I just read Raymond D Fowler's report on Landmark. Is it just me or does his report seem a bit simple minded and naive? It appears quite subjective rather than objective, and also smacks of "because I said so" with no real basis for his findings except to lean on his status in the field (despite claiming not to be on the basis of his Introduction). I'm left thouroughly confused as to why those specific points were mentioned.

The section on it not being a cult... Why deny it? It's all very fishy to me.

The argument from "authority" is invalid.
Many psychologists are totally naive about these complex business schemes, they sometimes don't have "street smarts" and Werner Erhard could easily dupe them. Many MD's are targets for con-artists for that reason.

If the letter is confusing, that sounds like Landmark, they are experts in confusion.

Every LGAT persuasion sect says its not a "cult".
Basically every cult also says its not a "cult". Except a few do, but they just reframe the word.

In the end, Landmark itself damns itself with its own "waiver". [forum.culteducation.com]

No sane person is going to sign that outrageous Landmark waiver, so then in fact that makes it impossible to attend Landmark.
As it should be.

Quote
The Anticult
The argument from "authority" is invalid.
Many psychologists are totally naive about these complex business schemes, they sometimes don't have "street smarts" and Werner Erhard could easily dupe them. Many MD's are targets for con-artists for that reason.

If the letter is confusing, that sounds like Landmark, they are experts in confusion.

Every LGAT persuasion sect says its not a "cult".
Basically every cult also says its not a "cult". Except a few do, but they just reframe the word.

In the end, Landmark itself damns itself with its own "waiver". [forum.culteducation.com]

No sane person is going to sign that outrageous Landmark waiver, so then in fact that makes it impossible to attend Landmark.
As it should be.

I'm not confused about Landmark, I know their game. I agree with you that Dr Fowler is confused. He seems so unsure as to why he's saying what he does.

Landmark are delusional if they think this report clears them in any way, and must be relying on name dropping to use it as a reference.

I've just read the Talent Foundation report on Landmark (yes, I'm going through the case files), and I made the following observations:

* With such a small survey, I'm not at all convinced the control group is at all valid, especially not without also publishing data on the demographics. The control group could easily have been negatively skewed towards a less favorable demographic.

* The questions had no frame of reference, especially those that were based on self-rating of a percentage. Is this open for illusory superiority? Hard to say without demographics, especially in terms of skill and/or ability to perform their functions in their jobs.

* Emotional Intelligence is bandied about a bit in Harvard Business Reports, but I don't see the relevance to this survey. Was that thrown in as a buzzword to attract executive managers?

Many thanks to Rick Ross for making these files available. I find them fascinating reading.

Onto NZ Steel... NZ$1m for 10 Forums, basically. Ouch. I wonder if BHP Billiton/Bluescope Steel shareholders know where this money is going (although that sort of money wouldn't be all that missed at BHP). Most company executives I know don't need lessons in being narcissists either, haha.

Me again... Afraid I don't follow Landmark's legal logic, even with what little I know about US case law. They seem to believe that just stating something means it must be true (obviously believing their own bullshit!!!). I do understand the concept of trying to intimidate defendants, so thank you to Rick Ross' representation for allowing Landmark's bluff to be called.