Re: I am Not Your Guru
Posted by:
bakkagirl
()
Date: October 23, 2019 10:54PM
Obviously, I don't disagree with anything you say.
That said, you may want to explain to me why all of these 'geniuses' in the academy have ignored the fact that Erhard's LGAT (I consider him/'est' synonymous with every organization he spawned, including Landmark) are dangerous, and have never been shown to deliver measurable 'positive' results.
I would suggest, too, that the issue with LGAT entails more than the delivery of these programs by un-trained facilitators. This assumes that "sensitivity training", "encounter groups", "T-groups" delivered by psychologists are safe and are[ in some way efficacious. I guess that research would have to entail, too, delivery of these interventions in a corporate context.
Please show me the research that supports this, if you can find it.
Bakkagirl
That said, you may want to explain to me why all of these 'geniuses' in the academy have ignored the fact that Erhard's LGAT (I consider him/'est' synonymous with every organization he spawned, including Landmark) are dangerous, and have never been shown to deliver measurable 'positive' results.
I would suggest, too, that the issue with LGAT entails more than the delivery of these programs by un-trained facilitators. This assumes that "sensitivity training", "encounter groups", "T-groups" delivered by psychologists are safe and are[ in some way efficacious. I guess that research would have to entail, too, delivery of these interventions in a corporate context.
Please show me the research that supports this, if you can find it.
Bakkagirl
Re: I am Not Your Guru
Posted by:
kdag
()
Date: October 23, 2019 11:31PM
StopLGATs wrote:
"A dental hygienist isn't allowed to treat athlete's foot, a homeopathist can't test your eyesight for prescription glasses. A neurologist can't remove your appendix. All of these need different qualification and licences. However it seems anyone is allowed to tinker inside peoples' minds, drag up repressed childhood traumas, etc regardless of any qualification or post-graduate training in psychology."
Yes! Add to that that the "informed consent" is actually not informed, as it would be with a professional.
I'm pasting a link with the consent form, once again, with quotes from items #2, (what it allegedly is), and #7, (what it allegedly is not). From reading this, participants would believe that they are consenting to "discussions," and that is, in fact all that they are consenting to by signing this form! It specifically states that it is not therapeutic and should not be substituted for psychotherapy. Any reasonable person would assume that they are at no risk, as it is only a series of "discussions." Most people can handle "discussions."
"2. The Programme is a unique course of instruction designed to support people in being more effective in realising their own personal and societal goals. Through a series of philosophically rigorous and open discussions, voluntary sharing of your experience and short exercises, the Programme provides an opportunity to explore basic questions that have been of interest to human beings throughout time and to examine many aspects of your own life."
"7. The Programme is designed for people who clearly understand they are responsible for their own health and well-being before, during and after the Programme.
It is not therapeutic in design, intent or methodology and is not to be used as a substitute for medical treatment, psychotherapy or health programme of any nature, regardless of what you may believe or have heard from anyone. We advise you that the Programme Leaders, staff and people who assist at theProgramme are not mental health professionals and there will not be any mental health professionals in attendance."
[forum.culteducation.com]
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/23/2019 11:41PM by kdag.
"A dental hygienist isn't allowed to treat athlete's foot, a homeopathist can't test your eyesight for prescription glasses. A neurologist can't remove your appendix. All of these need different qualification and licences. However it seems anyone is allowed to tinker inside peoples' minds, drag up repressed childhood traumas, etc regardless of any qualification or post-graduate training in psychology."
Yes! Add to that that the "informed consent" is actually not informed, as it would be with a professional.
I'm pasting a link with the consent form, once again, with quotes from items #2, (what it allegedly is), and #7, (what it allegedly is not). From reading this, participants would believe that they are consenting to "discussions," and that is, in fact all that they are consenting to by signing this form! It specifically states that it is not therapeutic and should not be substituted for psychotherapy. Any reasonable person would assume that they are at no risk, as it is only a series of "discussions." Most people can handle "discussions."
"2. The Programme is a unique course of instruction designed to support people in being more effective in realising their own personal and societal goals. Through a series of philosophically rigorous and open discussions, voluntary sharing of your experience and short exercises, the Programme provides an opportunity to explore basic questions that have been of interest to human beings throughout time and to examine many aspects of your own life."
"7. The Programme is designed for people who clearly understand they are responsible for their own health and well-being before, during and after the Programme.
It is not therapeutic in design, intent or methodology and is not to be used as a substitute for medical treatment, psychotherapy or health programme of any nature, regardless of what you may believe or have heard from anyone. We advise you that the Programme Leaders, staff and people who assist at theProgramme are not mental health professionals and there will not be any mental health professionals in attendance."
[forum.culteducation.com]
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/23/2019 11:41PM by kdag.
Re: I am Not Your Guru
Posted by:
StopLGATs
()
Date: October 24, 2019 07:22AM
Yes #7 is a very peculiar thing to say about what is described in #2
Why would a "philosophical" "discussion" seminar have to say that it's not a substitute for therapy and that it's not run by mental health professionals?
This is a blatant bait and switch exercise and a lot of people probably walk blindly into Landmark thinking it's a place where there are lectures on philosphical concepts and practical ideas are discussed (which is what I would infer from the "curriculum" on their website). Or things like practical team building puzzle exercises (how to get the fox, the chicken and sack of grain across a river in boat that can only hold one plus the rower at a time).
Bakkagirl wrote:
"I would suggest, too, that the issue with LGAT entails more than the delivery of these programs by un-trained facilitators. This assumes that "sensitivity training", "encounter groups", "T-groups" delivered by psychologists are safe and are[ in some way efficacious. I guess that research would have to entail, too, delivery of these interventions in a corporate context."
As far as I'm aware these are psychology methods that are long discrdited and now deemed unethical (or at least ethically dubious) - even in an academic experimental environment with informed consent of the subjects and not involving sensitive personal information. These are probably on par with the horrific experiments that were once conducted in psychiatric hospitals early in the 20th century and before. Electric shock therapy, lobotomies, and such.
However trained professionals (at least ought to) know what methods are suitable for use and what are no longer acceptable. For example a GU Doctor knows that you don't treat syphilis with mercury vapour - even though that was thought the best cure a few hundred years ago.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/24/2019 07:23AM by StopLGATs.
Why would a "philosophical" "discussion" seminar have to say that it's not a substitute for therapy and that it's not run by mental health professionals?
This is a blatant bait and switch exercise and a lot of people probably walk blindly into Landmark thinking it's a place where there are lectures on philosphical concepts and practical ideas are discussed (which is what I would infer from the "curriculum" on their website). Or things like practical team building puzzle exercises (how to get the fox, the chicken and sack of grain across a river in boat that can only hold one plus the rower at a time).
Bakkagirl wrote:
"I would suggest, too, that the issue with LGAT entails more than the delivery of these programs by un-trained facilitators. This assumes that "sensitivity training", "encounter groups", "T-groups" delivered by psychologists are safe and are[ in some way efficacious. I guess that research would have to entail, too, delivery of these interventions in a corporate context."
As far as I'm aware these are psychology methods that are long discrdited and now deemed unethical (or at least ethically dubious) - even in an academic experimental environment with informed consent of the subjects and not involving sensitive personal information. These are probably on par with the horrific experiments that were once conducted in psychiatric hospitals early in the 20th century and before. Electric shock therapy, lobotomies, and such.
However trained professionals (at least ought to) know what methods are suitable for use and what are no longer acceptable. For example a GU Doctor knows that you don't treat syphilis with mercury vapour - even though that was thought the best cure a few hundred years ago.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/24/2019 07:23AM by StopLGATs.
Re: I am Not Your Guru
Posted by:
kdag
()
Date: October 24, 2019 07:28AM
Yes - it's like offering herb tea, and then surreptitiously slipping in some substance to perform a chemical lobotomy.
Re: I am Not Your Guru
Posted by:
bakkagirl
()
Date: October 24, 2019 09:20AM
StopLGAT's wrote:
"As far as I'm aware these are psychology methods that are long-discredited and now deemed unethical (or at least ethically dubious) - even in an academic experimental environment with the informed consent of the subjects and not involving sensitive personal information. These are probably on par with the horrific experiments that were once conducted in psychiatric hospitals early in the 20th century and before. Electric shock therapy, lobotomies, and such.
However trained professionals (at least ought to) know what methods are suitable for use and what are no longer acceptable. For example a GU Doctor knows that you don't treat syphilis with mercury vapour - even though that was thought the best cure a few hundred years ago."
This is a reasonable assumption, but my own experience in the human development field informs me that it is not true. "Sensitivity Training" did seem to be a big bust in the 60's, 70's, in that these programs resulted in numerous suicides among participants. Groups in which suicides occurred were very diverse and included American schoolchildren subjected to what was called the "Minnesota Model", and Japanese corporate executives ('78-81), NTL T-group programs. To the best of my knowledge, these tragedies were not investigated.
I am aware of many executive development and coach training programs being offered in universities, and corporate contexts that incorporate "sensitivity training/encounter group"-style exercises. I would say that anytime you see the terms, "transformational", "transpersonal", "integrative", "holistic", or "ontological" attached to a development program, you can count on it containing elements of LGAT.
I am happy to provide you with a list of the names of these providers.
Bakkagirl
"As far as I'm aware these are psychology methods that are long-discredited and now deemed unethical (or at least ethically dubious) - even in an academic experimental environment with the informed consent of the subjects and not involving sensitive personal information. These are probably on par with the horrific experiments that were once conducted in psychiatric hospitals early in the 20th century and before. Electric shock therapy, lobotomies, and such.
However trained professionals (at least ought to) know what methods are suitable for use and what are no longer acceptable. For example a GU Doctor knows that you don't treat syphilis with mercury vapour - even though that was thought the best cure a few hundred years ago."
This is a reasonable assumption, but my own experience in the human development field informs me that it is not true. "Sensitivity Training" did seem to be a big bust in the 60's, 70's, in that these programs resulted in numerous suicides among participants. Groups in which suicides occurred were very diverse and included American schoolchildren subjected to what was called the "Minnesota Model", and Japanese corporate executives ('78-81), NTL T-group programs. To the best of my knowledge, these tragedies were not investigated.
I am aware of many executive development and coach training programs being offered in universities, and corporate contexts that incorporate "sensitivity training/encounter group"-style exercises. I would say that anytime you see the terms, "transformational", "transpersonal", "integrative", "holistic", or "ontological" attached to a development program, you can count on it containing elements of LGAT.
I am happy to provide you with a list of the names of these providers.
Bakkagirl
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.