In science people are trained in the difference between valid studies and misleading ones.

For example one maxim is that correlation doesn't equal causation. In other words, just because two things happen regularly at the same time doesn't necessarily mean that they are co-related.

Statistics, while in and of themselves are neutral, certain results can be emphasized to give a misleading impression. For this reason many people dismiss all statistics as bad when this is an unfortunate overgeneralization.

In surveys, many naively don't take into account that some people lie or are so swayed by the emotions, or assumptions, of the moment that they may, with the best of intentions, give a skewed response...

And it goes on and on.

Having reviewed the official Landmark site lately I noticed a tidbit that was new to me. Landmark has section devoted to so-called independent research that supports its methodology:

[www.landmarkeducation.com]

I think it would be a very fascinating and helpful subject for those still on the fence about landmark to have the flaws in these pro-Landmark studies pointed out to them.

On the face of it they all look very professional and I have to admit that Landmark's official website looks very well designed. But I suspect that many of the criticisms of Landmark here and elsewhere were the impetus for the creation of such links.

Regardless, surely any organization that so sorely misquotes the late Dr. Singer out of context must have plenty of other misinformation to be exposed and shared with those who don't have the time, energy or expertise to do so on their own. And no, I've not the time either.

How about it, you RR.com regulars? Any takers?

CNFT

It’s been a long time since I wanted to write about this one, and this is the occasion. Thanks for the opportunity.

In the Harvard report (A Harvard Business School Case Study: Landmark Education Corporation: Selling a Paradigm Shift), it is claimed that:

“Philosophers whom Erhard and Landmark acknowledge as having contributed to their work, include Aristotle, Albert Camus, Jurgen Habermas, Martin Heidegger, Immanuel Kant, Plato, Jean-Paul Sartre, Socrates, Charles Taylor, and Ludwig Wittgenstein”.

This is very misguiding. Clearly, none of these philosophers have “contributed” to Landmark’s work. At most, Erhard took from these philosophers some ideas and have developed it’s so called “technology” by distorting the philosophy if not by being in total contradiction with some of the core ideas. For example, let me quote our modern philosopher Charles Taylor from his book “The ethic of authenticity” aka “The Malaise of Modernity”. In his book, Charles Taylor says about the concept of “authenticity” (chapII, p 15):

“… the culture of self-fulfillment has led many people to loose sight of concerns that transcend them … . This can even result in a sort of absurdity, as new modes of conformity arise among people who are striving to be themselves, and beyond this, new forms of dependence, as people insecure in their identities turn to all sorts of self-appointed experts and guides, shrouded with a prestige of science or some exotic spirituality”.

This excerpt tells me clearly that if Landmark took anything from Taylor’s philosophy, it is described as an “absurdity” by Taylor himself!

About “authenticity”, Charles Taylor also writes in Chap VI, p. 59 of that same book:

“… deviancy in the culture of authenticity is to be traced to the fact that this is being lived in an industrial-technological-bureaucratic society… instrumental reason is evident in a host of ways in various facets of the human-potential movement, whose dominant purpose is intended to be self-fulfillment. Very often we are offered techniques, based on supposed scientific findings, to achieve psychic integration or peace of mind. The dream of the quick fix is present here too, as elsewhere, in spite of the fact that from the very beginning, and still today, the goal of self-fulfillment has been understood as antithetical to that of mere instrumental control. A quick-fix technique for letting go is the ultimate contradiction.”

Again, this excerpt tells me that the “quick-fix” techniques proposed by Landmark’s and other self-fulfilling technologies are described by Taylor as being an “ultimate contradiction”.

Therefore, Landmark’s claim that Charles Taylor has contributed to the development of their technology is a lie. It is clear from Charles Taylor’s book that he doesn’t endorse any of Landmark’s technology. On the contrary, Charles Taylor describes this approach to authenticity a “deviant form of authenticity” or “authenticity not properly understood”. From the above excerpt, it also describes Landmark's technology as an "absurdity" and an "ultimate contradiction" for self-fullfilment.

I'd like to know the percentage of guests that sign up to do their courses.

A typical guest event for the Landmark Forum has approximately 25% to 30% register.

Quote
Dynamix
I'd like to know the percentage of guests that sign up to do their courses.

Quote
midonov123
It’s been a long time since I wanted to write about this one, and this is the occasion. Thanks for the opportunity.

In the Harvard report (A Harvard Business School Case Study: Landmark Education Corporation: Selling a Paradigm Shift), it is claimed that:

“Philosophers whom Erhard and Landmark acknowledge as having contributed to their work, include Aristotle, Albert Camus, Jurgen Habermas, Martin Heidegger, Immanuel Kant, Plato, Jean-Paul Sartre, Socrates, Charles Taylor, and Ludwig Wittgenstein”.

This is very misguiding. Clearly, none of these philosophers have “contributed” to Landmark’s work. At most, Erhard took from these philosophers some ideas and have developed it’s so called “technology” by distorting the philosophy if not by being in total contradiction with some of the core ideas. For example, let me quote our modern philosopher Charles Taylor from his book “The ethic of authenticity” aka “The Malaise of Modernity”. In his book, Charles Taylor says about the concept of “authenticity” (chapII, p 15):

“… the culture of self-fulfillment has led many people to loose sight of concerns that transcend them … . This can even result in a sort of absurdity, as new modes of conformity arise among people who are striving to be themselves, and beyond this, new forms of dependence, as people insecure in their identities turn to all sorts of self-appointed experts and guides, shrouded with a prestige of science or some exotic spirituality”.

This excerpt tells me clearly that if Landmark took anything from Taylor’s philosophy, it is described as an “absurdity” by Taylor himself!

About “authenticity”, Charles Taylor also writes in Chap VI, p. 59 of that same book:

“… deviancy in the culture of authenticity is to be traced to the fact that this is being lived in an industrial-technological-bureaucratic society… instrumental reason is evident in a host of ways in various facets of the human-potential movement, whose dominant purpose is intended to be self-fulfillment. Very often we are offered techniques, based on supposed scientific findings, to achieve psychic integration or peace of mind. The dream of the quick fix is present here too, as elsewhere, in spite of the fact that from the very beginning, and still today, the goal of self-fulfillment has been understood as antithetical to that of mere instrumental control. A quick-fix technique for letting go is the ultimate contradiction.”

Again, this excerpt tells me that the “quick-fix” techniques proposed by Landmark’s and other self-fulfilling technologies are described by Taylor as being an “ultimate contradiction”.

Therefore, Landmark’s claim that Charles Taylor has contributed to the development of their technology is a lie. It is clear from Charles Taylor’s book that he doesn’t endorse any of Landmark’s technology. On the contrary, Charles Taylor describes this approach to authenticity a “deviant form of authenticity” or “authenticity not properly understood”. From the above excerpt, it also describes Landmark's technology as an "absurdity" and an "ultimate contradiction" for self-fullfilment.

Bravo!

CNFT

Hi everybody,
I've heard about this report a lot, but actually could't find iy anywhere. in the lf website there is just a short synopsis.

Does anybody know how i could get it?
Also where i can find more about it?
I'm doing a project about lgat and i need as much information as possible.
thanks

Quote
key-key-key
Hi everybody,
I've heard about this report a lot, but actually could't find iy anywhere. in the lf website there is just a short synopsis.

Does anybody know how i could get it?
Also where i can find more about it?
I'm doing a project about lgat and i need as much information as possible.
thanks

It's now available through e-mule.

Hello key-key-key

What do you want to know? I was hoping to find out more about the 'Landmark for Business' enterprise, but sources are surprisingly few and far between. Maybe that's because the companies themselves who are involved are so secretive anyway. I think that if Landmark is boasting corporate names like Lockheed-Martin, Microsoft and Exxon (Halliburton soon, maybe?), that tells us a lot about the true priorities under their sickening new age facade.

(This is the only way I can reply to your PM until I have 10+ posts, sorry!)