A few modest proposals.

Corboy suggests that a healthy discipline
is based on principles rather than personalities. What are the results? Can the results be replicated by others and in different settings? Are the results better than average? Are the benefits greater than current modalities?

A healthy discipline outgrows its founders. A healthy discipline continues to make progress in the absence of charismatic personalities because its researchers use sound research protocol.

* Has a professional code of ethics

* Will not use material obtained by unethical means

* Will conduct its research according to ethical guidelines protecting human subjects and safeguarding confidentiality and informed consent (eg APA guidelines)

* a) Has a standard of care -- and sets itself apart from shoddy practitioners
b) Is called elitist by shoddy practitioners

* Does not automatically stifle reports of malpractice on grounds that criticism will ruin the discipline. Open societies are capable of self critique.

* Full disclosure of source material and concepts

* Has a process for training, accreditation of training programs, and a procedure for examining and
licensing practitioners

** Requires training in scientific method and research design so that practitioners know the difference
between methods that are personality driven vs methods derived from testable hypotheses and which have
results better than average and have been replicated in a variety of settings by different researchers

* Welcomes legal accountability. Cannot legally practice professionally or supervise trainees unless
license is tied to state or national disciplinary board.

* Can agree on defining terms so that discipline has a shared professional vocabulary that can be used
in publications and presentations

* Can agree and use research design methods (creating testable hypotheses, taking precautions against
confirmation bias, knowing how to use and interpret statistics

* Uses methods and theories and findings from other disciplines (psychometrics, clinical psychology,
psychiatry, biological psychology, sociology, anthropology, game theory, etc)

* Scholars and practitioners from other disciplines participate in conference and co author articles s

* Different viewpoints

* Discussions of different viewpoints take place publicly - articles, books, conferences, journals

* There are persons and teams pursuing different approaches.

* Publishes a journal that is peer reviewed. More than one such journal is even better.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/05/2018 08:17AM by corboy.

See my comments below ;-):

corboy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A few modest proposals.
>
> Corboy suggests that a healthy discipline
> is based on principles rather than personalities. Roger, check that!

> What are the results? Can the results be
> replicated by others and in different settings? Measurable, can be validated, check that!

> Are the results better than average? Comparative research, roger, check that!

Are the benefits greater than current modalities? Could not be worse!
>
> A healthy discipline outgrows its founders. A
> healthy discipline continues to make progress in
> the absence of charismatic personalities because
> its researchers use sound research protocol. Healthy non-narcissistic founders create successors and a sustainable legacy of inquiry and innovation. Roger, check that!!!
>
> * Has a professional code of ethics Roger, and, does not rely on self-governance, builds in diverse compliance structure, check that!
>
> * Will not use material obtained by unethical
> means Roger, roger, check that, and also transparently discloses on what research its recommendations are based, while welcoming PEER REVIEW!
>
> * Will conduct its research according to ethical
> guidelines protecting human subjects and
> safeguarding confidentiality and informed consent
> (eg APA guidelines) Roger, check that.
>
> * a) Has a standard of care -- and sets itself
> apart from shoddy practitioners Roger, check that, and not every warm body who pays a fee, and sits through a seminar is certified to practice.


> b) Is called elitist by shoddy practitioners Good indicator of success!
>
> * Does not automatically stifle reports of
> malpractice on grounds that criticism will ruin
> the discipline. Open societies are capable of self
> critique. Roger! Does not ignore or spin complaints, does not obfuscate ethical violations.
>
> * Full disclosure of source material and concepts See above.
>
> * Has a process for training, accreditation of
> training programs, and a procedure for examining
> and licensing practitioners Roger, and does not engage in relationships with providers that constitute conflicts of interest
>
> ** Requires training in scientific method and
> research design so that practitioners know the
> difference between methods that are personality driven vs
> s methods derived from testable hypotheses and
> which have results better than average and have been replicated in a variety of settings by different researchers Roger, model is research-based, not 'evidence'-based
>
> * Welcomes legal accountability. Cannot legally
> practice professionally or supervise trainees
> unless license is tied to state or national disciplinary board. Roger, and it that entity is training methodology that is psychological, or psycho-therapeutic in nature, it submits to bodies that govern such practices.
>
> * Can agree on defining terms so that discipline
> has a shared professional vocabulary that can be
> used in publications and presentations Roger, no esoteric jargon
>
> * Can agree and use research design methods
> (creating testable hypotheses, taking precautions
> against confirmation bias, knowing how to use and interpret statistics Roger, uses standard methods of analysis to measure efficacy of programs...NOT TESTIMONIALS, not APPEALS TO AUTHORITY
>
> * Uses methods and theories and findings from
> other disciplines (psychometrics, clinical
> psychology, psychiatry, biological psychology, sociologyy, anthropology, game theory, etc) Roger, is interdisciplinary, and utilizes any/all resources that can deliver value to clients.
>
> * Scholars and practitioners from other
> disciplines participate in conference and co
> author articles See above.
>
> * Different viewpoints
>
> * Discussions of different viewpoints take place
> publicly - articles, books, conferences, journals Roger, PEER REVIEW, internal rigor.
>
> * There are persons and teams pursuing different
> approaches. Good indicator of rigor, vitality, and opportunities for cross-polenization, innovation
>
> * Publishes a journal that is peer reviewed. More
> than one such journal is even better. Double Roger, check that, and publishes in journals outside of field.

I will add, is transparent in business practices, and affiliations, past and present.

Does not engage in practices such as multi-level marketing, and network entrepreneurship.

Is unaffiliated with political parties, religious groups, social identity groups.

corboy,

I need your counsel, and that of anyone else who is interested.

Question: What does one do when one is trying to run a professional practice group according to at least a few of the values and guidelines outlined above, and in walks an NLP'er, or a guy who wants to talk about Jackels and Giraffes, and BELIEVE ME, they are on a MISSION, will not take facilitation as an answer.

Ideas?

bakka

Just now changed the title of this discussion to:

Making Coaching a Professional Discipline Instead of Snake Oil

A healthy discipline has a standardized vocabulary shared by its practitioners even when practitioners have different viewpoints.

When the Royal Society was founded, the first thing its founders did was
to create a procedure for reporting findings.

They stated that spoken presentations and written reports be in a prose style that was plain and descriptive. Verbal effects designed to arouse emotion were to be avoided.

Part of what created modern professionalism was agreement on procedures for written and verbal communication and development of standardized writing styles and standardized
vocabulary and symbols (eg for mathematics, periodic table of the chemical elements, etc)

Imagine a group that has assembled on understanding that they are to play a baseball game and the umpire arrives nd says it will improve the baseball game and raise group consciousness to play the game using a football rather than a baseball.


How many of us would regard this as disruptive rather than productive, eh?

One cannot play a proper game of baseball unless everyone has agreed on the rules before the game begins.

It is very difficult to ensure professionalism and create an improvable body of knowledge unless practitioners *agree* and "share* a standardized vocabulary, just as baseball players have developed and share a set of rules and a terminology.

Someone who walks into a professional community using definitions and jargon that are discordant with accepted professional usage and who consumes an entire group's time by sowing confusion is someone who is refusing to be collegial. They're bringing a football into the ballpark.

And - that is the problem with Werner Erhard's products. His jargon and word gaming aim to disrupt shared norms for communication.

Anyone who tried to turn a World Series playoff into a football game would get his ass pounded.

But word peddlers can get away with this crap unless we call them on it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/05/2018 08:17AM by corboy.

The manufacture of snake oil is a very lucrative business.

If one never define one's terms or ground one's position in research, there is room to keep tweaking the recipe. I have seen this done up close and person in consulting firms, also known as halls of duping delight.

Corboy's citizen opinion:

Unless coaching defines itself as a fiduciary profession, it has no future as a true profession.

Fiduciary Relationship in Counseling

[www.google.com]

Look at what people entrust to a coach:

* confidential information about themselves, finances, their family friends, work relationships.

* Confidential information about their company

* They may weep or rage in front of the coach

A coaching client is vulnerable in relaltion to the coach and deserves protection. A coaching client may forget he or she has basic human rights if vulnerable.

A coaching client's records have to be protected.
And what a client discloses must not be exploited by the coach or gossiped by the coach to any third party that might exploit that information.

A true professional, a professional coach (vs an indoctrination technician calling themselves a coach) --a professional coach defines him or herself as a fiduciary.

Persons genuinely interested in creating a profession are eager to discuss this and define this. LGAT technicians will attempt to disrupt such discussions or leave.

Quote

'Clients have the right to know in advance that they are being subjected to experimental approaches.

'Therapists have the fiduciary obligation of informing clients when such methods are being used.

'Therapists have the further responsiblity of informing clients that alternative therapeutic approaches are available and that these approaches are based on methods commonly accepted within the professional psychological community....as fiduciaries, therapists must ensure that psychotherapy furthers the aims and purposes of clients, rather than adding to the prestige, self image, or feelings of power and control of the therapist'--(or, interpolates Corboy) the therapist's guru or 'teacher'.

(Lilienfeld, Lynn and Lohr, Science and Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology page 201)

Therapists are Fiduciaries

[forum.culteducation.com]


Here is a big difference between professional coaches
and the LGAT stooges:

In LGATs it is a condition of participation that subjects must sign away their right to sue for damages. The LGAT never accepts responsibility.

Examples:

Mankind Project

[forum.culteducation.com]

[forum.culteducation.com]

Byron Katie

[forum.culteducation.com]

The Anticult wrote:

Quote

People need to be very very careful when they run into these sects that have attached new meanings to so many words.
The people running the sect know that the MEANING of LANGUAGE is the primary aspect of any human's mind. So if they can start to shape those meanings, they shape the mind.
Its a subtle and fast technique of thought-reform, meaning-control, mind-control.
Its very powerful.


A few things to do to Deconstruct Desteni, are to..

- list all of their seminars and workshops, classes, retreats...etc.
- find the actual prices for these workshops and details.
- post the complete content of what goes on inside the workshops, as precisely as possible, all exercises, techniques, etc. (they always try to keep that secret, of course, that is a technique).
- list the belief systems of the group.

- locate the disclaimers/waivers they use for their workshops, and then post them in this thread.

The public has a RIGHT to be able to specifically review the precise content of any workshop, the total prices, the beliefs of the sect, and the DISCLAIMERS and WAIVERS before they sign-up, and while they are at home and not under pressure.
Where are the waivers for Desteni, if they use them?

A true professional by contrast, is defined by law as a fiduciary, as having a duty of care for clients.

A profession is comprised of people who want to be "too academic"
and want to do the work of thinking things through and are adult enough
to then desire mutual discussion.

A profession begins with the "too academic" work of defining its terms, its decorum (standards for
written and spoken language, its ethics within the profession and its commitment to do no harm and always serve best interests of clients.


Instead, what you are describing are people who want to impose their pet ideas upon
passive recipients.

They can only cope with those who:

* Already share their pet ideas and will echo their ideas

* Newbies uncritically receptive to their ideas

The only hope for the field of coaching is to create a profession that filters out indoctrinators posing as educators. Perhaps a great way would be to begin by insisting that a required subject would be legal obligations of coaches toward clients and drafting specific forms. Have some lawyers on hand.

If anyone tries to disrupt this, tell them to leave if they don't like it.

A clear distinction has to be made between education versus indoctrination. And if coaching is to
become a profession practitioners must recognize they have the thankless task of cleaning out the Augean Stables.

A professional is an educator, not an indoctrinator. A professional thrives on being 'too academic'. A professional knows she is doing her job when accused of being elitist.

Professionals do not make promises beyond what is supported by current research

Professionals make referrals. They do not seek to monopolize publicity, fame, fortune and do not trash talk others in their field.

Professionals recognize their limitations. Indoctrinators do not. Indoctrinators have total solutions. Professionals do not. That is why people bitch about professionals.

A profession takes active steps to protect the public from fraudulent counterfeits and provides guidelines for identifying qualified practitioners -- and ways to report fraudulent practitioners.

corboy,

Agree 100% on the need to establish, or re-establish clear fiduciary duty in the field of coaching.

Your post also caused me to think back to the difference between monological, and dialogical relationships with stakeholders: end-users, buyers, coaches, and communities. These feedback loops have to be open for a field to correct itself.

Way TOO many personalities, gurus, TED TALKERS, academics who use their positions as entrepreneurial fiefdoms. Way too much brand building, and way too little sustainable practice building.

A media that has been wholly uncritical. Consumer watchdogs, individuals, and organization that have turned a blind eye.

On the quality of conversations, coaching conversations, event presentations, on indoctrination vs. education, and Duper's Delight --

I attended a succession of professional conferences in the coaching field, which were nothing more than studies in Duper's Delight.

[sociopathlife.com]

Sociopaths and Narcissists enjoy the art of duping, or the art of conning or whatever verb you want to inject. Everyday that you forgive the sociopaths behavior, believe the litany of lies, and give habitual second chances is only enabling the sociopath to continue this destructive behavior towards you {and children if you have them}.

The sociopaths use a mixture of words and sentences all scramble together to create the duper delight salad. Here are the ingredients of the salad:

abundance of meaningless and irrelevant facts {as they see them}
circular conversation that never ends
condescending tone, talking down to you
blaming, shaming, and denying and always having excuses
alternating from abuser to victim to back again
always right with their point of views
relentless in their verbal dissertation when wanting you to believe something {especially when you know to be untrue}

bakkagirl

Yes, and they absolutely control every single conversation.

Am wondering if this might be a useful theoretical stance.

The mark of an LGAT indoctrinated person is that you must never apply
System Two critical thinking to his or her jargon or ask about its background sources.

A cult (and LGATs are cults) can use System 2 thinking only for its own purposes, such as designing and evaluating marketing, money management, spin, damage control.

A cult cannot tolerate it when someone applies System 2 thought to the cult itself - asking objective questions from an outside perspective.

Here is an article.


The Brain is a Machine For Jumping to Conclusions

[www.apa.org]

Two Kinds of Thinking System One and System Two

System 1 - Our pattern seeking, story telling mind. In reaction to uncertainty or confusion or stress, can use bits of information to create a story

System 1 can lead us into bad decisions unless balanced out with System 2


System 2 - Critical thinking, fact checking, awareness that a recommendation from a beloved friend is not necessarily trustworthy

In honest sales, true education and mature leadership, System 1 and System 2 thinking are combined and enhance each other.

In an abusive personal relationship (these can and have been defined as cultic) you can apply System 2 thought when discussing your relationship and your partner goes ballistic. In a healthy relationship you can discuss it using System 2 thought and your partner can share the discussion, not feel threatened.

In a cultic relationship, it is forbidden to apply System 2 thinking to the leader, the group, the teaching method.


In honest recruitment, system one and system two thought are used to recommend
an organization, person or relationship that will *continue* to support system one and system two thinking. In dishonest recruitment, you have a display of system one and system two thinking but it is used to recruit for an organization or relationship which, once you are in it, will, over time, devalue system two thinking and ruin your capacity to engage in critical thinking toward that person or organization.

(If say, coaching is genuine coaching, System 1 and System 2 thought are combined throughout. When it is indoctrination masquerading as coaching, you are forbidden to apply System 2 to the coaching method itself. )