Pages: Previous123
Current Page: 3 of 3
Re: Looking for anecdotal accounts from LGAT victims, familiy members of victims, or other concerned individuals
Posted by: egoldstein ()
Date: November 28, 2019 01:44PM

Dr Raymond Fowler is often mentioned by Landmark, and he personally endorsed them in 1999. (You can find this endorsement on the Landmark Worldwide site, and you can hear him being cited by one of the Forum leaders - Sophie Maclean? - in the 2004 French documentary).

He was in senior positions at the American Psychological Association (APA) from at least 1983 - 2003, and was the CEO and executive vice president at the time that he provided his written endorsement. Among other things, Fowler stated that the Landmark Forum leaders were "pleasant" and "sensitive", that the training environment was "pleasant", and that participants seemed "relaxed". Additionally, he testified that the Landmark Forum was nothing like an LGAT (yes, really), and that they did not make use of thought reform.

Bakkagirl, you are absolutely right that some people with advanced degrees, and significant influence, carry a great deal of responsibility for the success of these organisations. They have blood on their hands.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Looking for anecdotal accounts from LGAT victims, familiy members of victims, or other concerned individuals
Posted by: bakkagirl ()
Date: November 28, 2019 05:28PM

Thank you, EGOLDSTEIN,

I remember reference to this fellow in a certain dissertation. I will be categorizing Dr. Fowler as an aider and abettor.

This is a long list, as you know, and they do have blood on their hands, and especially so if they lent their brand to Erhard, et al, to provide credence to est/Landmark.

I watched, the other day, a 1981 documentary of Erhard/est in which a whole crew of aiders and abettors provided 'testimonials'.

[www.youtube.com]

Warren Bennis, one of the more ZEALOUS of the zealots (2:12) discusses his great admiration for the 'precision' of the 'technology'.

This caused me to the reflect on how REAL human development has tended to occur (in my humble but extensive experience in that field)...and, I can tell you that humans are MESSY and the ones that are truly alive DO NOT RESPOND POSITIVELY to magical rituals and formulae.

To me, this deadened mechanical quality of the "work" is a dead give-away of its pathology.

Bakkagirl

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Looking for anecdotal accounts from LGAT victims, familiy members of victims, or other concerned individuals
Posted by: bakkagirl ()
Date: November 28, 2019 05:57PM

And, may I say a little more on the 'technologies'...

I joined the world of people and organization development because I wanted to participate in a field that required continuous learning on my part.

To my mind, every client and every organization is a 'new' universe, and there is also the dimension of time -- changing economic, political, social conditions.

I am very proud of the bodies of knowledge I have acquired in my career, but find myself more and more surrounded by individuals who have delivered the SAME program for 35 years, or who claim to have 'trained' 50,000 people in a 'technology'...

I do WONDER what is going on in their heads and hearts, if anything.

Social science-based, any science-based discipline is NOT STATIC...

What is STATIC are cultic 'technologies' for awakening, changing perspective, achieving a 'new' identity.

Bakkagirl

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Looking for anecdotal accounts from LGAT victims, familiy members of victims, or other concerned individuals
Posted by: kdag ()
Date: November 29, 2019 04:43AM

...and it's all for this!:

"'The standard est training promises to transform the capacity to experience life so that one is more satisfied with life as it is' (Sayre 1977)."

Above quote from page 11 of the link egoldstein posted on other thread.

That was the whole point of the "choice" (Chocolate or Vanilla) exercise. They wanted you to perceive that as an actual choice, when it realistically was not even a Hobson's choice. In a Hobson's choice, one would have the option of declining. It's a "take it or leave it" choice. In the Landmark exercise, it's just "take it," and don't behave as if you're unhappy or resigned.

Then they go into a whole spiel about resignation, and how you should see things that you can't change or are resigned to as "choices." Then, we had to do an exercise where we picked something we we were unhappy about and "choose" it. That was supposed to feel more "empowered" than resignation. Got breast cancer? Choose it! Husband having an affair? Choose it!

Of course, i had a situation of my own, and saying that I "chose" it did not make me feel any differently about it at all. In fact, I felt nothing but disgust that they wanted me to take responsibility for the reprehensible behavior of others, and disgusted that we had spent the better part of a weekend getting to that.

But that did seem to be pretty much the crux of the Forum, in my humble opinion. Having been raised by a parent who had been telling me that i "chose" everything since i was about 12, it didn't change my view of anything.

"...so that one is more satisfied with life as it is' (Sayre 1977)."


In other words, if you actually want your life to change, don't bother. When they recruit so aggressively, they will throw out, "Well, if you still want to be in the same crappy job..." They don't bother mentioning that you likely will be, whether you sign up for their program or not.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/29/2019 04:52AM by kdag.

Options: ReplyQuote
Pages: Previous123
Current Page: 3 of 3


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
This forum powered by Phorum.