered high priced) then everything you say is based at best on your best guess about what happens. Be factual or clearly identify that what you are saying is at best your guess about what happens at my events.

Dave thinks that paying "$3000 to learn how to build a speaking business is hardly high priced"?

I happen to have a friend who works as a spokesperson for a major corporation.

How did she learn her craft?

From Toastmasters!

Toastmasters being an exceedingly inexpensive and apparently well-regarded organization that teaches public speaking.

So I'd say that paying $3000 to learn public speaking IS high-priced. And I don't even know how good Dave is at teaching.

Actually the word "rip-off" pops into mind.

Quote
Christa
Lakhani's learned to manipulate a system where journal articles, association with big names, and braggadocio can confer legitimacy and the appearance of expertise. One aspect of this tactic is Werner Erhard's attempt to make Harvard Business School's case study of Landmark look like an endorsement, and Byron Katie's attempt to make a talk near Harvard appear to be a talk at Harvard.

Christa, I'm glad that you've mentioned the notorious Werner Erhard.

In the interview of Dave at exploringthemind.com, he said, and I quote: "I've been to EST. I've done a lot of these things."

EST as in Erhard Seminar Training.

Hmmm.

And then in his Bold Approach blog, Dave says:

"I have and still do teach personal development workshops and do transformative travel that causes people to push their limits. And, when doing anything that might have risk associated with it, have properly trained and equipped emergency staff and only highly skilled, qualified and certified instructors on hand to supervise and train, no exceptions."

Let's see:

"personal development workshops"

"transformative travel"

"causes people to push their limits"

"emergency staff"

This sort of lingo makes me feel rather, uh, nervous.

"personal development workshops"

"transformative travel"

"causes people to push their limits"

"emergency staff"


Add to that the previously admitted use of 'subliminal persuasion' which is 'targeting people for change without their conscious evaluation of the change'.......... and this is all starting to sound horribly familiar.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/18/2010 09:44AM by Stoic.

Yep.

*gulp*