As a newcomer to your site ( I was referred to you from a site discussing the Antony Robbins companies etc) I wanted to ask an open ended question and would value the comments from all users here.

Firstly I would like to agree with your observations and add that there are distinct parallels with Managment Consultancy (part of my business area) where gurus and consultants can charge massive fees of companies - and if you've been stung for a massive fee would YOU admit you were ripped off? Not if that meant you had to admit to your board you'd wasted their cash!

Moving along, my question is this: does anyone know of any 'human potential' approaches or organisations that they would NOT consider ones that apply LGAT, or perhaps didn't in the start but have ended up this way now?

My assumptions are that whilst this could be so, unless the founders are VERY CAREFUL in how they roll out their business model (since there will be profits somewhere down the line) then the temptation to 'believe the hype' generated will inexoriably result in a LGAT.

To focus this further I pose the following hypothetical situation.

Say someone has an idea that appears workable and is free (ie doesn't require devotees adherance to their programme no purchase products from them.)

Say also that the idea can effect positive change to people - no side-effects, no brainwashing, leaving friends etc.

Say they truly have a choice and could dip in and out, as such without pressure from anybody else.

If this idea was workable, doable and generated positive results and then more and more people heard about it and passed on the message, under these types of circumstances, would it be just a plain 'good idea' bearing in mind that the originating source did not ask for money, devotion or that people gave up anything themselves.

Say also that the idea is logical, able to be clearly explained and cogently peer-group reviewed (although some peer group members could loose profits as a result) how would that go as a non LGAT human potential issue.

I ask in all seriousness since having experienced LGAT as an insider and outsider I don't want to unwittingly make the same mistakes myself, although I do wonder whether such mistakes are perhaps unavoidable, like the 'power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely' phrase.

Thanks all for reading the post,

Pleased to hear back in due course

Regards

Brian

bbo1234:

If the "idea" is somehow conveyed through mass marathon training, there repeatedly seem to be inherent structural problems through such groups and their dynamics.

See [www.culteducation.com]

Otherwise, ideas can be conveyed through classroom settings at educational institutions such as colleges and universities. And students can sign up and take a course through continuing education and receive credit.

Colleges and universities have accountability, certification, teacher requirements etc. that ultimately protect the students.

Thanks the post, link and comments.

I agree that colleges, universites etc are a good way to pass on knowledge but for many in work they can either be at the wrong time or simply too long an approach.

I think that the idea of 'taster' sessions for people to sample an idea first, perhaps first-hand from the originator can be a good idea but with caveats as set out below.

I have read back the other informative posts you've had and am saddened that some apparent good ideas do develop into the brainwashing that is clearly evident.

Unfortunately, it's easier than people imagine to set up hypnotic inductions and anchor states etc so before they realise it they are hooked.

I suppose the big tester is whether the ideas are being passed on in 1-to-1 sessions or small groups, rather than mass events and also whether the small sessions can be stand-alone or are used to up-sell to bigger and costlier events.

I think that many people have 'issues' with confidence, fear, nerves etc (from whatever reasons) and as such can often fall into theses LGAT methodologies to resolve them, but the methods don't work since if they did the devotees would be saying something like, 'Thanks, I'll take it from here by myself now'.

The fact that the devotees align with the group so strongly underpins the mass hypnosis/hysteria element.

The same methods are applied, perhaps unwittingly, by those that develop the 'next big thing' in business guru-speak and also in the music industry. Consider the help lines that are set up when a boy band splits etc.

I've given presentations, worked with clients, taught therapists new techniques and in each case my idea has been to design myself out of a job, ie they can operate without me. I think that's the biggest difference between LGAT/Gurus and proponents of other approaches.

This LGAT also applies to property development seminars BTW, and here they sell the fees of the course on the ' look at the amount of money you'll make on your purchases' approach.

Perhaps others may have another cut on this.

Regards,

Brian.

Now *that* is a very interesting question. Are the only legitimate methods of training those that are regulated by the state and based on publicly published protocols? It is my understanding that many kinds of therapy assume a certain naivete on the part of the patient, but is a blow-by-blow prebriefing necessary for any treatment?

To what extent can any lay person really be expected to give "informed consent" to any training? Is all of this established by some sort of federal regulation? This whole thing smacks to me of a naive "neo-nannyism" where mommy and daddy authority will protect the helpless infant from others outside of the prescribed and authorized magic circle.

I'd possibly not have gone as far as you as describing the protection element neo-nannyism but I do feel that since anything that is introduced to the education real will need to be field tested first at some stage somewhere the public, naive or informed need to test it and that would mean being tested on.

I think some ways to calibrate the efficacy of a 'new way' is how open the providers are to having their approaches scrutinsed. I'd think they'd want to protect copyright etc but there's a way to watch without poaching as such.

Otherwise the only ways are the old ways and then most of the ideas of the last 20 years wouldn't exist.

Sort of catch 22 really: can't test unless in college- can't put into college unless tested

rgds

brian

The main difficulty with this question, as I see it, is that most "Human Potential" trainings offer little in the way of follow up studies to determine whether or not their methods are effective. Human Potential seminars make most of their money upfront before the trainings, as a result there is not much of an incentive to follow up and ensure that their processes work.

Many people can be fooled at least once for a relatively short time however it is very difficult to sustain this level of deceit in the long-term because most people inevitably see the inconsistencies. As a result, the most effective business plan for an LGAT is to put 98% of their people through one or two weekend seminars, and then expect to never see them again. I submit to this forum my assertion that the structure of such trainings has nothing to do with effectiveness and everything to do with maximizing corporate profits. Contrary to what is commonly said in such trainings, severe emotional problems cannot be solved in several short, intense trainings. While group therapy is definitely legitimate, it takes a long-term commitment and follow up to see any kind of real change in a person.

I would encourage anyone considering any "Human Potential" or LGAT structured training to ask two questions. "Why is this group not interested in having a long-term relationship with its trainees?" and "What kind of scientifically based studies do they use to justify their methods?"