If you are considering it you should know:

1) It uses the same Lifespring model used my many other companies.

2) was started by the Jubacks and Bergers in 1997 as to shelter the Bergers from the IRS investigation that shut down Impact earlier that year.

3) split from Impact in 2001

4) has trainers pretending to be their own graduates in their videos (false, deceptive and misleading advertising)

5) has a 35 person board of directors, claims to be graduate owned -- but actual ownership is unclear. Seems to be the Jayson Orvis family/his businesses, or the like. Employes Bruce and Dorothy (and Layla?) Solomon. Former owners of Rising Star/Vision-Works. Former Lifespring employees of some sort.

6) trainers are not listed on website. Have no legitimate qualifications/degrees -- all currently active trainers apparently trained by Hans and Sally Berger, including their former son-in-law JJ Lybbertt

Seems to be surviving only because Impact is sold out until February. Gets enough overflow from there to stay afloat -- barely.

If you are considering this company, BEWARE of their misrepresentations, past business practices and utterly unqualified staff.


From the Impact Trainings thread:


>>>We point out your videos by your current employees and "trainers" pretending to be graduates of the Harmony/Great Life training are false, deceptive and misleading, and you respond about how they make great carrot cake, or are "licensed," or are in committed relationships (not denying that that relationship is to a member of the same sex.) No problem with that, but it seems to me folks considering your training ought to know more about who will be training them before they go, then they do. Schools list faculty. Students know who their professors will be before they pay their tuition, even the Landmark website lists their forum trainers, but you don't. Why? Is it so they can pretend to be your graduates in your videos?

Wouldn't integrity suggest that ANYTHING they have to share about their training results belongs as a testimony to IMPACT not you?

Then you claim in private emails to me to have enough stuff on Hans and Sally to put them out of business, or do damage to them, or put them in jail (even sharing publically that you know them to be criminals), but then you encourage others to pay them over $5,000.00 to do Quest to TIT1. You say you feel they do more good than harm. Leaves me wondering if you are psychotic.

>>Out of curiosity: why didn't Ed go into scathing critiques of former trainers such as Joe Buchman?)<<

Well, there is the time factor. . . .

A LIST OF FORMER HARMONY TRAINERS I'VE NOT CRITIQUED:

Greg Johanson -- trained to be a Quest Trainer by Mike Gardner while struggeling to keep appointments with his parole officer.

Jill Thompson -- Rising Star grad training for Harmony, using it mostly to date guys in the training. Married one eventually.

Terry Ashworth -- Trained the abundance weekends while driving a car that could not pass the state safety inspection.

Joe Buchman -- one of the most arrogant people around Even moreso than Hans.

I hesitate to trash him because I like his wife Cindy so much. Did several trainings with her (some not in Utah -- HINT, HINT if you're so worried about who I am). Hadn't talked to her in some time. Called their home tonight. They are in the book. Joe was out of town. Was in Colorado. And Florida. Looking for the "perfect" college to teach at. Teaching online and doing the Breakthrough Selling course for Gary Acevedo. It's amazing to me that they are still married.

Cindy says Joe left when they/she loaned Steve and Pam Juback $20.000.00 to pay the rent and keep Harmony open when he was training there.

Instead they used it to remodel the lobby. Really pissed Joe off. He quit.

Then, after lots of lies and delays, the first check Pam wrote to her -- bounced. The second one cleared and she's not spoked to either of them since.

Loaned $60,000.00 to Hans and Sally about 10 years ago. Got paid back on time with lots of interest.

So when I say the Jubacks are worse than Hans, that's just another of the reasons why.

Interesting you don't look into that sort of thing. Especially before hiring the Solomon family.

If you don't look, you won't see.

I heard the JJ Stuff former just mentioned from Sally -- but about being "inappropriate" in a kids training the weekend before they fired him. Didn't repeat that here because, frankly, I don't believe it.

But being "nice" to you Jayson, or trying to have a reasoned or fair discussion with you just isn't working.

You've accused me of slander and libel and as you own, or contract with, or whatever -- a law firm with lots of attorneys for your credit clean up stuff, I hope you'll understand if I decline to write to you again.

Except to say regarding Brett, Analee and Kim . . .

1) Giving keynote speaches or owning manafest management does not make one qualified to handle the emotional impact of feedback arcs on someone whose dad killed himself (for example).

2) Analee McDonald appears in your video as CEO of a ficticious company, and as if she was a graduate of YOUR training. Everything she has to say, based on results in her life, comes from IMPACT, not you.

(I wonder why as a member of the GLF board of directors, you are okay with that FRAUD?)

3) Kim is LICENSED??? Give me a break. She'd done Resource Realizations training for trainers. So what. That's like John Colbert giving his book the Colbert book award; or Hitler giving out diplomas for his school in how to run an efficient government.

As for licensing the LIfespring materials, I see Lifespringnow.com has a list of those who do pay a license fee for using Lifeboat, Red/Black and the like.

The Great Life Foundation is not on that list. Neither is Impact. Many others are. You are known by the company you keep.


The only licensed people I know of in town doing this kind of stuff are Paul Mundt, and Gary Acevedo -- both with MS degrees in psychotherapy, and long track records (unlike Harmony/Rising Star/Impact) of runing companies without financial misdealings.

Goodnight, Good Luck, and Good Bye!

-------Ed

You'll find Jayson Orvis is incable of posting here instead of in the Impact Threads.

To clarify one point he made there:

>>

Quote

As for licensing the LIfespring materials, I see Lifespringnow.com has a list of those who do pay a license fee for using Lifeboat, Red/Black and the like. The Great Life Foundation is not on that list. Neither is Impact. Many others are. You are known by the company you keep.

I'm afraid you lost me. So, if a company licenses their material from Lifespring, then it's a legitimate LGAT that would be supported by you? <<<

No, it would mean they are no longer using property owned and created by others.

Theft of such things being common at GLF and elsewhere.

Doesn't mean I would support them.

Are you really this dense?

-----Ed

I'm a member of the Great Life Foundation board and I'd like to make a few corrections and add a few comments:

Quote

1) It uses the same Lifespring model used my many other companies.

Largely correct.

Quote

2) was started by the Jubacks and Bergers in 1997 as to shelter the Bergers from the IRS investigation that shut down Impact earlier that year.

Incorrect. Great Life Foundation (the "foundation",) was formed (I believe) in 2004 as a Utah State non-profit organization. Harmony Institute (which was the successor to Impact) ceased operations near the same time and referred its graduates to the foundation.

We have no first-hand information regarding the Bergers (Hans and Sally, the owners of Impact, a training company) and their dealings with the IRS.

Quote

3) split from Impact in 2001

Covered above.

Quote

4) has trainers pretending to be their own graduates in their videos (false, deceptive and misleading advertising)

Incorrect. The foundation has no control of the content of the videos mentioned here (video interviews with various graduates and trainers of the foundation) because the videos were produced by Founders Five Media, LLC, a separate, for-profit organization created by a number of foundation graduates. These video producers intend to create a video similar to The Secret and shot those interviews with that in mind. As such, they had to choose whether to use interviewees' professional credentials or training credentials. Ultimately, prior to completion of the full video, the producers decided to run clips on YouTube of the interviews. Because the video will not be centered on the foundation training, they opted to go with professional credentials. So:

1. The foundation had nothing to do with the decision to run these clips or how to title interviewees,
2. The professional credentials listed in the video clips are true and accurate and,
3. There is no rational motive for wanting to obscure the training activities of any of the interviewee/trainers because it's common knowledge who they are and there's no reason that their status as a trainer in foundation classes would harm their credibility.

Quote

5) has a 35 person board of directors, claims to be graduate owned -- but actual ownership is unclear. Seems to be the Jayson Orvis family/his businesses, or the like. Employes Bruce and Dorothy (and Layla?) Solomon. Former owners of Rising Star/Vision-Works. Former Lifespring employees of some sort.

The foundation is controlled by a 30+ member board made up of foundation graduates and graduates of other trainings of similar style. The Great Life Foundation is clearly controlled by the board, and (as the voluminous minutes of the board meetings will attest) conducts all business and makes all decisions through the majority vote of a quorum of this board of directors. There is no one person with any more control than any other board member.

Bruce (and hopefully Dorothy) Solomon have offered to consult with the foundation and to participate as contributors, just like hundreds of others do. We look forward to having them participate with us.

Quote

6) trainers are not listed on website. Have no legitimate qualifications/degrees -- all currently active trainers apparently trained by Hans and Sally Berger, including their former son-in-law JJ Lybbertt

Here are the qualifications and bios of some of the trainers. A complete list will be available on the foundation website before the end of the year.

Great Life Trainers:

Dr. Joel Martin – Experience includes over 20 years of experiential training including training in Russia, China, and throughout the US (Not trained by Hans). She is an author (“Being a Perfectly Positive Person”) as well as having a Masters degree in psychology and PHD in communication. She is also a Wharton fellow. Her web site is www.triadwest.com. She’s very accomplished in life and consults with numerous large (fortune 500) businesses that can be found on her web site. Married for over 35 years.

Brett Harward – Divorced and remarried, 6 children. CEO of Manifest Management, one of the largest if not largest small business consulting firms in Utah (www.manifestmanagement.com). Speaks regularly as a keynote speaker, and teaches workshops on business management throughout the world. Authors many articles on business and spends far more time on his business than in the training room. Previously owned a software company in Phoenix (Frontrunner Technologies) with offices in Utah and Washington DC. Moved to Utah in 1998 to run his Provo sales and support office. Sold company to FMC (NYSE: FMC), a fortune 300 company in late 1999. Retired for a couple of years. Trained by Joel Martin to be a first level trainer in 2006.

Annalee McDonald – She has been training for many years. It was a part time vocation for many years, over the last several years she has trained as a full time vocation for several organizations and for her own training company. In addition to training the GLF Part 2, she trains in Oregon for an intervention program for troubled teens. Married and teaches couples training with her husband. Loving relationships with children who regularly participate in trainings.

Kim Ashton -- Four children and in twenty-plus-year committed relationship. Licensed and trained in several training methodologies.

Quote

Seems to be surviving only because Impact is sold out until February. Gets enough overflow from there to stay afloat -- barely.

I don't think any of us know why the foundation continues to grow and thrive. We're pretty sure that the training itself is something that people enjoy enough that they refer their friends and family to attend it as well. Since the foundation knows the provenance of each new trainee, it is certain that next-to-none of the trainees are coming from Impact overflow.

boonetahoe:

See [forum.culteducation.com]

Posts may be edited within 30 minutes.

You often come across very badly on this message board, as if you are trying to intimidate people.

As you should know LGATs have a deeply troubled history of personal injury lawsuits, complaints and bad press.

See [www.culteducation.com]

Note the many groups listed within the category "Human Potential," which includes Impact, Landmark Education, Sterling Institute of Relationship, Lifespring, Asiaworks, NXIVM, etc.

There are inherent problems/liabilities within the basic structure and dynamics of LGATs.

See [www.culteducation.com]

These liabilities are cited within the above linked research paper in what can be seen as mass marathon psychotherapy training sessions:

1. They lack adequate participant-selection criteria.

2. They lack reliable norms, supervision, and adequate training for leaders.

3. They lack clearly defined responsibility.

4. They sometimes foster pseudoauthenticity and pseudoreality.

5. They sometimes foster inappropriate patterns of relationships.

6. They sometimes ignore the necessity and utility of ego defenses.

7. They sometimes teach the covert value of total exposure instead of valuing personal differences.

8. They sometimes foster impulsive personality styles and behavioral strategies.

9. They sometimes devalue critical thinking in favor of "experiencing" without self-analysis or reflection.

10. They sometimes ignore stated goals, misrepresent their actual techniques, and obfuscate their real agenda.

11. They sometimes focus too much on structural self-awareness techniques and misplace the goal of democratic education; as a result participants may learn more about themselves and less about group process.

12. They pay inadequate attention to decisions regarding time limitations. This may lead to increased pressure on some participants to unconsciously "fabricate" a cure.

13. They fail to adequately consider the "psychonoxious" or deleterious effects of group participation (or] adverse countertransference reactions.

These groups were determined to be dangerous when:

1. Leaders had rigid, unbending beliefs about what participants should experience and believe, how they should behave in the group. and when they should change.

2. Leaders had no sense of differential diagnosis and assessment skills, valued cathartic emotional breakthroughs as the ultimate therapeutic experience, and sadistically pressed to create or force a breakthrough in every participant.

3. Leaders had an evangelical system of belief that was the one single pathway to salvation.

4. Leaders were true believers and sealed their doctrine off from discomforting data or disquieting results and tended to discount a poor result by, "blaming the victim."

Many past participants of LGATs and their critics have compared the "training" received to "coercive persuasion."

See [www.culteducation.com]

The key factors that distinguish coercive persuasion from other training and socialization schemes are:

1. The reliance on intense interpersonal and psychological attack to destabilize an individual's sense of self to promote compliance

2. The use of an organized peer group

3. Applying interpersonal pressure to promote conformity

4. The manipulation of the totality of the person's social environment to stabilize behavior once modified

IMO--if people have problems and require counseling/therapy, it is far safer to seek help through licensed professionals responsible to a state board, as opposed to someone that does not have such credentials.

There are also support groups that focus on grief, divorce, obsessive/compulsive behavior and other issues facilitated by professionals in most communities.

Additionally there are accredited programs available at colleges and universities providing continuing education that can assist people in developing their effectiveness, management skills and potential.

LGATs and "life coaches" are essentially an unregulated industry functioning in an area of assistance that typically requires specific credentials and professional licensing, such as therapy or group therapy provided by clinical psychologist or psychiatrist, marriage and relationship counseling provided by a licensed marriage and family therapist, or education provided by an accredited institution.

The promise of a seeming "quick fix" or "breakthrough" may be appealing, but a more cautious approach with a credible professional at a locally accessible and established institution, counseling center, hospital etc. is a much safer and potentially less risky approach.

Many of the LGATs expect participants to sign liability waivers, either giving up some if not all rights to sue the company, if something goes wrong and a personal injury occurs.

Credible helping professionals don't require such waivers and remain accountable for their work, not only legally, but to licensing boards and professional associations.

It should also be noted that no LGAT, that I am aware of, has ever done a research study to measure long-term objective results from its programs, such as a higher grade point average achieved by students that participated, lower divorce rate amongst its graduates, less need for professional counseling, higher sustained income, etc., which has subsequently been submitted for peer-review and then published by a credible journal.

Why not?

Many LGATs easily have the resources to fund such a study, but instead rely upon anecdotal stories, testimonials and opinion polls, which measure subjective results instead, e.g. what participants "experience" or feel about their programs.

I have received complaints about LGAT participants being taken directly from an LGAT to a hospital for treatment after a breakdown. Some have spent months, even years recovering.

I have also received complaints of family estrangements, business failures, divorces attributed directly to LGAT involvement.

And LGATs remain one of the most consistently complained about categories of groups listed at the Ross Institute Web site.

I would not recommend an LGAT to anyone under any circumstances.

They are much better and safer alternatives.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/15/2007 09:50PM by rrmoderator.

>>The foundation has no control of the content of the videos mentioned here<<

Maybe you should try "inspiring" instead of controlling.

Are you not IN the videos YOURSELF?!?!


You really expect all of us here to believe if you asked your founders training grads to do or not to do something, they would defy you?

Really?

Must not be much of a training . . .

:)

Anyway, I do wish you the best.

------Ed

Quote
Impacted
>>The foundation has no control of the content of the videos mentioned here<<

Maybe you should try "inspiring" instead of controlling.

(chuckle.)

Quote

Are you not IN the videos YOURSELF?!?!

Yes, there's a clip of me looking and sounding like a doofus.

Quote

You really expect all of us here to believe if you asked your founders training grads to do or not to do something, they would defy you?

Really?

Must not be much of a training . . .

I didn't suggest that they do anything with regards to the credentials on the video clips. I didn't really imagine that it was important one way or another.

And, even if it had been important, I probably wouldn't have suggested it (and they probably would have done it whatever way they thought best in any case.)

Quote
rrmoderator
boonetahoe:

See [forum.culteducation.com]

Posts may be edited within 30 minutes.

You often come across very badly on this thread, as if you are trying to intimidate people here in an effort to subvert the thread.

I don't want that. Please feel free to redact whatever parts you feel are threatening out of any of my posts. (I have no idea which parts of which posts you're referring to, so please edit at your discretion.)

Quote

As you should know LGATs have a deeply troubled history of personal injury lawsuits, complaints and bad press.

Yes, I'm aware of that. I'm also aware that pyschology and group therapy have their own "skeletons in the closet." When I took my first psych class in college, the first thing the professor told us was that psychology today is like medicine was when they were still using leeches. We don't really have much of a clue as to what we're doing -- professional or not.

I believe the book The Wisdom of Crowds (James Surowiecki) talks about a well-known study performed to measure the effectiveness of the judgment of pyschologists. The study took a number of people who had been clearly insane and asked the both the psychologists and their secretaries to independently decide if each patient was suffering from psychosis from birth or if the psychosis was brought on by subsequent life trauma. In the end, the professional judgment of the pyschologists was no more accurate than that of their secretaries. I'm sure I butchered the summary of the study, but you probably get the point: pyschology is not an exact science nor is board-certified psychology.

(With that said, I'm -- personally -- a big believer in professional therapy.)

Quote

There are inherent problems/liabilities within the basic structure and dynamics of LGATs.

See [www.culteducation.com]

These liabilities are cited within the above linked research paper in what can be seen as mass marathon psychotherapy training sessions:

1. They lack adequate participant-selection criteria.

2. They lack reliable norms, supervision, and adequate training for leaders.

3. They lack clearly defined responsibility.

4. They sometimes foster pseudoauthenticity and pseudoreality.

5. They sometimes foster inappropriate patterns of relationships.

6. They sometimes ignore the necessity and utility of ego defenses.

7. They sometimes teach the covert value of total exposure instead of valuing personal differences.

8. They sometimes foster impulsive personality styles and behavioral strategies.

9. They sometimes devalue critical thinking in favor of "experiencing" without self-analysis or reflection.

10. They sometimes ignore stated goals, misrepresent their actual techniques, and obfuscate their real agenda.

11. They sometimes focus too much on structural self-awareness techniques and misplace the goal of democratic education; as a result participants may learn more about themselves and less about group process.

12. They pay inadequate attention to decisions regarding time limitations. This may lead to increased pressure on some participants to unconsciously "fabricate" a cure.

13. They fail to adequately consider the "psychonoxious" or deleterious effects of group participation (or] adverse countertransference reactions.

These groups were determined to be dangerous when:

1. Leaders had rigid, unbending beliefs about what participants should experience and believe, how they should behave in the group. and when they should change.

2. Leaders had no sense of differential diagnosis and assessment skills, valued cathartic emotional breakthroughs as the ultimate therapeutic experience, and sadistically pressed to create or force a breakthrough in every participant.

3. Leaders had an evangelical system of belief that was the one single pathway to salvation.

4. Leaders were true believers and sealed their doctrine off from discomforting data or disquieting results and tended to discount a poor result by, "blaming the victim."

Many past participants of LGATs and their critics have compared the "training" received to "coercive persuasion."

See [www.culteducation.com]

The key factors that distinguish coercive persuasion from other training and socialization schemes are:

1. The reliance on intense interpersonal and psychological attack to destabilize an individual's sense of self to promote compliance

2. The use of an organized peer group

3. Applying interpersonal pressure to promote conformity

4. The manipulation of the totality of the person's social environment to stabilize behavior once modified

I'd be lying if I said that I understood this on the first read. I had to do some wikipedia work before I could gather a basic understanding of all of these points.

In short, that's been my experience of LGATs as well. Psychology is dangerous and LGATs can often be even more dangerous. And, having seen several, the risks and cautions noted above are worth a thorough review, IMO.

I took this post and spent some time with an LGAT trainer who is a close friend of mine and we ran a sort-of report card on how he's doing in his trainings against these criteria. It was enlightening. Thanks.

Quote

IMO--if people have problems and require counseling/therapy, it is far safer to seek help through licensed professionals responsible to a state board, as opposed to someone that does not have such credentials.

Yes, but even Rick Ross himself doesn't have such credentials (or am I mistaken?)

Perhaps, if an LGAT training had professional supervision as well as professional training of the trainers, that would meet a satisfactory level of credential in your book? At some point, if professional credentials are the "litmus test" of legitimacy, we must agree that LGATs (given sufficient oversight and training,) have a legitimate place among the therapeutic options.

Or am I missing something here?

Quote

There are also support groups that focus on grief, divorce, obsessive/compulsive behavior and other issues facilitated by professionals in most communities.

But what constitutes a "professional?" Rick Ross appears to conduct interventions and other types of counseling based on his bio. Also based on his bio, his highest degree of education was High School. (I hope I'm reading his resume right.) Is Mr. Ross a qualified professional, then? (I would certainly think so, relying solely on his breadth of experience.)

Likewise, if an LGAT trainer has amassed similar experience as well as training directly from a professional, would that qualify?

Quote

Additionally there are accredited programs available at colleges and universities providing continuing education that can assist people in developing their effectiveness, management skills and potential.

And, nearly none of these are taught by licensed psychologists, I would wager.

Quote

LGATs and "life coaches" are essentially an unregulated industry functioning in an area of assistance that typically requires specific credentials and professional licensing, such as therapy or group therapy provided by clinical psychologist or psychiatrist, marriage and relationship counseling provided by a licensed marriage and family therapist, or education provided by an accredited institution.

I'm sure some would debate that point with you. The line between a life counselor, pychologist and psychiatrist is fairly blurry. I've spent therapy time with them all and there's little noticeable difference.

Quote

The promise of a seeming "quick fix" or "breakthrough" may be appealing, but a more cautious approach with a credible professional at a locally accessible and established institution, counseling center, hospital etc. is a much safer and potentially less risky approach.

Perhaps. But, many people would like to accelerate the therapy experience for themselves and certainly aren't willing to invest the kind of money that therapy consumes. Therapy (for those whose lives are "working") is a very time-consuming, very long-term, very expensive solution. I have many friends who would love to go to therapy but they don't have the time or the money. What if a person wants something more affordable and with less time commitment? Are we to deny them any sort of assistance? What if the basic LGAT model, stripped of all the problems you note in your post, can provide that life-improving, shot-in-the-arm? Should we shut it down because LGATs have a history of problems?

Quote

Many of the LGATs expect participants to sign liability waivers, either giving up some if not all rights to sue the company, if something goes wrong and a personal injury occurs.

Credible helping professionals don't require such waivers and remain accountable for their work, not only legally, but to licensing boards and professional associations.

Doctors have us sign all kinds of waivers. So do lawyers and many other kinds of board-certified professionals. I don't believe your logic here holds. If we were to run down a list of credible helping professionals, I believe we'd find that some use waivers and some don't. It's not a very useful line to draw between "credible professionals" and "not-credible professionals."

Quote

It should also be noted that no LGAT, that I am aware of, has ever done a research study to measure long-term objective results from its programs, such as a higher grade point average achieved by students that participated, lower divorce rate amongst its graduates, less need for professional counseling, higher sustained income, etc., which has subsequently been submitted for peer-review and then published by a credible journal.

Why not?

Many LGATs easily have the resources to fund such a study, but instead rely upon anecdotal stories, testimonials and opinion polls, which measure subjective results instead, e.g. what participants "experience" or feel about their programs.

I'd say because most LGATs are either too small to undertake a study or they're a profit-making business and they don't see the value. With that said, Landmark appears to have commissioned several studies, that (while not subjected to the peer-review process) provide a modicum of what you ask for.

I know that the non-profit organization I support doesn't have those kinds of resources. Plus, if they DID have those kinds of resources, they'd put the extra money into charitable causes (as they already do with all excess monies.)

Quote

I have received complaints about LGAT participants being taken directly from an LGAT to a hospital for treatment after a breakdown. Some have spent months, even years recovering.

I've seen the same thing. There's no doubt: LGAT trainings are a HORRIBLE place for someone who is not mentally stable. I believe that's what you meant with your "participant-selection criteria" point. It's a very good point and a very serious issue.

Quote

I have also received complaints of family estrangements, business failures, divorces attributed directly to LGAT involvement.

I don't want to brush this aside, but the same can be said of professional therapy (to about the same degree, in my experience.) When people dig through their lives, they make changes. That's true of LGATs and that's true of Alcoholic's Anonymous, business school, religion, AND board-certified therapy.

Again, I don't want to brush your comment aside. I have experienced LGAT trainers being far, far too cavalier with people's lives and pushing them in questionable directions. The points above are well taken.

Quote

And LGATs remain one of the most consistently complained about categories of groups listed at the Ross Institute Web site.

Of course they are. It's a self-selecting population.

This is the place you go when you want to complain about an LGAT. All you have to do is look up any LGAT on natural search and the Rick Ross site comes up. This board is NOT (and I will attest to this personally) a warm and cozy place to venture if you have had a good experience with a training.

Anyway, thank you for your post. It's the most valuable and worthwhile thing I've pulled off this board to-date. It'll get thorough consideration with the training that I'm involved with.

boonetahoe:

Attempting to attack me personally and/or professionally won't change the facts or the inherent problems regarding LGATs.

FYI--I don't provide counseling or therapy.

Cult intervention work does not require a formal education as does professional counseling, psychiatry, etc.

And I am not the topic of this thread, an LGAT called "The Great Life Foundation, another Lifespring Based Rip-Off" is the topic here.

Psychiatrists, psychologists and licensed counselors don't request that their clients sign waivers regarding possible personal injuries that might occur during treatment. And they are accountable and legally liable for the level of care they provide. There are also state and professional licensing boards involved.

LGATs have nothing similar and there are no such safeguards in place to protect people that participate in LGATs.

A clinical psychologist or marriage and family therapist has a masters degree in the field and is state licensed. A psychiatrist is an MD. They are qualified to handle therapy and group therapy and liable for any injury they might cause during treatment.

Landmark's "studies" have offered no long-term objective measurable results as specifically outlined in my previous post. The studies you mention essentially measure subjective results and opinion.

Many LGATs, such as Landmark, make millions of dollars per year and could easily afford funding such relatively simple follow-up research. The most obvious explanation as to why LGATs don't support such research is that it would demonstrate that their programs produce no meaningful objective measurable long-term results.

Continuing education at a college or university is not the same as therapy. It is an example of self-improvement and the development of human potential, which is what some LGATs claim they can do, e.g. "Landmark Education."

Most LGATs are for profit privately owned companies.

boonetohoe:

Your recent post was deleted.

Again, the topic of this thread is "The Great Life Foundation, another Lifespring Based Rip-Off."

Stay on topic or don't post.

My work is not the topic here and repeating the same statements isn't meaningful or on topic.

>>>

Quote
boonetahoe
Incorrect. Great Life Foundation (the "foundation",) was formed (I believe) in 2004 as a Utah State non-profit organization. Harmony Institute (which was the successor to Impact) ceased operations near the same time and referred its graduates to the foundation.

Surely you must see how terribly misleading you are being with this statement. To say that Harmony and Great Life have nothing to do with each other is the same as saying the Impact and all of the other training entities that Hans owned were not related in any way. How many of the former Harmony owners were involved in the start up of Great Life? Is the answer, "All of them"?

As far as the fictitious company is concerned, they may be registered with the state but are they actually operating? What do they do? I haven't been able to find a webpage, is there another way to learn more about the company? If they are truly operating then I have no problem admitting my error but simply being registered with the state does not mean that the company is in operation and claiming to be the CEO of a registered entity that is not actually in business is just as dishonest as claiming to be the CEO of an entity that is not registered. I do not see a significant difference.