Well, quite a lot has been written about Landmark's 'blame the victim' culture.

Seems that this might be a perverse expression of its foundational denial of 'victimhood'.

Really, I am much more interested in the 'technology' of these organizations than in the personality of their founder's, BUT IN THIS CASE, we have a classic abuser of wives, children, colleagues, and participants, coupled with a systemic tool for denying responsibility for that abuse.

In this sense, too, we could liken this LGAT to an abusive domestic relationship, 'cept the 'family' is now global, and surrogate abusers keep members in line.

Where I think this analogy may fall short would lie in the number of enablers -- and, principally, academics, and psychologists who lent their brands to this malignant entity, and given it credibility. To my mind, they are guiltier than the founder.

Bakkagirl

Yep, and to the list of enablers, you can add legislators and law enforcement.

and, the media...

Which takes me back to my "Drinking the Kool-Aid" post, BECAUSE, point of fact, these shit-bag cults would die a natural death were it not for 'sponsorship'.

I would suggest that Landmark would have died a natural death upon the OUTING by 60 Minutes, and quite a few other concerned journalistic bodies of the time, of its founder; his character and habits.

Who resuscitated, though, who re-imaged this monster, Harvard University!!!

This WHY I focus on relationship networks, and specific agendas as opposed to the psychology of the leader, or the followers. Destructive dynamics are present in many individual and group relationships; in domestic abuse, in English public schools, in Japanese corporate structures of old; in the Catholic church (at some levels); and, certainly, now, in LEFTIST political groups.

However, and with the exception of the latter, I don't see society (via the academy, the current media) calling these things 'good'; in effect normalizing the dysfunction.

As far as I am concerned, you can thank Harvard, Stanford, USC, the University of Pennsylvania (and other esteemed institutions) for your Landmark experience.

Bakkagirl

Bakkagirl wrote:

"As far as I am concerned, you can thank Harvard, Stanford, USC, the University of Pennsylvania (and other esteemed institutions) for your Landmark experience."

True. I have read about this, off and on, for a couple of years. It was my understanding that Harvard had tried, (though legal means), to disassociate themselves from Landmark. The issue I recall at the forefront was that Landmark had used something written by a Harvard student, (a thesis or research paper or something), as a testimonial on their website, and made it appear as if it was an endorsement by Harvard.

Beyond that, there has always been the issue of ethics in science. You could have people like Phil Zimbardo or Stanley Milgram begin an experiment with good intentions, only to find the effects so devastating that they shut down the experiments, because to continue would be unethical, (as I believe they both did). Neither Milgram or Zimbardo ever did suggest that the methods should be used therapeutically. (But then, Landmark states that the program is not therapeutic in content, methodology, or intent. No shit!). Even though the methods used were promptly determined to be unethical by the therapeutic community, the findings would still be valid.

There doesn't seem to be anything that prevents charlatans like Erhard from taking the results and claiming that a, b, or c, has been scientifically proven to have an effect, while leaving out information about the harm that was done to the subjects. They report selected data, while leaving out the conclusions.

As far as I'm concerned, it's analogous to promoting heroin or meth as weight loss products.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 11/11/2019 09:43AM by kdag.

Beyond the Harvard case study dispute you mention, those, and other institutions have hosted Erhard as a speaker and provided Landmark with laboratory and other resources for 'research'. He/Landmark have used these brands to enhance credibility and still do.

Agree with you on the heroin/meth analogy.

Additionally, I think that to focus on Erhard in all of this is akin to focusing on Jim Jones, or Koresh, or Raniere, as the prime movers in various cult debacles.

In all cases, there are many, many enablers, and enablers are different than KoolAid-drinking dupes.

In Erhard's case, the enablers have Ph.D's, JD's, cash, and lot's of resources.

Important to look at the whole picture, and to not be distracted by personalities.

Remember, all the world is a stage.

Bakka

"Additionally, I think that to focus on Erhard in all of this is akin to focusing on Jim Jones, or Koresh, or Raniere, as the prime movers in various cult debacles.

In all cases, there are many, many enablers, and enablers are different than KoolAid-drinking dupes."


The thing we need to remember is that people are in this to make a lot money, Both the figureheads and their entourage. Plus a parade of coat-tail hangers. Jones and Koresh may have been ideological wack jobs but Erhard is a salesman - a two-bit con artist.

People with advanced degrees are exploiting people in many ways and LGAT seminars are just one example.

And the Harvard professor(s) who are name dropped to give false credibility to one particular LGAT spoke from their own opinion - not the view of their department or professional body. And in this case it was a business school professor - not psychology or psychiatry. But then even psychiatrists can exploit people. There have been doctors found out to be perverts and even serial killers.

Let's face it if you can take some pop-psychology, basic self-help concepts and mix it up with a MLM marketing model - then persuade people to hand over large sums of money for the "training" - then you've created quite an impressive money spinner. If you can get a willing and enthusiastic unpaid workforce to run the operation then you can really supercharge it.

No surprise I'd say that some business school people might want to study it and figure how how to maximise the potential for cashing in. They're even more interested in things like crypto-currency. Just look at how these same type of people behave when let loose on Wall Street. Major banks collapsed because of them.

"Additionally, I think that to focus on Erhard in all of this is akin to focusing on Jim Jones, or Koresh, or Raniere, as the prime movers in various cult debacles.

In all cases, there are many, many enablers, and enablers are different than KoolAid-drinking dupes."


The thing we need to remember is that people are in this to make a lot money, Both the figureheads and their entourage. Plus a parade of coat-tail hangers. Jones and Koresh may have been ideological wack jobs but Erhard is a salesman - a two-bit con artist.

Money is certainly a motivator for many. But, I see other possibilities that should not be discounted.

People with advanced degrees are exploiting people in many ways and LGAT seminars are just one example.

For sure, and the academy's primary function has been degraded by professors who set up personal money-making fiefdoms. Too many examples of this to count.

And the Harvard professor(s) who are name dropped to give false credibility to one particular LGAT spoke from their own opinion - not the view of their department or professional body. And in this case it was a business school professor - not psychology or psychiatry. But then even psychiatrists can exploit people. There have been doctors found out to be perverts and even serial killers.

In the case of certain professors and a certain LGAT, I would dispute that their involvement was limited to the expression of an opinion. It is my understanding that Warren Bennis consigned institutional resources to perform research on behalf of that LGAT, and that he made a small fortune publishing books "Warren Bennis Press" promoting these solutions. He did this with full knowledge of his institution, and with its imprimatur.

Yes, Bennis was a business professor, but his interface with psychologists (Carl Rogers, and many others) was very significant.

Let's face it if you can take some pop-psychology, basic self-help concepts and mix it up with a MLM marketing model - then persuade people to hand over large sums of money for the "training" - then you've created quite an impressive money spinner. If you can get a willing and enthusiastic unpaid workforce to run the operation then you can really supercharge it.

Yes, for sure, and as I said above, there are countless cases of business professors, and psych professors leveraging some bit of research to make millions and via drone armies of enthusiastic followers. In a sense, Ed Schein (psychologist) at MIT was a pioneer of this, and via the formation of an alleged practice group, OD Network, which has become his sales channel.

No surprise I'd say that some business school people might want to study it and figure how how to maximise the potential for cashing in. They're even more interested in things like crypto-currency. Just look at how these same type of people behave when let loose on Wall Street. Major banks collapsed because of them.

Not one argument from me on this point. I still question, however, that money is the only, or even primary driver.

Bakkagirl wrote:

"Not one argument from me on this point. I still question, however, that money is the only, or even primary driver."

From my perspective, power over people, and sadly money can buy that, at least to a degree. Some of the people i met in my LGAT were running for office. At least one, that i know of, succeeded.

Landmark has always said up front that they want to "transform the world." From what I saw there, they want to install a tiered, authoritarian hierarchy, with themselves at the top.

Yep, yep, yep, that is just the sort of driver I was suggesting.

Utopian movements, or organizations with stated utopian goals happily use any strategy and means thought necessary to achieve, well, and muhaha, global transformation/control.

So, we might see all kinds of M.O.'s in play: MLM, clickbait farms, the production of elegant but 'fake' research papers -- a hook for everyone, and for everyone, a hook.

I haven't shopped and compared so many LGAT's but it would be interesting to know how many advance utopian goals.

I am not sure that even Scientology goes 'there'.

Bakkagirl