I just saw this. While this is not an LGAT situation, this man duped people into telling outrageous lies about themselves.

If he can do this, what can an LGAT leader do, in an effort to collect "collateral?"
Even in the stories about Keith Raniere, it has been stated that some of the confessions given to him as collateral were false.

[www.yahoo.com]

I would place this more in the category of the Russian comedians who 'punked' John McCain, Maxine Waters and others with calls from the Kremlin.

This stuff is so over the top, I can see the comedic value in it, though there is an element of maliciousness.

What this suggests to me, though, is that "collateral" could take the form of the knowledge that one has been embarrassingly duped. Nobody likes others knowing about that.

In reading numerous accounts of how people found themselves inducted into Landmark, there is this element there -- they don't want to believe they are being duped, so they do their own mental back flips to rationalize the experience.

I think we could call this kind of shame, "collateral".

Bakkagirl wrote:

"In reading numerous accounts of how people found themselves inducted into Landmark, there is this element there -- they don't want to believe they are being duped, so they do their own mental back flips to rationalize the experience."

Yes, there's that. There is also the fact that most people were duped into it by family or friends. My experience was that I did not want to reassess whether or not my recruiter, ("friend"), was trustworthy. I still WANTED TO BELIEVE that she was a decent human being, and would not deliberately do me harm. I did not understand that Landmark had changed he entire character. I didn't think that any group could take a normal, decent adult and turn her into what I basically consider a socuopath.

bakkagirl, your mailbox is full...

bakkagirl wrote:

Quote

In reading numerous accounts of how people found themselves inducted into Landmark, there is this element there -- they don't want to believe they are being duped, so they do their own mental back flips to rationalize the experience.

I think we could call this kind of shame, "collateral".

kdag wrote:

Quote

My experience was that I did not want to reassess whether or not my recruiter, ("friend"), was trustworthy. I still WANTED TO BELIEVE that she was a decent human being, and would not deliberately do me harm.

Yes, yes, yes.

Years ago, I found out that a person I loved and trusted as my second mother
was not who she presented herself as being.

Through a series of events, supplemented by my finding documents on public record, I discovered that X habitually lied. She lied even when I repeatedly
told her it was better for me to know the truth, however painful.

She kept lies going even when dying.

And after she died, I discovered she had repeatedly, systematically lied
in ways that ruined other people's lives.

All my life I had been convinced X was a loveable, trustworthy person, someone with a heart.

I was emotionally shattered when learning this. And through X's lies, I had incurred grave financial consequences.

All this was 11 years ago.

I spent months suffering from insomnia. Fortunately I had access to medical attention. I was also fortunate that I was relatively young, was physically fit, and had no serious underlying psychological or psychiatric disorder.

Otherwise, I might have needed inpatient medical care.

As it was, I was left questioning my own judgement and also questioned and re assessed memories I formerly took for granted.

It is a terrible thing to believe someone is trustworthy because the person has
presented as trustworthy and has a public reputation as being trustworthy and then to discover that person is not trustworthy.

And discover that person has sacrificed your welfare and other people's welfare in order to keep the lie going.

In my case, I found one other person who had been betrayed and we could support each other.

Everyone else continued to celebrate X has being a wonderful person.

Making these discoveries and not having a support network is bitterly lonely.

Which is why support networks such as the CEI message board are so important.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/24/2018 08:06PM by corboy.

Well, yes, to all of that corboy.

I have stuck is out in the coaching world, a) because I really enjoyed the work and thought I was delivering value to my clients, but, b) because I could not really believe some of the things I was seeing. I could not believe that other coaches had no issue in exploiting their clients, and exploiting the field.

I could NOT get this through my head.

The sense of betrayal is very acute. It shakes a person to their core.

On the LGAT thing, it makes sense that they market through word of mouth, rely on friends and relatives to 'induct' others, and based on the trust they have in personal relationships. They also rely on celebrity-type endorsements, which entail another kind of trust.

If you are a sociopath, this is an obvious way to operate, alas.

bakkagirl

bakkagirl wrote:

"because I could not really believe some of the things I was seeing. I could not believe that other coaches had no issue in exploiting their clients, and exploiting the field."


YES!!!!! And it doesn't have to be coaches, it could be friends, employers, therapists, but when you see someone who you would normally trust doing these things, did you think, "There MUST be another explanation?" Or maybe, "If I just stick it out a little while longer, then the whole point of it will all become clear to me. So-and-so is a good person, so it will all come out in the wash."

I know that I DID. By the time I figured out that MY ASSUMPTIONS were wrong; they had already gone so far and done SO much damage that really the only solution was to look for ways to get them shut down. They had committed crimes, and I had stood there thinking, "They aren't REALLY committing this crime against me, because it makes no sense that they would."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/25/2018 03:42AM by kdag.

The really dirty thing about this, and about the girl in the original post, (the one duped by Cohen), is that it all turns on ASSUMPTIONS.

Cohen knew that she would ASSUME that he had her back, so she just read what was put in front of her. Landmark advertises that they will empower us, help us think outside the box, and so we sign up for the Forum ASSUMING that this is what we are going to get, OR AT LEAST THAT THIS IS THE INTENT. Most of us have certain morals that are deeply engrained, and we just ASSUME that the "empowerment" will not involve violating those internalized rules. Cohen used her ASSUMPTIONS against her, and I can see very clearly that Landmark does this ALL THE TIME. I would say that it is even in the waiver form that they have everybody sign.


There are stages in childhood development where external rules, such as "Do not steal, do not lie," become internalized. Bakkagirl, and others on this board have more psychological knowledge than I do, but as a parent, I did read about some of this. Maybe some of the others could explain this better, but from my understanding, it's as if the child goes from not stealing because they know that they will be punished to not stealing because it hurts them internally. I think that, when these ethics become internalized, as in most by adulthood, we just ASSUME that no decent person would do these things. Since we ASSUME that our friends are decent people, we ASSUME that they would not do these things. And then they delight in pulling the rug out from under us!

My query is whether LGATs manage to make these values EXTERNAL again. Then these people can fake a decency that they no longer have.

I had another thought: since we were discussing embarrassment over being duped, and even this embarrassment being used as "collateral," there is always the possibility that some people who recruit are embarrassed over this, as well. Does it make them feel better if they can recruit and dupe their friends and acquaintances? Then they don't feel so badly, because they can tell themselves, "Well, she fell for it, too."



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/25/2018 04:16AM by kdag.

Well, one thing I have noticed is that the people who seemed to have abandoned their moral framework, or the moral framework most of us adhere to, believe they are pursuing virtuous ends.

Frequently, these ends are utopian and unattainable, but these ends justify their means.

A common behavior I have seen is the substitution of lofty, unattainable goals for common sense solutions to what can be fixed or improved.

I would speculate that (per John Hunter's dissertation) the hypomania, and related states induced by LGAT participation colors judgement.

For instance, I have become much more aware of the quality of language used in promotional materials related to personal and professional development programs. If I see too many superlatives, I think AVOID, AVOID, AVOID.

If I am sitting in a coach training program and the conversation veers away from a real world challenge to, say, the the attainment of WORLD PEACE, I know I am in Landmark-a-stan.

I recall a coach colleague and I attempting to frame a presentation we were asked to give at a conference. We felt the topic had become 'otherworldly', and unrelated to what occurs in actual coaching practice. We decided to call this land of fantasy, "Coach-a-stan". I don't think our presentation was well-received by many in the audience, because they were intent on living in "Coach-a-stan", and drinking the "Coach-a-stan" Kool-Aid. Yum, yum.

Perhaps we might find some value and relief in mapping the territory called "Landmark-a-stan"?

Bakkagirl wrote:

"Perhaps we might find some value and relief in mapping the territory called "Landmark-a-stan"?"

Haha, I'm game. I'm not sure how to go about that, but let me know about the coordinates I can provide :-D

Will do, Captain Kdag!

I am pretty sure it IS another country, let's have some fun and map the terrain.

I see a WALL OF DELUSION, and a waterfall made of FAKE empathy.

Back with more later.