Earlier this week I got around to watching the Netflix "I am Not Your Guru" about Tony Robbins.

What I found alarming was how "infectious" and somewhat absorbing I found the atmosphere they were creating to be - and that was just after 30 mins of watching on a 15" screen.

I think this is a demonstration of just how easily and how much virtually anyone could be sucked in - experiencing the whole thing in real time with surround sound. And that probably applies whether it's Robbins, Landmark or any other LGAT.

But stepping back and thinking about what I was watching.... All I saw was some cliche pop psychology mixed in with music, lights and mass euphoria - created by a holywood style production crew and a guy who has modeled himself as a rock star. I'm blown away that people spend thousands of dollars to attend this crank's secular faith healing marathon - and cheer and scream as if Bruce Springsteen just came on stage.

That's even leaving aside the fact of people standing up and talking about issues they should be taking to a proper, qualified counselor.

Really I think there's probably not a lot of difference from the same type of crowd manipulation that had thousands of people raising their hands and chanting "Sieg Heil" at Nuremburg. Or the two minute hate from Orwell's 1984 (chants of "Goldstein! Traitor!" followed glazed-eye admiration at the image of Big Brother).

....Say, bakkagirl,


You're not drinking any of that scientology Kool-Aid, are you?

[tonyortega.org]

No politics.

Against the rules agreed to before posting at this message board.

I would say this is a fair, and a-political question.

To answer it, my perceptions of the fields of psychology and psychiatry have been mainly formed through my professional and personal experience of both fields, which is substantial.

As I mentioned in a now-deleted post, my experience in legal services indicated to me that psychologists, in particular, could be relied upon to provide any expert witness opinion they were paid to provide. I believed, then, that the field had 'integrity' issues.

For the last 15 years, I have worked in close association with industrial psychologists. While I admire the accomplishments of the field, in general, I observed a number of lapses in what I will call the duty of care. I also consistently observed a disregard for local law, and public policy.

I would add to this that the Scientologists are hardly alone in their critique of the mental health industry and its over-reliance on psycho-pharmacological solutions.

Finally, and with regard to my own research regarding Human Potential (cults), I have sadly concluded that when both industrial and counseling psychologists should have been raising red flags about the technologies employed by these groups, they remained silent. A few did stand up, but the majority have looked the other way.

Bakkagirl

Hi Rick,

With regard to political messages expressed in the context of anti-cult organizations, I can report that I canceled my attendance at ICSA's U.K. conference because conference papers that had been forwarded to me contained Trump-bashing.

I am not a Trump supporter, just held lesser of two evils position, but have grown sick of the anti-Trump hysteria that is given voice in so many groups.

Thanks for listening.

Bakkagirl

StopLGATs wrote:

"Really I think there's probably not a lot of difference from the same type of crowd manipulation that had thousands of people raising their hands and chanting "Sieg Heil" at Nuremburg. Or the two minute hate from Orwell's 1984 (chants of "Goldstein! Traitor!" followed glazed-eye admiration at the image of Big Brother)."

Yes, even though my experience at Landmark was more low-key it did seem that everything they did was geared toward the same kind of mentality that you would find with certain types of regimes.

I felt that they were grooming people into:

Accepting authority figures in areas of life where they have no business.

Giving up personal sovereignty and any control whatsoever over one's own life.

Accepting revisionist history. (In part by gaslighting)

Turning a blind eye to blatant lies.

Accepting intrusions into ones personal space/personal life.

Giving up privacy.

Either dodging or just plain not allowing people to ask certain questions.

Allowing no criticism of their program or philosophy.

In short, everything involved in installing and maintaining an authoritarian totalitarian regime.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/23/2019 02:16PM by kdag.

KDAG wrote in her points above:

Accepting revisionist history. (In part by gaslighting)

which, hits a nerve for me in terms of my quest to understand what happened to my field, coaching.

In this case, I saw a very literal and abject case of academic historical revisionism, meaning that a field that had been evolving for 80 years and had some solid academic grounding was suddenly hi-jacked, and the story was that it originated with the work of X, Y, Z, at a particular venue, and at a particular time.

And, the wild thing was that people who should have protested this, meaning those folks with massive skin in the research side, and practice development side, said not a word.

And, if I say a 'word' now, present what I believe to be a 'true' history (and well-documented), the gaslighting begins.

Anyway, an interesting list, an interesting point.

Bakkagirl

Taking Landmark and the French Documentary as an example, I've seen pro-Landmark trolling posts (a few years old on this board and elsewhere) claiming the journalism was unprofessional, biased and that TV3 were fined and forced to withdraw the documentary (without linking to any documents that show this). Forgetting of course that a Landmark representative was interviewed and Alain Roth was invited to appear on the panel.

Also that the experts interviewed were paid to say what they said - having just been shown some footage out of context and told it was a cult.

What this shows is that Landmark apologists don't want do debate specific points about pros and cons of the Forum. It's the same denial of evidence as the people who insist that dinosaur fossils were planted by the devil.


But taking the documentary, far from only being shown excerpts of footage:

Jean Pierre Brard was on a parliamentary committee that looked extensively at Landmark in the 1990s

Jean Marie Abrgrall was paid by Landmark to sit through and observe the Forum and say if he thought Landmark is a cult - but instead gave the following quote:

"My critique is of techniques that haven't been mastered at all. There is no control of a psychologist. They just put anyone in there, which means that if this guy takes a blow, he leaves alone in a daze, there's no one to take control for him. They don't exchange information, there's no real inspection of the technique. These guys aren't trained, as if tomorrow you set up shop as a psychotherapist. I mean, that's what's shocking."

That was just about one of the most spectacular examples of PR backfiring I've ever seen. For the consultancy fee Landmark paid they're obviously desperate to prove they're not a cult. I'm sure if people called say the Coca Cola company or Microsoft a cult they wouldn't make anything like the litigious fuss that Landmark like to engage in. The only other organisation I can think of that threatens legal action against people who call it a cult is Scientology.

So I think it's safe to say these people are credible expert witnesses.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/23/2019 06:40PM by StopLGATs.

StopLGATs,

I appreciate your line of reasoning, but the cult/not a cult debate can go on FOREVER, has gone on forever.

Lining up expert witnesses to designate Landmark 'a cult' will not, I fear, dissuade many people from participating in it.

Additionally, it is my contention that Landmark has morphed itself into a number of 'coaching' entities, coaching skills training providers, coach accreditation bodies, and 'independent' consultancies that do not brand as "Landmark", but, utilize est/Landmark 'technologies' for both private and corporate programs.

The name change/chameleon thing has been Erhard/est's response to both legal actions and social opprobrium.

I don't know about you, but I don't know many professionals who have utilized FIVE aliases.

And, I don't know of a single 'reputable' consultancy/training provider that has morphed as many times as est/The Forum/The Landmark Forum/Landmark Education/Landmark Worldwide -- and let's not forget, WE&A/Transformational Technologies/Vantos/The Barbados Group...and, the coaching entity spin-off's.

At least SCIENTOLOGY trades under 'one' name.

One really has to wonder, and start asking serious questions about the elite academic institutions that have promoted the interests of a, golly, where does one start: bigamist, accused and never debunked kid rapist, and chronic, absolutely chronic con-artist.

That list includes:

Harvard
Stanford
University of Pennsylvania
MIT Sloan School of Business
USC, Marshall School of Business

If you want to understand Erhard/est/Landmark/etc. -- look at the network of academics who have promoted this 'entity'.

Bakkagirl

Bakkagirl

I agree and I actually think the French documentary about Landmark focused too much on the cult angle and not on the actual practices themselves. Cults are not illegal per se at least in most democratic countries (unless they start physically abusing people or promoting mass suicide), and it isn't establishing these LGATs as cult-like that is going to put a stop to them.

What we are dealing with is the use of practices and techniques that are almost identical to those used in counseling/psychotherapy, hypnosis and interrogation. In LGATs these are being applied by salespeople with no formal education, training or certification. With no proper understanding of how to look after someone having a severe panic attack or nervous breakdown. In Landmark apparently a 'breakdown' is a positive thing.

LGATs don't adhere to any recognised accredited industry standards or established ethical guidelines. They're a law unto themselves and I believe that by creating industry standards and regulated practices, LGATs and people like Robbins could be regulated out of existence. The same way that you would be prosecuted if you were selling coconut oil as a cure for high blood pressure.

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.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 10/23/2019 10:18PM by StopLGATs.