I saw this on wikipedia's entry for Landmark, and it is the first I heard of Dr. Singer's work being put this negatively:

Quote

. . . Singer's credentials have been discredited by her own profession: The American Psychological Association found her work to lack scientific merit. Several courts have forbidden Singer to testify as an "expert witness" because, as one court stated, "her coercive persuasion theory did not represent a meaningful scientific concept." United States vs Steven Fishman. [20] (Margaret Singer passed away in 2003.)
[www.whyaretheydead.net] (url added to preserve the link in wikipedia)

I have her book [u:9eb8425e45][i:9eb8425e45]Cults In Our Midst[/i:9eb8425e45][/u:9eb8425e45], and have found that and her other writing informative and enlightening. All the other links to her work I have seen have put it in a very positive light.

From what other posters here have said, wikipedia has it's problems, so I have my suspicions, but I would like to know if anyone knows more about this, given that Dr. Singer was a major detractor of the LGATs.

-lightwolf

This org is one of her biggest critics.

[www.religiousfreedomwatch.org]

D. Bardin's report posted on CSJ counters the apologists' dismissal of Singer's work,
[www.csj.org]

If I can find it, I know LE at one time posted on their web site an alleged quote from Margaret Singer where she recounts what she said about them, and admitted they are not a cult. However, if I recall correctly, the quote they use was a fragment of a sentence or paragraph and if read in full, it says the opposite. I'll dig around.

[www.culteducation.com]


What then of the evidence cited by Landmark?

The citations of Dr. Singer and of the CAN agreement are examples of, in a sense, co-opting the enemy. Both parties were actual or potential legal adversaries of Landmark Education.

Landmark currently promotes a single sentence by Dr. Singer stating that in her opinion Landmark and its program is not a cult. Hardly an endorsement on its own right, this sentence does not reveal Dr. Singer's complete opinion. In her book she expressed the view that LGATs differ from cults in their economic structure, in the fact that participants are used to enrol their family members, and in the length of time that LGATs retain participants -- but that LGATs may have some important similarities to cults in some of the psychological techniques used during indoctrination. Far from supporting Landmark's claim, Dr. Singer seems to have the view that programs like the Landmark Forum, while they are not cults, do in fact have some coercive features that can be usefully compared to cult coercion.

It certainly is odd to cite the former CAN as an authority stating that Landmark is not cult-like. After all, Landmark brought a suit against CAN essentially for giving the impression that it is cult-like. The CAN agreement must be understood in the context of a series of lawsuits by Scientology, and one by Landmark Education, leading to bankruptcy proceedings. In any case, the CAN agreement does not support Landmark's extreme statement above. Under the agreement, CAN did not claim that Landmark is a cult -- nor did they say it isn't. The agreement certainly doesn't say that all cult allegations have been shown to be false. Indeed, according to one transcript, CAN leader Cynthia Kisser testified in court that Landmark "might be" a cult or might have cult-like features.

The sooner we all ditch this smokescreen about what is or what isn't a cult the better. "Cult" is an elusive concept. An organization may wish to make a great show about whether they could, or could not be defined as a cult. Then make a greater show about how they are not, strictly speaking, a cult... leaving you holding the bag of trying to put a firm definition on what exactly is a cult. Don't waste your precious time.

The REAL question, they one they hope you won't be asking because you are tied up sweating cultness versus non-cultness, is ARE they practicing psychology without a license ?

Are the owners, trainers, teachers, gurus, "coaches" (dontcha just love that weasel word.???... "Heavens no ! I'm not a psychologist, I'm a COACH !",
ya, right.....and I'm Napoleon Bonepart) doing things to other people, people who are in highly suggestible states, in environments which are designed to induce highly suggestible states, using language patterns which are intended to induce highly suggestible states, which FUNCTIONALLY will impact their thoughts, emotions, attitudes, and perhaps core beliefs in ways, shapes, and forms ordinarily assumed to be the domain of Clinical Psychology ?

Quote
lightwolf
I saw this on wikipedia's entry for Landmark, and it is the first I heard of Dr. Singer's work being put this negatively:

Quote

. . . Singer's credentials have been discredited by her own profession: The American Psychological Association found her work to lack scientific merit. Several courts have forbidden Singer to testify as an "expert witness" because, as one court stated, "her coercive persuasion theory did not represent a meaningful scientific concept." United States vs Steven Fishman. [20] (Margaret Singer passed away in 2003.)
[www.whyaretheydead.net] (url added to preserve the link in wikipedia)

I have her book [u:af845d8b1e][i:af845d8b1e]Cults In Our Midst[/i:af845d8b1e][/u:af845d8b1e], and have found that and her other writing informative and enlightening. All the other links to her work I have seen have put it in a very positive light.

From what other posters here have said, wikipedia has it's problems, so I have my suspicions, but I would like to know if anyone knows more about this, given that Dr. Singer was a major detractor of the LGATs.

-lightwolf

The critic of Dr. Singer on "whyaretheydead" is signed by Mark Pope Member, Church of Scientology !!! Is it biased???


Here's what I have found about Dr. Singer:

[tanadineen.com]

Quote

"Margaret Singer, Ph.D. - Dr. Margaret T. Singer in one of the most respected and influential psychologists in the United States. Dr. Singer has been a recipient of the Hofheimer Prize for research from the American Psychiatric Association; the Stanley R. Dean Award for Research in Schizophrenia from the American College of Psychiatrists; the McAlpine Award for Achievement in Research from the Mental Health Association of the United States; the Research Scientist Award from the National Institute of Mental Health; The American Family Therapy Association Award for Distinguished Achievement in Family Therapy Research Award; the Leo J. Ryan Memorial Award for Research on Cults from the Citizens Freedom Foundation; and the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy Award for Cumulative Contributions to Research in Family Therapy. Professor Singer also served as the President of the American Psychosomatic Society and served on President Gerald Ford’s Biomedical Research Panel. Professor Singer serves on the editorial board of many of the most prestigious journals in the field of family psychology and psychosomatic medicine. A long time member of the faculty of the University of California, Berkeley, Prof. Singer has also served as a Faculty Member and/or Lecturer at The Albert Einstein College of Medicine, The Washington School of Psychiatry, The Massachusetts Institute of Technology, The Department of Psychiatry at the University of Rochester School of Medicine, the Department of Psychology at The University of California at Los Angeles Psychology, the Department of Psychiatry at the University of California at San Francisco, and other institutions. Professor Singer is the author of over 100 professional publications."

About her controversial theories on thought reforms and brainwashing, it's like it says ... these are theories. The fact that they have not been endorsed by the APA doesn't invalidate them. All it means is that it deserves more efforts to be put in. The fight must go on through scientific journals to make it an acceptable and indisputable theory. Psychology is not an exact science. But to the wise, it is clear that Dr. Margaret T. Singer speaks the truth.

Quote
midonov123
The critic of Dr. Singer on "whyaretheydead" is signed by Mark Pope Member, Church of Scientology !!! Is it biased???

Yes, when I saw Scientology, I concluded the same, plus my wariness of wikipedia. Even the url name "whyaretheydead" casts doubt on their objectivity. I was looking for info beyond what is on culteducation.com, such as that you provided, that shows that what this Scientologist is saying IS or IS NOT true (vs. just dismissing it as bias), or is still up for debate.

Everything I had read about Dr. Singer had been laudatory, as had my own opinion about her work. That's why this entry seemed so out of place.

Thanks for the info Mike.

-lightwolf

Quote
nutrino
The REAL question, they one they hope you won't be asking because you are tied up sweating cultness versus non-cultness, is ARE they practicing psychology without a license ?

Are the owners, trainers, teachers, gurus, "coaches" (dontcha just love that weasel word.???... "Heavens no ! I'm not a psychologist, I'm a COACH !",
ya, right.....and I'm Napoleon Bonepart) doing things to other people, people who are in highly suggestible states, in environments which are designed to induce highly suggestible states, using language patterns which are intended to induce highly suggestible states, which FUNCTIONALLY will impact their thoughts, emotions, attitudes, and perhaps core beliefs in ways, shapes, and forms ordinarily assumed to be the domain of Clinical Psychology ?

Right! An aspect of the criminality is that this pseudo psychology is being practiced in a [i:295404355c]deceptive [/i:295404355c]manner. The subject's personality is modified in ways that the subject did not know about and for purposes not beneficial to the subject. Isn't REAL psychology supposed to benefit the [i:295404355c]client[/i:295404355c]?

There is some kind of slavery here, as the minds of people are being used in the service of a master. The slick part is that it doesn't *appear* minds and lives are being used [i:295404355c]against anyone's will[/i:295404355c], which just makes it that much harder to see it for what it really is.