Years ago, I heard someone describe how she felt when, for the first time, she injected herself with a mixture of heroin and methamphetamine - a combination known as a speedball.

She told us that it made her feel so fantastic that she fell to her knees weeping and begged God to let her feel this way for the rest of her life.

Manipulation of neurochemistry, this is what it is.

LGATs use their 'tech' and elicit a potent combination of bliss and intense bonding with the perceived source of that bliss.

You feel as though you've been transformed, evolved to a new level, etc.

Corporations employ researchers to observe subject's eye movements and brain activity when looking at advertising prototypes. This can also be done using
brain scans which reveal which areas of the brain are biochemically active in
response to various stimuli.

In a cafe, I overheard someone describe how she'd been hired to direct this type of research for a manufacturer of a hugely popular snack food product.

She said one subject had a panic attack and they needed to call emergency and summon an ambulance.

LGATs probably cannot afford to do this kind of research.

(Cough)

Corboy wrote:

"LGATs probably cannot afford to do this kind of research.
(Cough)"

I did see that *cough* ;-D

I just wanted to put together a couple of things that I have noticed from this thread, and connect a couple of dots. Y'all can correct me if I'm stitching together something that doesn't fit.

Bakkagirl has mentioned PhD's who have inexplicably jumped onboard with this whole ICF scenario. Somehow this is legitimate in their minds.

Another item brought up by bakkagirl, on this thread, is the way that recent corporate culture includes "social responsibility." I would add to that a certain sense of entitlement, especially if the people involved see their appropriation of material as being "in the highest good of all." I definitely saw that entitlement in my Landmark recruiter, and by others at Landmark.

My son was involved in research, as a subject, in the 80's and 90's. Much of the research was very similar to what corboy has just described. He participated voluntarily, and was compensated. Most of the researchers were interns, graduate students, etc. At that time, I trusted their integrity.

Since then, the culture has changed, and many of the people in the researcher's age group would have been indoctrinated into a sense of entitlement in the public school system.

So we have PhD's, some of whom would have been involved in this research, (paid for by various universities), joining organizations like ICF, and thinking that if they appropriate the results of this research "for the highest good of all, " they are justified. And of course they have been thought-reformed right into being absolutely convinced that all of this actually is "in the highest good of all."

The LGATs really don't have any great need to "afford" anything. Add to that the fact that I DO believe that LGATs do their own "field tests" of this research, (which they can tweak to their purposes), and that they do it quite cheaply. Consider that the people conducting the research are "volunteers," and that the subjects are NOT informed, are NOT compensated, and have NOT given consent.

Replying to corboy and kdag,

Let me tell you a bit more about what I saw in my 'field research'.

I live in Japan, and do not have access to the resources available in English-speaking environments.

I simply wanted to learn about coaching because it was that skill-set was becoming necessary to my work in Human Resource Management. Coaching, too, seem like a good solution when working across culture -- it wasn't a rigid program like training and it could be tailored to individual needs, and a particular organisation's needs. (I still believe this.)

Also, it is my nature to want to understand disciplines of whatever kind in great depth.

I had participated in executive coaching training in the context of a consulting firm, and it was quite rigorous and focused on assessment and competency-based development of leadership behaviors. It was ALL about talent management, and helping leaders move into more complex roles, international roles, roles in which they needed to manage regional, even global teams.

I knew that competency-based approaches were limited (not bad, just limited), so I wanted to explore 'other' takes on coaching. At this time, 2008>, the coaching craze had caught on in Japan, and many people in my world were engaged in coaching programs (U.S.-based). They were all looking for people to practice on, needed to log coaching hours to obtain their certificates. I said, "practice on me".

So, I vicariously experienced training programs outside my corporate world via these field studies.

I also committed to forming an English-speaking chapter of the ICF, did this thinking that this would be a place to share different ideas about coaching and to learn from others.

Although it did not register at the time, the first cult-like behavior I saw was among those people 'trained' by CTI. The "Coach Training Institute" was a CA entity, that went global with AMAZING speed, cough. I know now, CTI was an est/Landmark spin-off. These people literally had 'one' book they worked from, "Co-Active Coaching", and one methodology. It seemed very 'technique'y', programmatic to me, and I did not enjoy being the recipient of their method, felt DEHUMANIZED, felt silly, in fact. I gave them this feedback but it did not register. Really not too much registered with them about the field or their environment, or their client's needs AFTER CTI. These were intelligent, mid-career adults, who seemed to be caught up in something I did not understand.

I noted a change in their speech, body language, their EYES, how they engaged with others. They had very little interest in discussing coaching, per se, only CTI coaching. (Note, I had also, previously, investigated CTI on behalf of an employer firm, sat in on a two-hour teleconference, introductory session. I recall my first thought was, "that is a cult"....I dismissed this.

I could tell a similar story with another brand or two...

Our ICF chapter never really jelled, in my mind. It was impossible to have generic conversations about coaching among people trained in different 'programs'. While I was looking for commonalities in the approaches (and these existed), each faction saw their 'programming' as unique and superior. Also, the ICF, what we were getting from on-high, did not seem like a real organization to me, or did not seem to be fulfilling its mission statement. I chocked some of this up to the Japan environment, language constraints.

As I now see it, and I may not have all the pieces, many of these coaching entities were spawned by the same mind, or minds. While they might have looked different on the surface, the technologies were the same, and the outcome for participants was the same.

So, corboy, here we have a case of intense programming, extreme neurological re-ordering seemingly not organized around a specific individual, or individuals -- I actually wish their were more LEADERS in the field -- but around the technologies, themselves.

It is rare, for instance, to encounter an NLP'er who worships Richard Bandler. Many, only vaguely know who he is. They worship NLP, and the power they think it gives them.

I am research-oriented, will try to discuss research done by a particular coach, e.g. Goldsmith. If anything, the coaching community wishes to avoid discussions of research, that their 'religion' and 'practices' actually came from 'somewhere' are grounded in something tangible and data-based. THEY ACTIVELY AVOID THIS.

So, there are no gods, gurus, heroes, people to emulate in this world, ONLY THE TECHNOLOGIES. I can't say these people even have strong group affiliations, other than the ICF.

Common traits/behaviors:

An idea that they are involved in a world-changing (on grand scale) activity.
A sense of moral superiority (extreme)
A total disconnect from the real-world things they could actually do to improve their worlds, i.e., the real practice of coaching
A low threshold for novelty, new ideas
No interest in data/research (breaks the spell)
No ability to self-reflect

If you see several hundred of these people in a room, e.g. at a conference, you REALLY understand. Coaching conferences, in my sad experience, feature almost no actual content. People like me cannot understand 'why' they are there. There seems to be no 'beef', nothing is happening. But, something is happening. They 'get it'.

I think the term "life coaching" is key to understanding what they "get". I see/saw "life coaching" as simply working with an individual outside the organization, working to clarify personal goals, career path, things like that.

They see it as "LIFE COACHING"...indoctrinating other people, in executive coaching engagements (paid for by organizations), or outside, private individuals, in their own programming...and, this is EST.

I have no idea how this has flown as far as it has in the corporate world and this is what TRULY terrifies me.

Factors would be:

A shift away from data-driven measurement of coaching effectiveness (I can tell you who has lobbied for this)
A now self-regulating coaching field (I can tell you who has lobbied for this)
ENDLESS bombardment of corporate decision makers with memes about coaching...this occurs in the media, at conferences, in the so-called literature.

The endorsement by Ph.D's...(last nail in the coffin).

I would really appreciate any reflections you have. Clearly this is a case of programming, but a refinement upon what was typical in early LGAT's.

As kdag observed, these entities are doing their own research, on-going, and adjusting their programming according to what they learn. Why is say it is SUBTLE.

bakkagirl

I have been in a situation like that. It was not coaching, though.

I felt like everyone in there was stoned except for me. What I did not know at the time was they were all tranced out, all focused on the leader. He had created
a New Age product using these people as his students decades before. They were incapable of seeing or discussing this product in any objective manner.

He had them convinced it was sacred. And, they thought he was sacred too. He'd tranced them out. They were still his property, decades later.

I was so horrified by this that I wanted to understand more. And - that is why
I began participating on this discussion board.

Quote

It was impossible to have generic conversations about coaching among people trained in different 'programs'. While I was looking for commonalities in the approaches (and these existed), each faction saw their 'programming' as unique and superior.

bakka, what you appear to describe is this:

Loss of objectivity.

Loss of objectivity in relation to whatever coaching method the person has trained in.

The person's identity, sense of self has merged with the brand of coaching tech they've been inducted into.

In this case, they have not consciously consented to this induction, for they have not been told beforehand that their coaching training is based on hypnotic trance induction. Nor are they told the sources of this material, or the names and backgrounds of the persons who created this technology.

A hair dresser can recommend several different hairstyles, show you pictures, and suggest which would look best on you.

Your hairdresser is not someone who can do just one hairstyle and believes that every single person in the world needs that hairstyle.

This coaching situation is worse. Minds are being ruined and relationships are being ruined. People refusing to submit to coaching risk losing their jobs.

Corporate cultures are being corrupted. So are certain university departments and think tanks.

If too many 'leaders' become products of trance coaching, we citizens who wish to live unmolested are at greater risk than ever before.

Note on word usage.

I used the word inducted deliberately.

Quote

in·duct
in?d?kt/Submit
verb
1.
admit (someone) formally to a position or organization.
"each worker, if formally inducted into the Mafia, is known as a “soldier.”"
synonyms: admit to, allow into, introduce to, initiate into, install in, instate in, swear into; appoint to

"the new ministers were inducted into the cabinet"

2.
archaic
install in a seat or room.

We speak of musicians being 'inducted' into the armed forces, into various Halls of Fame.

Interestingly, induction is used to describe onset of anesthesia.

[www.google.com]

we also speak of hypnotic induction.

[www.google.com]

Trance induction.

[www.google.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/02/2018 09:45PM by corboy.

If we want to talk 'cults' this one is a seemingly 'guru'less, and loosely organized -- almost fluid.

If anything, I am the person who keeps asking, "Where are our heroes, where are the practitioners who are doing something BIG, and IMPORTANT?" I would actually welcome a strong personality with a strong vision.

As it is, it is impossible to identify who said what...who made what decision -- 'they' never attach their names to anything. Real Wizard of Oz situation.

corboy,

Your whole message didn't seem to post, so I previously responded to your cryptic title, only. See my comments below.

You said,

I have been in a situation like that. It was not coaching, though.

I felt like everyone in there was stoned except for me. What I did not know at the time was they were all tranced out, all focused on the leader. He had created
a New Age product using these people as his students decades before. They were incapable of seeing or discussing this product in any objective manner.

I attended a coaching conference, regional in 2012, and spoke at this event. It was well-balanced with coaches and researcher presenting a variety of perspectives on the field; case studies were presented, there was very active Q & A. Two years later, I attended the next iteration of the same event. Pure trance, no content, a band of flashing lights was strung round the room, WHY, hypnotic, distracting. Lot's of ENERGETICS built in...body work; and, turn to your table partner and tell them your darkest secret..OMG!!!


COACHING CULTURE, COACHING CULTURE, COACHING CULTURE, speakers just kept embedding this phrase. I had spoken on this topic two years before, and done a LOT of research regarding it. My hand went up with a question..."Does an organization always want or need to establish a COACHING CULTURE??? Does a call center require a COACHING CULTURE?" I never got an answer.

Thing is most reminded me of was my foray to a LDS church service. Hours of no content, but members deeply entranced by no content.


He had them convinced it was sacred. And, they thought he was sacred too. He'd tranced them out. They were still his property, decades later.

I was so horrified by this that I wanted to understand more. And - that is why
I began participating on this discussion board.

I am very glad for your participation! I describe this nonsense to any number of people and they just respond that the coaching field has been commercialized...it isn't that, it is way beyond THAT.

Quote

It was impossible to have generic conversations about coaching among people trained in different 'programs'. While I was looking for commonalities in the approaches (and these existed), each faction saw their 'programming' as unique and superior.


bakka, what you appear to describe is this:

Loss of objectivity.

Loss of objectivity in relation to whatever coaching method the person has trained in.

The person's identity, sense of self has merged with the brand of coaching tech they've been inducted into.

In this case, they have not consciously consented to this induction, for they have not been told beforehand that their coaching training is based on hypnotic trance induction. Nor are they told the sources of this material, or the names and backgrounds of the persons who created this technology.

Your point about the absence of conscious consent is well taken. In the case of CTI, there is 'a' book, and his has two authors. (Need to research these characters. The zombies talk more about the technology than the authors, and as though it descended from heaven. Have you ever heard, though, of a professional discipline, or even a trade based on 'one' book? No sir, religions are based on 'one' book, an a book that must never be questioned or amended with ideas from other books, papers, presentations, case studies -- not ever.

A hair dresser can recommend several different hairstyles, show you pictures, and suggest which would look best on you.

Your hairdresser is not someone who can do just one hairstyle and believes that every single person in the world needs that hairstyle.

Hairdressers, and members of any service field are customer oriented, and their ability to satisfy customer needs should increase over time.

This coaching situation is worse. Minds are being ruined and relationships are being ruined. People refusing to submit to coaching risk losing their jobs.

Corporate cultures are being corrupted. So are certain university departments and think tanks.

If too many 'leaders' become products of trance coaching, we citizens who wish to live unmolested are at greater risk than ever before.

"Trance Coaching", the name of my next book. Ever see the film "They Live"? That is a "coaching culture".

Note on word usage.

I used the word inducted deliberately.

Quote

in·duct
in?d?kt/Submit
verb
1.
admit (someone) formally to a position or organization.
"each worker, if formally inducted into the Mafia, is known as a “soldier.”"
synonyms: admit to, allow into, introduce to, initiate into, install in, instate in, swear into; appoint to

"the new ministers were inducted into the cabinet"

2.
archaic
install in a seat or room.


We speak of musicians being 'inducted' into the armed forces, into various Halls of Fame.

Interestingly, induction is used to describe onset of anesthesia.

[www.google.com]

we also speak of hypnotic induction.

[www.google.com]

Trance induction.

[www.google.com]


Roaches are inducted into Roach Motels. They go in, but they don't come out. Trying to remember if I have ever seen one WAKE UP...cannot say that I have.