Quote
rrmoderator
turambar:

Specifically the lawsuit filed against the Ross Institute by Landmark Education contained a range of claims.

In my opinion Landmark Education does use coercive persuasion to break people down and gain undue influence.

Quote

This is done to make money, because Landmark is abusiness for profit.

Quote

And the company has made Werner Erhard a very rich man, and others associated with the company have done quite well.

Quote

Because it is a privately held for-profit company, we may never know how many millions Erhard has tucked away, nor what has been paid to his other family members and business associates.

Quote

The undue influence Landmark gains through its programs I believe enables the company to get the results it wants, which are praise regarding its programs, accompanying testimonials, enrollment by past participants in more courses, past customers recruiting their friends, family, co-workers etc. and free labor as "voluteers" to reduce overhead.

Quote

Landmark isn't a "summer camp" its a multi-million dollar company that boasts sales of over $70 million per year.

Quote

EST and Landmark Education really are essentially the same thing. Other than Werner Erhard supposedly selling control of the company in the early 1990s. His brother and sister run the operation with the help of old associates like Art Schreiber.

Quote

Some people think Erhard never really relinquished control and still calls many of the shots from behind-the-scenes.

Quote

Other than that single criteria in my opinion Landmark could be considered a "destructive cult."

This would include the two other criteria as cited by Lifton.

Quote

You may not wish to recognize this, but many experts have as those interviewed through the French report and notably Margaret Singer.

Quote

Dr. Singer did not think Landmark was a "cult" for the same reason I have cited above, but she would not endorse or recommend Landmark and thought the company used coercive persuasion.

Quote

See [www.culteducation.com]

This paper by Richard Ofshe, a sociologist at Stanford, outlines "coercive persuasion."

"The key factors that distinguish coercive persuasion from other training and socialization schemes are:

The reliance on intense interpersonal and psychological attack to destabilize an individual's sense of self to promote compliance

The use of an organized peer group

Applying interpersonal pressure to promote conformity

The manipulation of the totality of the person's social environment to stabilize behavior once modified."

These four factors are all evident in the Lanadmark Forum.

Please understand that all persuasion is not the same. For example there are distinctions to be made between education, adverstising, propaganda, indoctrination and thought reform.

See [www.culteducation.com]

Again, in my opinion Landmark Education uses "thought reform," though they may call it "education."

Please also understand that Raymond Fowler, who Landmark touts as someone that didn't see "brainwashing" in their programs, is not an expert in this specific fieldm (i.e. coercive persuasion). Fowler may have been the "President of the APA," but he is not known for his work regarding coercive persuasion and did not speak officially for the APA regarding his opinions about Landmark.

It is interesting to note that even though Landmark Education paid Jean-Marie Abgrall, M.D. more than 45,000 euro to determine if they were a "sect" (European for cult) and used "brainwashing" Abgrall was critical of Landmark and when interviewed would not either deny that they are a "sect" or use "brainwashing."

See [www.culteducation.com]

Clinical psychologist Philip Cushman researched "mass marathon training" groups like Landmark and he noted that---

"13 liabilities of encounter groups, some of which are similar to characteristics of most current mass marathon psychotherapy training sessions:"

They lack adequate participant-selection criteria.

They lack reliable norms, supervision, and adequate training for leaders.

They lack clearly defined responsibility.

They sometimes foster pseudoauthenticity and pseudoreality.

They sometimes foster inappropriate patterns of relationships.

They sometimes ignore the necessity and utility of ego defenses.

They sometimes teach the covert value of total exposure instead of valuing personal differences.

They sometimes foster impulsive personality styles and behavioral strategies.

They sometimes devalue critical thinking in favor of "experiencing" without self-analysis or reflection.

They sometimes ignore stated goals, misrepresent their actual techniques, and obfuscate their real agenda.

They sometimes focus too much on structural self-awareness techniques and misplace the goal of democratic education; as a result participants may learn more about themselves and less about group process.

They pay inadequate attention to decisions regarding time limitations. This may lead to increased pressure on some participants to unconsciously "fabricate" a cure.

They fail to adequately consider the "psychonoxious" or deleterious effects of group participation (or] adverse countertransference reactions.

It seems to me based upon my experience with EST/Landmark beginning in the early 1980s to present that Landmark exhibits all 13 of these liabilites.

Dr. Abgrall cited some concern.

"They lack reliable norms, supervision, and adequate training for leaders."

He said, "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."

Dr. Cushman also noted that "groups were determined to be dangerous when:"

"Leaders had rigid, unbending beliefs about what participants should experience and believe, how they should behave in the group. and when they should change."

"Leaders had no sense of differential diagnosis and assessment skills, valued cathartic emotional breakthroughs as the ultimate therapeutic experience, and sadistically pressed to create or force a breakthrough in every participant."

"Leaders had an evangelical system of belief that was the one single pathway to salvation."

"Leaders were true believers and sealed their doctrine off from discomforting data or disquieting results and tended to discount a poor result by, 'blaming the victim.'"

In my opinion Landmark Education exhibits all four of these characteristics and is potentially dangerous.

This can be seen by the many personal injury claims that have haunted the company over the years, its repeated bad press and the constant complaints received by the Ross Institute about Landmark.

Landmark has tacitly concurred by requiring its participants to sign off on paperwork that waives the right to a trial by jury, in the event of a personal injury claim. This is something no licensed counselor, pscyhologist, psychiatrist, would typically require a client to do.

Landmark said in its lawsuit that my opinions are wrong and that they amounted to "product disparagement" or more simply put, defamation.

However, instead of moving forward and proving this position, when faced with discovery Landmark cut and ran.

This would lead many to conclude that Landmark knew through discovery more evidence would be found and compiled to support the conclusions cited above. After they realized discovery would not be sealed and therefore secret, they decided to dismiss their own lawsuit with prejudice.

Landmakr had never before done this in litigation.

The French report that Landmark has tried keep off the Internet is further proof of all these points.

Your denial and attempt to defend Landmark Education on this message board doesn't change its history, the facts cited, or the outcome of the litigation recentlys, which humiliated the company in a very telling way.

Quote
elena

Quote
turambar


You can go ahead and debate Landmark Education Forum's efficacy or express the opinion that you think it's dangerous, but I hope you're no longer making the allegation that there's any brainwashing taking place or that Landmark is somehow a cult.

Landmark is a cult that uses brain-washing techniques. Landmark is based, in part, on scientology. What part of cult and brainwashing do you not understand? Do you think they used the scientology and took out the cult and the brainwashing? LOLOL....

One thing that bothered Werner Erhard when he started the silly thing was how to get people coming back for more after he'd given them the initial "program." He saw the legions of faithful scientologists who continued "studying" scientology over a lifetime. He patterned his boring and repetitive follow-up programs to capture these "lifers."



Ellen

Quote
elena
Turambar writes:

Quote

Let us all hope that the majority of sociopaths seek and are able to find decent professionals who can help them with their problems.

Obviously, Turamabar, you have no knowledge of sociopaths or of the nature of sociopathy. They rarely seek treatment themselves and are more often remanded by various courts or prison programs if they cause too much trouble. True sociopaths are famously resistant to change. Why? They feel no pain, no remorse, no regret, no shame at their behavior. They don't care how much they hurt other people. While they may remain law-abiding to stay out of prison, they have NO regard for the rights of others. They are users and manipulators and human parasites. I suggest you do a quick study on the subject as you have accepted the teachings of a couple of them.


Ellen

Quote
elena

Quote
rrmoderator
turambar:

Again, I have not stated that Landmark is a "cult" as it lacks the one criteria previously referred to, a charismatic leader that acts as a defining element of the group.

There are a few cults that have famously survived the loss of their leaders. Two of them are scientology and Landmark.

The "leaders" or "trainers" at Landmark are notorious for their mimicking of Werner Erhard and are meant to stand in for him. They spend hours and hours rehearshing and practicing and copying his every move, gesture, and expression in order to "re-create" him as closely as possible.

Ellen

Quote
rrmoderator
turambar:

You are not doing meaningful research.

See [www.culteducation.com]

This is the introduction to the Landmark litigation file (note the hyper links to documents).

Landmark is essentially EST, very little has changed. Think of it as rearranging the deck chairs. Werner Erhard is not visible, but his family members are.

Erhard created the so-called seminar "technology" and remains revered by the "Esties" that continue to run the company.

The company grossed more than $70 million last year according to its posted statements. No one knows what the profits were or how they were distributed, because Landmark is a privately held company.

However, given the "volunteer" labor force and subsequent low overhead the profits were probably quite substantial. And Landmark appears to be a very lucrative business.

Werner Erhard is neither a psychologist, nor for that matter a college graduate. He was a salesman. Yet Erhard delved developed essentially a kind of group therapy, without any relevant accreditted education, meaningful professional training or qualifications someone would expect of a therapist.

What's wrong with Landmark has been detailed in the research papers and noted within previous posts and links.

Though you may choose to ignore this, the liabilities and dangers of such training have been posted here and are well documented.

It's not only about Erhard the man, it's about the courses and training he conceived and the people hurt by that training. It's the training that continues to generate complaints, personal injury claims, bad press etc.

If you could bring yourself to follow "Adolph Eichman" perhaps you are just diehard enough to continue following Erhard's training through his family-run business indefinitely.

How many courses do you think you will take, take again and what volunteer work will you agree to do?

It is not necessary to smoke cigarettes to know that they are bad for you. Or to drive drunk for an understanding that this too is a bad idea.

Direct experience is not necessary to learn what's wrong with Landmark.

I have agreed repeatedly to attend the Forum.

Various people offered to sponsor me, but Landmark apparently refused to let me in for some time.

Later, not long before Landmark sued the Ross Institute, a company rep said that they would allow me to attend the the Forum in New York.

I planned to go, but refused to sign a release relinquishing my right to a trial by jury if I was personally injured.

Landmark never followed up beyond that point.

You are ignoring much of the information posted here and it seems your purpose here is little more than posting ad nauseum a defense of Landmark regardless of the facts examined and discussed here.

Please understand that this is not the purpose of this message board.

It is here for education, and an exchange of ideas, not propaganda and promotion for Landmark.

You and "critical thinker" seem to be stuck with little critical thinking capacity left regarding Landmark Education. It seems that this is due to the training, which you have both received.

Other than demonstrating publicly this point on the board I don't know what else you can contribute here. And the repetition contained within your posts is not meaningful.

Thank you for making the point that many intelligent and well educated people become involved with groups like Landmark.

As often pointed out "cults" and "cult-like" groups frequently include highly intelligent and educated people. For example David Koresh's second-in-command was a Harvard Law School graduate and an M.D. mixed the kool-aid in Jonestown.

Quote
critical_thinker


To my knowledge, none of the personal injury claims have ever been successful against the Landmark Forum:

1) Stephanie Ney (jury verdict in favor of LE)
2) Tracy Neff (sexual harrassment)
3) Been versus Weed cross Landmark (withdrawn, refiled)

In over 880,000 Landmark Forum participants, that's all we have. LE won the Ney case outright. The Neff case was on sexual harrassment, completely unrelated to the courses. Finally, we have Been versus Weed, where Dr. Pope--author of the DSM--summarily ruled out the Landmark Advanced Course as the cause. In the Ney case, the court specifically noted that "claims for purely emotional harm are not favored in the law because fraudulent claims are difficult to detect." What does that leave us with? 0 of 880,000. By January 1, 2007, we will have 950,000 having done the Landmark Forum, and by January 1, 2008, over 1 million. Over 1,000,000 million people having done the Landmark Forum and 0 effective personal injuries. Who are we kidding?

Quote
elena

Quote
critical_thinker


To my knowledge, none of the personal injury claims have ever been successful against the Landmark Forum:

1) Stephanie Ney (jury verdict in favor of LE)
2) Tracy Neff (sexual harrassment)
3) Been versus Weed cross Landmark (withdrawn, refiled)

In over 880,000 Landmark Forum participants, that's all we have. LE won the Ney case outright. The Neff case was on sexual harrassment, completely unrelated to the courses. Finally, we have Been versus Weed, where Dr. Pope--author of the DSM--summarily ruled out the Landmark Advanced Course as the cause. In the Ney case, the court specifically noted that "claims for purely emotional harm are not favored in the law because fraudulent claims are difficult to detect." What does that leave us with? 0 of 880,000. By January 1, 2007, we will have 950,000 having done the Landmark Forum, and by January 1, 2008, over 1 million. Over 1,000,000 million people having done the Landmark Forum and 0 effective personal injuries. Who are we kidding?

Gee...

Psychiatric casualties started washing up in various hospitals and emergency rooms way back in the beginning. There are thousands and thousands of complaints that have dogged the silly thing since its inception. This website contains damning accounts written by former employees and ex-followers. Yet you'd like to paint a picture with *0* effective personal injuries.

Both Werner Erhard and L. Ron Hubbard used to joke about not having to worry about being sued as their followers were brainwashed into believing that anything bad that happened to them was entirely 100% their own fault. I guess you'd like to perpetuate this lie.


Ellen

Quote
turambar


I've seen several Landmark Forum leaders in action, now. They were all very, very different in their speaking techniques (which as a frequent National Forensics League speech and debate judge I like to observe), and about half were women. I'm pretty sure that at this point, you're making this stuff up as you type it.

Quote
elena

Quote
turambar

Quote
elena


I've seen several Landmark Forum leaders in action, now. They were all very, very different in their speaking techniques (which as a frequent National Forensics League speech and debate judge I like to observe), and about half were women. I'm pretty sure that at this point, you're making this stuff up as you type it.

Uhhhh.....

No. Nope. Not even.


Of all the ex and former employees who've posted accounts about this copy-cat business, no one's even pretended that the various "course" leaders didn't do this. They use old tapes and recordings of him and practice for hours in front of mirrors. They may not all be able to deliver it in the same way but this doesn't mean they don't try. There have been accounts of "rogue" agents trying out some individual style who've been called on the carpet. Werner Erhard is still spoken of with with reverence by the inner circle and his emulation is very much part of the "programs." You got some problem with this?



Ellen

It's a novel theory, Ellen, but impossible to prove one way or another, which is why Turambar pointed out that you were making things up.