[researchspace.ukzn.ac.za]

I did not see that anyone had previously posted this paper.

It is LONG, but the literature review of past cult-related research is well-done, and, the researchers took an ethnographic approach like Singer, and actually participated in LSAT's (recently).

Very interesting reflections on coercive techniques, and, also with regard to what looked to the researchers like LGAT-triggered "hypomania"...the "pop" that many participants experience.

Okay. I look forward to reading this. I read another article by the same author, a couple of months ago.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/25/2018 04:07PM by kdag.

I haven't looked at that in a while, but thanks for dredging it up. There's a lot of overlap between that dissertation and the PhD... the PhD being a better structured document I would say.

The one advantage of that master's paper is that it summarises various theories on brainwashing in the literature review and addresses some of the (misleading) criticisms of people like Dr Singer.

Thanks, egoldstein...yes, I think you are right about the virtues of the literature review in this paper.

I have not been able to find many studies of LGAT. If you are aware of resources in this area, I would be very grateful.

What concerns me is that LGAT-type 'technologies' are, now, quite frequently embedded in corporate training programs, and w/o benefit of informed consent.

I came to this site to investigate a global coaching network that routinely recommends to its members the use of trance technologies such as NLP. This same network has absolutely no capability to monitor how its very poorly trained practitioners employ these 'tools' with corporate and other clients.

Any suggestions would be appreciated.

Hi there

I didn't see you commenting on the other thread, but the following link can be used to access a PhD on LGATs by the same author:


[hdl.handle.net]

EG

I'm not sure of how to address the use of NLP by corporates, but the following extract from the PhD (pp. 294-295) provides a good argument for why employers can't compel employees to take part in LGATs:

"Pressured LGAT participation is unethical for a host of reasons, but a key problem for employees is that it compels them to reveal psychological issues to employers. Landmark’s disclaimer states:

“While it is ultimately your choice, OUR ADVISORS STRONGLY RECOMMEND THAT YOU SHOULD NOT PARTICIPATE in the Program if you: (a) have a personal or family history of bi-polar affective disorder (manic-depressive disorder), schizophrenia, acute or chronic depression or other psychotic disorder, whether or not you or they are being or have ever been treated or hospitalized; (b) are taking, have taken or been prescribed to take within the previous twelve months antianxiety drugs (such as Librium, Ativan, Klonapin, Xanax, Dormicum or others); anti-depressants (such as Elavil, Prozac, Zoloft, Celexa, Cipram, Prothiaden or others); anti-psychotics (such as Thorazine, Haldol, Stelazine, Risperdal, Zyprexa, Dogmatil or others); any medication to treat bipolar disorders (such as Lithium, Gabapentin or Depakote); any drugs or medicines, whether prescription or nonprescription, intended to treat or affect mental processes or mood or to treat a chemical imbalance; or anabolic steroids; (c) have an unresolved history of drug or steroid abuse; (d) are or have in the past year been depressed and/or considered or had ideas of suicide, self harm or harm to another; (e) are currently in therapy and your therapist sees a health reason why you should not participate in the Program; or (f) are uncertain about your physical, mental or emotional ability to participate in the Program” (Landmark, 2016f).

Employees who live with these conditions are, therefore, faced with the choice of participating (and risking their mental health), or revealing stigmatised conditions to employers (a career-limiting alternative). The findings from extensive research on the stigma of mental illness are unambiguous: it is highly likely that those who reveal this information will be explicitly or implicitly discriminated against (Corrigan, 1998). Organisations, therefore, have no right to this information. By allowing (if not encouraging) employers to recruit members of staff, LGATs contribute to the violation of employee privacy, or to the participation of individuals who are at particularly high risk of harm."

Hi EG,

Thank you for both posts.

LGAT was introduced in Japanese corporations (my location) in the 70s, 80's. There were a number of suicides and the government stepped in and banned this practice. I suspect an insidious comeback has been made.

As for Western multinationals, I think there is all sorts of crap going on, with LGAT re-styled as "group coaching" or "group facilitation".

Both activities can be legitimate and useful, but, we now have so many practitioners coming out of Landmark, and Landmark-generated training programs, I would assume that many are simply regurgitating that training; and here is where the NLP, and other 'technologies' come into play.

I am thinking this thing can be approached from the direction Margaret Singer took in one of her books (gotta locate the quote), that being that New Age/Human Potential-type training is more akin to religion than any science-based development program and, therefore, employees could bow out under Constitutional Law.

I don't know if this would be more or less stigmatizing to the employee than to cite a psychological or medical condition.

My sense is that with NXIVM, and other 'executive training' providers being called into question, THE TIME IS RIGHT to start scrutinizing many of these programs, and creating greater awareness in workers regarding their right to "just say no".

bakkagirl wrote:

"My sense is that with NXIVM, and other 'executive training' providers being called into question, THE TIME IS RIGHT to start scrutinizing many of these programs, and creating greater awareness in workers regarding their right to 'just say no'. "

There are two things here:

The whole NXIVM thing at least SHOULD be showing the world how untrustworthy these organizations actually are. These programs clearly fit the criteria for thought-reform, and thought-reform environments give WAY too much power to the trainers. This, in itself, seems to make them inherently untrustworthy, (as with Keith Raniere).

("Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.")

Then this: "...creating greater awareness in workers regarding their right to 'just say no'. "

Yes! But we have to make sure that they actually DO have that right, by law. Laws need to be passed where workers can refuse any such training WITHOUT having to disclose health information and without having to say anything about their religion.

In fact, as much as these organizations stress that each is responsible for his/her own well-being, every worker should have the right to determine that they will NOT participate simply because they have decided that foregoing participation is best for them. In fact, in reading the stats, they should be able to point out that there HAVE been psychiatric and psychological casualties even in participants who had NO history of mental illness. PERIOD.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/01/2018 02:17AM by kdag.

In fact, maybe the (proposed) law could simply state that NO employer may require of their workers to attend ANY class, seminar, or workshop for any reason other than those directly related to the nuts and bolts performance of their job.

In some cases, where people have public-facing jobs, a plastic smile might be an actual requirement, (counter help at a fast food place). People skills do have varying levels of import, and listening skills are always essential, BUT they can teach all of those things WITHOUT delving into people's childhoods.

IF an employer sees a need, a simple "Comportment" seminar would do just fine, I think. Once again, there would be no need for anything that remotely resembles "psychological," work - NO boundary violations, sleep deprivation, "sharing," etc, but more of a "Finishing School" type workshop, if you will. That should be the maximum requirement of such a nature for work.

Indicators that a corporate coaching program is fishy and to be avoided

* Program advocates are pushy, have a pat answer to all your doubts

* You are accused of holding yourself back, of being close minded if you do not want to participate

* Program advertisers and graduates refuse to tell you what will be done to you. This makes informed consent impossible

* Program advertisers and graduates claim that the seminars and workshops are not effective if you know the procedures and content beforehand.

* Claims the program isn't for everyone, just for special, open minded people who are strong, venturesome willing to take risks

* You are told to ignore what is on the internet, that anyone who reported a bad experience during the program was weak, maladjusted or left early

If you do consent to go to any workshop or seminar, do the following:

Ask if at any time you will be yelled at and expected to give personal information. If they refuse to reply or treat you like a trouble maker just for asking, or say this is necessary if you are to get full benefits -- AVOID

Insist on knowing about meal arrangements and what meals consist of. Bring your own energy bars and keep one or two in your pockets in case you find meals are delayed and you are feeling hungry and off balance.

*Inform at least one preferably more than one outside friend or relative where you are, the name of the program and the leaders. Tell them what time to expect you to come home.

That way, if the organizers attempt to keep you from leaving, you can tell them you are expected home and your family and friends will be calling them if you do not arrive on time, or you arrive home freaking out.

* Take supplies of your accustomed OTC painkillers. If you rely on coffee or tea, bring your own. Do not let anyone take this away from you. If they do, leave!

* Use your own transportation. Do not let organizers browbeat you to take their bus or let them persuade you to have other people carpool with you.

If you need to leave, you will hesitate to do so, if friends of yours shared
your car. If only you used the car, you can get up and leave.

Do NOT surrender your car keys. Park your car where you can easily retrieve
it. Make sure to park in a location where other parked vehicles will not surround your car.

If the program people give you any problems when asking these reasonable questions, it is a big warning sign to avoid them.

You need to leave if you notice the following:


You find there are no caffeinated beverages available, you are told to abstain from pain killers, even OTC pain killers. This alone is enough to disrupt body chemistry. People reliant on caffeine can suffer severe painful headaches and body aches. Being forbidden to use OTC painkillers is authoritarian and abusive. You are an adult and have committed no crime!

They do not want you to take your own transportation, they want you to use their transportation. Or they want you to carpool. If something goes wrong
you cannot leave if you lack your own transportation.

You arrive and are expected to hand over your digital devices and or ID documents. Get away, get out!

You are kept awake past your normal bed time. Do not stay involved with anything where you are deprived of sleep.