Sorry, should have included the title of the DOCTORAL DISSERTATION in the above post.

Communication for Planetary Transformation and the Drag of Public Conversations: The Case of Landmark Education Corporation

This moron managed to conflate the Climate Change DIRECTIVE, with Landmark's 'transformational' DIRECTIVE, thus, no doubt, earning himself a doctoral degree.

bakkagirl

I'm reading it, Bakka, but what a tome!
This is going to take awhile.

If you would have said "environmental directive," I may have an inkling of what you are talking about, (though i haven't gotten to that yet). There is physical pollution, then there are psychologically "toxic" environments. I have heard many people speak of that, including my Landmark recruiter.

The thing is, i can't conceive of a more psychologically toxic environment than Landmark. But then, maybe he's advocating for the regulation of speech. I saw a lot of that when i was there, and this went waaay beyond ordinary "PC" parlance. Of course, many in society are doing that very thing right now. It's all about the Newspeak, ya know? I really dont think it's detoxifying much of anything.

Right off the bat, i see this: "...operating as a secular, evangelical non-profit corporation." Secular and evangelical, yes, but hardly non-profit. I am already disgusted. It looks like a 400-page advertisement for Landmark. I can't believe it was accepted as "philosophical." I will get back to you.

kdag



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/29/2019 05:27PM by kdag.

kdag Wrote:
-
>
> If you would have said "environmental
> directive," I may have an inkling of what you
> are talking about, (though i haven't gotten to
> that yet). There is physical pollution, then there
> are psychologically "toxic" environments. I have
> heard many people speak of that, including my
> Landmark recruiter.


Sorry, and to be more clear, this guy, at one point, uses "Climate Change" to example an apocalyptic issue the solving of which will require the transformation of human thought and communication on a global level -- only Landmark can effect such a transformation. Maybe "Climate Change" is Landmark Education's new "Hunger Project*.

Yeh, he is pretty delusional in perceiving LEC as non-profit and evangelical...but, it probably looks that way from the inside.

He quotes Maslow and Rogers A LOT, and probably to give LEC 'credibility', but, those guys also had a kind of bizarre idea about how LGAT, or T-groups in their language...COULD SAVE THE WORLD. I found a lot of this thinking in reading their project and research field notes.

I guess in both cases, the idea is that there is human conflict, or other disagreeable behavior BECAUSE people do not communicate with each other in a certain way. THEY, OF COURSE, KNOW THE WAY. In this sense, LEC is evangelical...

Speakng of "The Hunger Project", I was reading the other day that it was the Canadian government that blew the whistle on this. They had given Erhard CD7,000,000 to end world hunger and discovered that only CD200,000 made its way to hungry people. The excuse was that the mission of "The Hunger Project" was to raise awareness about hunger, not to end it.

So, there you go...

Remember, "Nothing succeeds like the appearance of authenticity."

Bakka



>
> The thing is, i can't conceive of a more
> psychologically toxic environment than Landmark.
> But then, maybe he's advocating for the regulation
> of speech. I saw a lot of that when i was
> there, and this went waaay beyond ordinary "PC"
> parlance. Of course, many in society are doing
> that very thing right now. It's all about the
> Newspeak, ya know? I really dont think it's
> detoxifying much of anything.
>
> Right off the bat, i see this: "...operating as a
> secular, evangelical non-profit corporation."
> Secular and evangelical, yes, but hardly
> non-profit. I am already disgusted. It looks like
> a 400-page advertisement for Landmark. I can't
> believe it was accepted as "philosophical." I
> will get back to you.
>
> kdag

"Evangelical" in the heavy recruiting, ("converting") and in their belief that only they can save the world.

I definitely see your point about, "This is a brain on Landmark." He seems hopelessly brainwashed.

To me, it looks like 500 pages of Landmark propoganda, (or the whole "Forum," point-by-point, with arguments to sell people on the idea that it is "good"). Reading it made me feel as if i waa back at Landmark. I got disgusted and gave up.

Well, as a next step it might be interesting to investigate the 'professors' who were his 'dissertation' advisors, to see if they are also in the club.

I watched my graduate school, or at least the coaching program, therein, become infested with this nonsense, and I believe that several LEC members are in place, there.

The research 'model' for this thing is really funky...as in, what's the point??? We have an individual who is trying to deal with his own cognitive dissonance about an organization he perceives in a certain way, and other's -- MANY -- perceive in a different way.

Honestly, a doctoral dissertation is supposed to deliver some learning that would be useful to other scholars and practitioners in a field. This student was just playing mind games with himself...and, was evidently encouraged to do so by his advisors.

As usual, no attempt is made to talk to, interview people who have opinions other than his own. That would be pretty normal if one really cared about exploring a gap in perception.

And, this reminds me of the Vikki Brock opus, which also acts as a Landmark commercial.

Perhaps, we can classify these as constituting a new academic genre, the disser-mercial. Werner Erhard's 'work' is very much like this...never peer-reviewed, self-published, and then trumpeted on his website.

Bakkagirl wrote;

"...disser-mercial" ROFL!!!

Maybe his professors are also victims, or maybe he was trying to recruit them.
.

What I see in this is that one of the main goals of cults is to turn their members into "deployable agents," according to literature on the matter. He obviously is one, and will devote an insane amount of time to defending this organization. How many months did he spend working on that thing?

It's sad and terrifying that he is promoting LGAT methodology as a way to "save the world." I saw in the table of contents that he wrote about "blind spots. He must have a blind spot in not realizing just how fascistic the behavior, mentality and methodology of these groups really are.

LGAT is going to save the world?

Unfortunately the delusional belief that one is "saving the world" is a common trait among those with a messiah complex - something Erhard has very clearly exhibited since realising he could fleece more money out of people by calling them assholes than his epiphany that he was meant for a greater destiny than selling second hand cars.

Sadly some of the worst crimes against humanity were perpetrated by though who though they were doing good or saving the world - at least the world as they perceived it.

Indeed, on the worst crimes against humanity, and perpetrators...

I do think it is very important to understand the etiology of LGAT's, and the rationale that influenced the development of this 'approach'. I believe 'one' reason it has been so difficult to interdict these activities (to regulate their use, or ban them all together) is that 'reputable' researchers/practitioners were engaged in these techniques, and still are. There is the idea, maybe apocryphal, that the developers of sensitivity training (T-groups) -- and much of this work took place at the Esalen Institute, at the National Lab in Bethel, Maine, attempted to distance themselves for Erhard, and those who 'commercialized' these methods, the idea being that it was this commercialization, "enlightenment in a Weekend", and delivery by non-experts that led to the psychological carnage of so many participants.

Even if that is the case (the distancing), there is a lengthy history of casualties occurring in expertly-administered group therapy, and group training sessions (corporate). I am a witness to casualties of coach training, which included LGAT, in Asia, and quite recently. It is my impression that these incidents have been reported, and reported, and reported by concerned individuals -- with virtually no response coming from psych quarters. Sooo....one has to assume that it is held by some people in high places, that there is some intrinsic value to this 'work', that outweighs the risk entailed to 'some' participants.

I would say there are quite a few precedents for this in the annals of mental health activities; forms of 'therapy' that have been roundly debunked, but continue to be administered.

All for now,


Bakka

I would like to say a little more about the resistance I have encountered in psych circles when I reported LGAT abuses here in Japan.

My attempts to do this pre-date my having attained a clear understanding of what I was seeing, and dealing with.

My first encounter of the LGAT kind, occurred when I joined an 'OD' (Organisation Development) consultancy. I approached this firm based on the recommendation of a friend who worked for a client organization of the LGAT. The firm was an American/Japanese joint- venture, which had an Australian manager on-site in Japan.

Well, how did it go? I learned a lot about team building, the outdoor, experiential learning kind and this seemed harmless enough, at first. I then began to sense that are fearless leader had just a little too much power for the good of a healthy organization, that employee's hung on his every word, and some of these words were truly crazy. At the same time, I liked the work, and managed to find a role where I could work on-site in a client company. This kept me out of harm's way.

When I did return to the firm a year later, I noticed that the craziness was now well-advanced, that employees were working hellacious hours, even by Japan standards, were sleeping the office, were ignoring their families, and normal outside interests. I also noticed that the business model was constantly changing and according to the daily whim of our guru. And, I noticed that several Japanese women employees seemed on the verge of nervous breakdowns. One day, our Japanese accountant came to me and showed me hotel receipts. She was concerned about sending these to a client in the context of an expense report. Her concern was based on what looked liked double/triple occupancy of hotel rooms by our guru and staff members -- female. So, this explained the breakdowns in perpetual motion, the sobbing in the bathroom, etc. She begged me to DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS.

I spoke to the women and confirmed what was going on. My first thought was to get them some psychological support -- not an easy thing to find in Japan. I went to a local counseling center that had Japanese counselors, and people familiar with workplace issues in Japan. I met with an American therapist and did my best to describe the going's on in the office. The response was, "How did you come to work in a place like this?" There was an immediate effort to pathologize me, for having wound up in this situation, and as I was trying to do something about this situation. I explained my concern about these women and suicidality. The counselor urged me to set up an appointment for both parties. Each woman did attend 'one' therapy session, and each woman promptly walked out in DISGUST. They got the same treatment I did. They did not see their situation as having originated in some deep-seated pathology, something from their childhoods, they simply wanted some suggestions, legal...and, otherwise. They wanted emotional support and to hear some affirmation that THEY were not responsible for the conduct of their guru boss, his coercive and manipulative actions. They did not get this.

In another instance, I noted extreme personality changes occurring in a Japanese employee of mine; someone I was sponsoring through a 'coach' training program. This was a U.S.-based program, which included both residency and on-line work. Her behavior became more and more alarming, and I began to believe she was a danger to herself, e.g. she had begun to self-mutilate. So, I consulted a local psychologist, a friend I had worked with in designing EAP programs, a guy I trusted because he supervised local therapists and had helped improve the quality of therapy in Japan. I describe my employee's behavior, asked about the effects of a 'coaching' program...was just trying to find an explanation. I also told him about what I was hearing about Asian participants flipping out in a related 'coach' training program. Once again, the focus was shifted to me...and an elaborate theory was developed by which I had violated some ethical boundaries in encouraging a former client to pursue a career in coaching. (Note, I had helped this woman sort out her career path, design a CV, and practice interview skills). She approached me for work. As for the other parties, the flip outs...the psychologist informed me that the trainer "just did not know how to do 'it' right". At that point, I still did not understand what 'it' was...it was "sensitivity training", LGAT.

Since then, and with the stories accumulating across Asia, I reached out to other coaches and psychologists who were coaching. Some of these people very strongly echoed my alarm. All feared reprisals for openly expressing their concerns. None of us could figure out where to take these concerns...the APA, attorneys...we could not find a way to make the public aware and get some focus on coaching practices that were clearly harming coaches and coaching clients.

I brought this matter up in coaching groups and was immediately shut down. People acted like I was crazy for questioning the use of very complex methodologies by people who were untrained and un-licensed to employ them. I looked for papers on the subject, and found very few scholars voicing concern. I am now working with a coaching network that adamantly rejects use of psychotherpeutic methods in a coaching context, but these folks have been quite marginalized.

What I will say is that I perceive a strong tendency or bias in psych circles to frame cultic involvement, even the most unvoluntary, (e.g. my boss/organisation enrolled me in a coach training program), and negative side-effects as entailing some sort of psychological deficit in the participant/victim. I say this because their seems to be a great deal of interest in, and research devoted to early experiences that predispose people to cultic influence, while there is very little research regarding the legal ramifications of these programs, elements of false advertising, elements of professional liability.

And, I would suggest that this position, in a way, curiously mirrors that of LGAT providers and toward participants who don't obtain desired or promised results, i.e. they blame the victim.

So, I think that until the individuals and bodies that should be tasked with policing these practices take a look at their own orientation to the phenomenon of cultic relationships, we will not see much progress in finding a solution to what is, in essence, a 360-degree 'act' of professional malpractice, and one which leave the victim entrapped between the cause and the 'cure'.

All thoughts welcome...

Bakkagirl

Interesting to read your comments Bakkagirl about experiences with psychologists et al.

I'm following one of these LGATs that is very active in London and trying to get various professional bodies to look at it - so far with no replies. I'm talking to a few people though about lobbying for new laws that would create licensing requirements and professional standards high enough that would in effect legislate LEC and similar organisations out of existence. Unless their "leaders" are professional accredited psychologists bound by strict code of ethics - just like doctors or lawyers who can be struck off.

Would be keen to hear off the record from anyone here who has had negative experiences with this.

Also the courses they are offering for children. In the UK (and other countries as well I'm sure) anyone wanting work with children needs to have a full criminal record background check. I wonder if this has been done properly with seminar leaders who are working internationally.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 10/04/2019 02:16AM by StopLGATs.