Re: I'm just a soul whose intentions are good...
Posted by:
John Hunter PhD
()
Date: July 14, 2020 12:53AM
A message for "members" of www.culteducation.com
(This is what I believe is the best way to expose these organisations):
[www.youtube.com]
(This is what I believe is the best way to expose these organisations):
[www.youtube.com]
Re: I'm just a soul whose intentions are good...
Posted by:
facet
()
Date: July 14, 2020 10:20PM
> Our minds and guts are supposed to work as
> partners, in harmony, not be estranged from each
> other. Con artists get us to rely on logic at the
> expense of our guts.
This is so true, I think it’s worth noting though that if somebody has been involved in these things the diet of the person is most often interfered with from the get go, people are told it is bad to eat certain foods, for instance garlic and onion must not be eaten because it ‘excites the senses’, which in fact garlic and onion are a testosterone food in both men and women, once the hormones are messed with there are problems abound for people. Even slightly dips in hormones can create super large problems for people psychologically and later physically (note I personally find in experience and research, not professionally).
Gut is maybe not 100% reliable during involvement in a manipulative situation, group or cult. Consider fasting, or other dietary requirements, practices, and requests, though being able to trust in our gut afterwards? Yes for sure.
John, I see the attribution point, though am unsure on making sense about the breaking down of the boundary and it being wholly down to meddling with attribution process. I agree that it is largely that, though there is still a 10% part of it in me that says that there is some extra element towards it, which I cannot pin down just yet.. but I’ll get there, and if I don’t, then it means that the 10% of something else was probably some unconscious thing going on. I can then scrap it :D.
Ps going crazy, nuts? It might be that it’s lots of brain activity, recognising systems (evident in your work) is one of those things that means having a less of an internal sense of structure (due to knowledge of how things work) though that’s ok, it is useful and necessary for your life and work and everything is cool. Just easy to forget ! and to not look after ourselves .
Thank you for sharing all of your findings and knowledge, it really is valuable and interesting, Im sure it will help a lot of people when they start to research.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/14/2020 10:33PM by facet.
> partners, in harmony, not be estranged from each
> other. Con artists get us to rely on logic at the
> expense of our guts.
This is so true, I think it’s worth noting though that if somebody has been involved in these things the diet of the person is most often interfered with from the get go, people are told it is bad to eat certain foods, for instance garlic and onion must not be eaten because it ‘excites the senses’, which in fact garlic and onion are a testosterone food in both men and women, once the hormones are messed with there are problems abound for people. Even slightly dips in hormones can create super large problems for people psychologically and later physically (note I personally find in experience and research, not professionally).
Gut is maybe not 100% reliable during involvement in a manipulative situation, group or cult. Consider fasting, or other dietary requirements, practices, and requests, though being able to trust in our gut afterwards? Yes for sure.
John, I see the attribution point, though am unsure on making sense about the breaking down of the boundary and it being wholly down to meddling with attribution process. I agree that it is largely that, though there is still a 10% part of it in me that says that there is some extra element towards it, which I cannot pin down just yet.. but I’ll get there, and if I don’t, then it means that the 10% of something else was probably some unconscious thing going on. I can then scrap it :D.
Ps going crazy, nuts? It might be that it’s lots of brain activity, recognising systems (evident in your work) is one of those things that means having a less of an internal sense of structure (due to knowledge of how things work) though that’s ok, it is useful and necessary for your life and work and everything is cool. Just easy to forget ! and to not look after ourselves .
Thank you for sharing all of your findings and knowledge, it really is valuable and interesting, Im sure it will help a lot of people when they start to research.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/14/2020 10:33PM by facet.
Re: I'm just a soul whose intentions are good...
Posted by:
John Hunter PhD
()
Date: July 15, 2020 09:02PM
Hi facet
We may be conceptualising "trusting the gut" differently, but - if you do read the book - let me know if you would agree with that. The book explains that LGATs manipulate by getting participants to not trust their rational minds (referred to by others as "logic", "evidence-based analysis", "the central route", "System 2" etc.), and to rely instead on their intuitive minds (synonyms for the intuitive mind would be "heuristics", "System 1", "the peripheral route", or "the gut").
Affect (or emotion) is one of the things which heavily impacts the intuitive mind - LGATs get participants to abandon the rational mind and to trust the intuitive mind, and then (by generating a "transformation") manipulate affect/emotion. By controlling the thing which essentially guides intuition (or "the gut"), they are able to control intuition. This is why "trusting the gut", while often reliable, is dangerous in the LGAT environment.
I'm not sure if that was clear, but I explain it more clearly in the book (and probably even more so in the PhD).
In terms of attribution, I would agree that no single process used by LGATs explains it all. There are many things being done simultaneously to achieve the desired result. It is clear, however, that LGATs spend a lot of time convincing participants that their own interpretations are probably wrong, and that the interpretations of the trainers are right. This is what I mean by "attacking the attribution process", as - once this thinking is internalised - participants become less able to think independently about why people may have behaved in a particular way.
John
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/15/2020 09:05PM by John Hunter PhD.
We may be conceptualising "trusting the gut" differently, but - if you do read the book - let me know if you would agree with that. The book explains that LGATs manipulate by getting participants to not trust their rational minds (referred to by others as "logic", "evidence-based analysis", "the central route", "System 2" etc.), and to rely instead on their intuitive minds (synonyms for the intuitive mind would be "heuristics", "System 1", "the peripheral route", or "the gut").
Affect (or emotion) is one of the things which heavily impacts the intuitive mind - LGATs get participants to abandon the rational mind and to trust the intuitive mind, and then (by generating a "transformation") manipulate affect/emotion. By controlling the thing which essentially guides intuition (or "the gut"), they are able to control intuition. This is why "trusting the gut", while often reliable, is dangerous in the LGAT environment.
I'm not sure if that was clear, but I explain it more clearly in the book (and probably even more so in the PhD).
In terms of attribution, I would agree that no single process used by LGATs explains it all. There are many things being done simultaneously to achieve the desired result. It is clear, however, that LGATs spend a lot of time convincing participants that their own interpretations are probably wrong, and that the interpretations of the trainers are right. This is what I mean by "attacking the attribution process", as - once this thinking is internalised - participants become less able to think independently about why people may have behaved in a particular way.
John
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/15/2020 09:05PM by John Hunter PhD.
Re: I'm just a soul whose intentions are good...
Posted by:
John Hunter PhD
()
Date: July 18, 2020 07:05PM
Hi James
I thought you should know that the world now knows that you are corrupt, and that you've contributed to the suffering of millions of people. In addition to lying about scientific studies demonstrating the benefits of these highly abusive trainings (and anyone who views that YouTube clip and looks at our correspondence will see you for the liar that you are), you also lied about research demonstrating that people who take these trainings are "more empathic". Since these trainings advocate a level of internal locus of control beyond what any reasonable person would accept (they advocate taking responsibility for things like being raped or being in concentration camps), and since the evidence is clear that those with a strong internal locus of control are likely to be LESS EMPATHIC, it seems that you will say anything that that rapist Erhard tells you to say. I'm waiting for a public apology, and if you think that you, or Erhard, can intimidate me, I'd strongly suggest that you watch this clip...
[youtu.be]
I will die before I let you or Erhard harm another person. You should be ashamed of yourself.
John Hunter
±27 84 688 8042
(The evidence of your corruption is already out there, so good luck trying to backtrack ;)
On Monday, 13 July 2020 J Hunter <johnhun1@aol.com> wrote:
Dr James Doty of Stanford University blatantly lying about est/Landmark/LGATs:
[youtu.be]
In it he states (starting at about 06:54):
“And if you’ve followed… est… if you’ve seen the power of the Landmark Forum… even today… where hundreds of thousands of lives are changed… you’ll understand this (…) Innumerable studies have been done that have demonstrated… very scientifically… the extraordinary positive effect that est and these types of trainings have really had on people and changed… really millions of lives…”
(Download the video... as I have... as, of course, it will be taken down as soon as this is exposed...)
Here is some information relating to his claims, and my correspondence with Dr Doty regarding these claims:
My Ph.D. research shows that the only peer-reviewed study on est, the Forum, or the Landmark Forum, was an extensive study on the Forum, conducted with the support of Werner Erhard, in 1989 (this was right near the end of est and the Forum… since Landmark was formed in 1991) (Fisher, Silver, Chinsky, Goff, & et al, 1989). It showed that short-term (a few weeks later) positive effects of participation were minimal, and that long-term positive effects were non-existent:
“The short-term outcome analysis revealed that only perceived control was affected by Forum participation, and no long-term treatment effects were observed” (Fisher et al., p. 747).
It can be assumed that Landmark Worldwide would list the most scientific studies providing evidence of its effectiveness on its website (under the section “Independent Research”); however, none of the studies published on its website are peer-reviewed (published in academic journals) and are, quite frankly, laughable… so Dr. Doty’s comment that “Innumerable studies have been done that have demonstrated… very scientifically… the extraordinary positive effect that est and these types of trainings have really had on people and changed… really millions of lives” seemed to be demonstrably untrue. I emailed Dr. Doty on the 10th March 2019 (using a pseudonym… Emmanuel Goldstein… and a different account… egoldstein@yahoo.com) to request that he refer me to some of these “innumerable studies”. His response provides amazing evidence, suggesting that Erhard/Landmark pay authorities (like Raymond Fowler) to endorse them, assuming no one will check.
10 March 15:19
To: jrdoty@stanford.edu; aali@stanford.edu
Dear Dr. Doty
I am interested in the studies you referred to in your talk with Werner Erhard that I saw on youtube. At the moment, the studies I have seen are the ones on the Landmark Worldwide website.
Please let me know where I can find other studies that have ‘demonstrated very scientifically the positive effect that est and these types of trainings have on people.’
Yours sincerely
Emmanuel Goldstein
(Because there was no response in several days, I sent another email)
16 March 09:43
To: jrdoty@stanford.edu; aali@stanford.edu
Dear Dr. Doty
I’m not sure if you missed my last mail (see below)? I’m interested in peer-reviewed studies on the effectiveness of programs like the est training and the Landmark Forum. You said that there were innumerable such studies showing these positive effects, yet I can’t find any. The only peer-reviewed study on the effects of the Forum that I’ve been able to find (Psychological Effects of Participation in a Large Group Awareness Training, 1989, by Fisher et al.) found almost no short-term effects and no long-term effects. Please point me towards some of the studies you referred to when speaking with Werner Erhard
Sincerely,
Emmanuel Goldstein
(He did respond to this email)
16 March 2020 (12:35)
No studies have yet been completed so there is nothing published as well as (t)he final study design and sign off is not complete. I'm not sure where you found the quote, 'demonstrated very scientifically the positive effect that est and these types of trainings have on people.'. It was not from me. I know of no such study; only anecdotal statements.
James R. Doty, M.D.
Professor of Neurosurgery
Founder & Director,
The Center for Compassion and Altruism Research and Education (CCARE)
Stanford University School of Medicine
(A few minutes later he sent this…)
16 March 2020 (12:37)
If the quote is from me, which I don't recall, it was not true ...
James R. Doty, M.D.
Professor of Neurosurgery
Founder & Director,
The Center for Compassion and Altruism Research and Education (CCARE)
Stanford University School of Medicine
Anyone who does not take action to stop this abuse is complicit. As you can see, I do not respect authority figures and I no longer care about the approval of these supposed authorities. Only a bullet will stop me, and this will just make me a martyr. The world will find out about these abusive seminars. You need to decide which side of this you want to be on.
John
On Tuesday, 7 July 2020 J Hunter <johnhun1@aol.com> wrote:
When my students, who don't know me as well as some of you do, found out that I was battling with my mental health I received so many emails expressing concern and love. My second year students even made a video for me...
[youtu.be]
I have begged all of you for help. Begged. I did not get a single word of encouragement from any of you, although you all know about my diagnosis and my behavior was that of a person in incredible pain (George Floyd... Ahem...) While I begged for help, and told all of you that dealing with this thing might kill me, you chose to ignore me and rationalise your indifference. I don't think you are all evil - in fact, I thank all of you in my foreword (except you Professor Durheim, which was an oversight. You were an amazing supervisor). Can you not see that all of your knowledge is worthless if you can treat someone who is clearly suffering with such indifference?
13 If I speak in the tongues[a](A) of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy(B) and can fathom all mysteries(C) and all knowledge,(D) and if I have a faith(E) that can move mountains,(F) but do not have love, I am nothing.
I love all of you.
On Friday, 3 July 2020 J Hunter <johnhun1@aol.com> wrote:
I would like to sincerely apologise for my behaviour over the last few weeks. All of you know that I have a severe mental illness, and some of you know me quite well, so please excuse me for suggesting that you could do more. Of course, you are nothing like those police officers, who sat with their hands in their pockets while George Floyd was begging for help. Of course, you would have done something. It is, as someone pointed out to me, completely unacceptable for me to suggest that you are like other people... susceptible to the bystander effect and, since you have much more important things to do, it is disrespectful for me to think that you should drop what you're doing to help me.
I would also just like to sincerely thank those of you who have reached out to me to make sure that I'm okay. I'm glad you could look past your dented egos and recognise that, perhaps, I'm just not well and that a kind word was what I really needed.
Love from
John
[youtu.be]
On Sunday, 28 June 2020 J Hunter <johnhun1@aol.com> wrote:
David Rosenhan would be chuckling quietly to himself...
Fox reviewed this usage of material from Fight Club and removed the copyright claim...
It's 6 mins and 33 seconds of your lives...
[www.youtube.com]
I'm holding you all accountable for every person that is harmed in one of these trainings going forward.
On Friday, 26 June 2020 J Hunter <johnhun1@aol.com> wrote:
This man (JS Ondara) is, perhaps, a prophet?
"Will you dare to hear those children marching on the street?"
"When the time it is sweet, it won't matter who your God is... or the tone of your skin... or who you choose to share your love with..."
(From a song called 'God Bless America'... from an album called 'The Second Coming'... released on the 15th of February 2019...)
Yes, I realise this sounds delusional.
P.s. This footage is now on YouTube...
[youtu.be]
On Wednesday, 24 June 2020 J Hunter <johnhun1@aol.com> wrote:
It's strange how we think that the bystander effect only applies to other people...
This is the full 90-minute documentary from 2012:
[www.dropbox.com]
-----Original Message-----
From: J Hunter <johnhun1@aol.com>
To: collings@ukzn.ac.za <collings@ukzn.ac.za>; cartwrightd@ukzn.ac.za <cartwrightd@ukzn.ac.za>; sapolsky@stanford.edu <sapolsky@stanford.edu>; lross@stanford.edu <lross@stanford.edu>; marc.fisher@washpost.com <marc.fisher@washpost.com>; mark.solms@uct.ac.za <mark.solms@uct.ac.za>; spurrett@ukzn.ac.za <spurrett@ukzn.ac.za>; haakenj@pdx.edu <haakenj@pdx.edu>; howellsfleur@gmail.com <howellsfleur@gmail.com>; sljohnson@berkeley.edu <sljohnson@berkeley.edu>; Andrew.Newberg@jefferson.edu <Andrew.Newberg@jefferson.edu>; durrheim@ukzn.ac.za <durrheim@ukzn.ac.za>
Sent: Mon, Jun 22, 2020 7:52 pm
Subject: Re: The God Hypothesis - Mental Illness, Manipulation, and the Cost of Conscience
I made a statement in the foreword that was unfair to some of the people who were brave enough to film George Floyd's murder. The truth is that I only forced myself to watch that footage after I'd written the foreword, so I've corrected this. I gave this book to my dad yesterday (he's the person who I wrote the poem "Success" about... and at that point I had not been diagnosed with bipolar disorder, so he's even more amazing than I was able to communicate back in 2003), and so this is the official version.
Please don't sit - like those police officers - with your hands in your pockets. You all know that if no one steps forward to help me, the weight of this burden will crush me. You don't have to engage with me - I realise that I'm fairly persistent (to put it mildly) and that I would annoy you forever if you responded to me - but just forward this book and the link to this footage to someone who can help. Given what I've done to put this all together, I don't think I'm asking much.
[www.dropbox.com]
Please help me.
-----Original Message-----
From: J Hunter <johnhun1@aol.com>
To: collings@ukzn.ac.za <collings@ukzn.ac.za>; cartwrightd@ukzn.ac.za <cartwrightd@ukzn.ac.za>; sapolsky@stanford.edu <sapolsky@stanford.edu>; lross@stanford.edu <lross@stanford.edu>; marc.fisher@washpost.com <marc.fisher@washpost.com>; mark.solms@uct.ac.za <mark.solms@uct.ac.za>; spurrett@ukzn.ac.za <spurrett@ukzn.ac.za>; haakenj@pdx.edu <haakenj@pdx.edu>; howellsfleur@gmail.com <howellsfleur@gmail.com>; sljohnson@berkeley.edu <sljohnson@berkeley.edu>; Andrew.Newberg@jefferson.edu <Andrew.Newberg@jefferson.edu>; durrheim@ukzn.ac.za <durrheim@ukzn.ac.za>
Sent: Tue, Jun 16, 2020 6:42 am
Subject: The God Hypothesis - Mental Illness, Manipulation, and the Cost of Conscience
Because you have all provided me with support while doing this work, I wanted to share the final version of my book with you. I am aware that I'm at least somewhat manic right now (perhaps it's more serious than that); however, I ask that you don't filter everything that I've written through this lens... and rather consider the evidence. For the sake of my own mental health, I need to stop working on this for a while; however, over the last ten years, you have all treated me with sensitivity and kindness and I trust that... if what I have written is crazy... you will protect me from the consequences of this impulsive gesture.
Kind regards,
John Hunter
I thought you should know that the world now knows that you are corrupt, and that you've contributed to the suffering of millions of people. In addition to lying about scientific studies demonstrating the benefits of these highly abusive trainings (and anyone who views that YouTube clip and looks at our correspondence will see you for the liar that you are), you also lied about research demonstrating that people who take these trainings are "more empathic". Since these trainings advocate a level of internal locus of control beyond what any reasonable person would accept (they advocate taking responsibility for things like being raped or being in concentration camps), and since the evidence is clear that those with a strong internal locus of control are likely to be LESS EMPATHIC, it seems that you will say anything that that rapist Erhard tells you to say. I'm waiting for a public apology, and if you think that you, or Erhard, can intimidate me, I'd strongly suggest that you watch this clip...
[youtu.be]
I will die before I let you or Erhard harm another person. You should be ashamed of yourself.
John Hunter
±27 84 688 8042
(The evidence of your corruption is already out there, so good luck trying to backtrack ;)
On Monday, 13 July 2020 J Hunter <johnhun1@aol.com> wrote:
Dr James Doty of Stanford University blatantly lying about est/Landmark/LGATs:
[youtu.be]
In it he states (starting at about 06:54):
“And if you’ve followed… est… if you’ve seen the power of the Landmark Forum… even today… where hundreds of thousands of lives are changed… you’ll understand this (…) Innumerable studies have been done that have demonstrated… very scientifically… the extraordinary positive effect that est and these types of trainings have really had on people and changed… really millions of lives…”
(Download the video... as I have... as, of course, it will be taken down as soon as this is exposed...)
Here is some information relating to his claims, and my correspondence with Dr Doty regarding these claims:
My Ph.D. research shows that the only peer-reviewed study on est, the Forum, or the Landmark Forum, was an extensive study on the Forum, conducted with the support of Werner Erhard, in 1989 (this was right near the end of est and the Forum… since Landmark was formed in 1991) (Fisher, Silver, Chinsky, Goff, & et al, 1989). It showed that short-term (a few weeks later) positive effects of participation were minimal, and that long-term positive effects were non-existent:
“The short-term outcome analysis revealed that only perceived control was affected by Forum participation, and no long-term treatment effects were observed” (Fisher et al., p. 747).
It can be assumed that Landmark Worldwide would list the most scientific studies providing evidence of its effectiveness on its website (under the section “Independent Research”); however, none of the studies published on its website are peer-reviewed (published in academic journals) and are, quite frankly, laughable… so Dr. Doty’s comment that “Innumerable studies have been done that have demonstrated… very scientifically… the extraordinary positive effect that est and these types of trainings have really had on people and changed… really millions of lives” seemed to be demonstrably untrue. I emailed Dr. Doty on the 10th March 2019 (using a pseudonym… Emmanuel Goldstein… and a different account… egoldstein@yahoo.com) to request that he refer me to some of these “innumerable studies”. His response provides amazing evidence, suggesting that Erhard/Landmark pay authorities (like Raymond Fowler) to endorse them, assuming no one will check.
10 March 15:19
To: jrdoty@stanford.edu; aali@stanford.edu
Dear Dr. Doty
I am interested in the studies you referred to in your talk with Werner Erhard that I saw on youtube. At the moment, the studies I have seen are the ones on the Landmark Worldwide website.
Please let me know where I can find other studies that have ‘demonstrated very scientifically the positive effect that est and these types of trainings have on people.’
Yours sincerely
Emmanuel Goldstein
(Because there was no response in several days, I sent another email)
16 March 09:43
To: jrdoty@stanford.edu; aali@stanford.edu
Dear Dr. Doty
I’m not sure if you missed my last mail (see below)? I’m interested in peer-reviewed studies on the effectiveness of programs like the est training and the Landmark Forum. You said that there were innumerable such studies showing these positive effects, yet I can’t find any. The only peer-reviewed study on the effects of the Forum that I’ve been able to find (Psychological Effects of Participation in a Large Group Awareness Training, 1989, by Fisher et al.) found almost no short-term effects and no long-term effects. Please point me towards some of the studies you referred to when speaking with Werner Erhard
Sincerely,
Emmanuel Goldstein
(He did respond to this email)
16 March 2020 (12:35)
No studies have yet been completed so there is nothing published as well as (t)he final study design and sign off is not complete. I'm not sure where you found the quote, 'demonstrated very scientifically the positive effect that est and these types of trainings have on people.'. It was not from me. I know of no such study; only anecdotal statements.
James R. Doty, M.D.
Professor of Neurosurgery
Founder & Director,
The Center for Compassion and Altruism Research and Education (CCARE)
Stanford University School of Medicine
(A few minutes later he sent this…)
16 March 2020 (12:37)
If the quote is from me, which I don't recall, it was not true ...
James R. Doty, M.D.
Professor of Neurosurgery
Founder & Director,
The Center for Compassion and Altruism Research and Education (CCARE)
Stanford University School of Medicine
Anyone who does not take action to stop this abuse is complicit. As you can see, I do not respect authority figures and I no longer care about the approval of these supposed authorities. Only a bullet will stop me, and this will just make me a martyr. The world will find out about these abusive seminars. You need to decide which side of this you want to be on.
John
On Tuesday, 7 July 2020 J Hunter <johnhun1@aol.com> wrote:
When my students, who don't know me as well as some of you do, found out that I was battling with my mental health I received so many emails expressing concern and love. My second year students even made a video for me...
[youtu.be]
I have begged all of you for help. Begged. I did not get a single word of encouragement from any of you, although you all know about my diagnosis and my behavior was that of a person in incredible pain (George Floyd... Ahem...) While I begged for help, and told all of you that dealing with this thing might kill me, you chose to ignore me and rationalise your indifference. I don't think you are all evil - in fact, I thank all of you in my foreword (except you Professor Durheim, which was an oversight. You were an amazing supervisor). Can you not see that all of your knowledge is worthless if you can treat someone who is clearly suffering with such indifference?
13 If I speak in the tongues[a](A) of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy(B) and can fathom all mysteries(C) and all knowledge,(D) and if I have a faith(E) that can move mountains,(F) but do not have love, I am nothing.
I love all of you.
On Friday, 3 July 2020 J Hunter <johnhun1@aol.com> wrote:
I would like to sincerely apologise for my behaviour over the last few weeks. All of you know that I have a severe mental illness, and some of you know me quite well, so please excuse me for suggesting that you could do more. Of course, you are nothing like those police officers, who sat with their hands in their pockets while George Floyd was begging for help. Of course, you would have done something. It is, as someone pointed out to me, completely unacceptable for me to suggest that you are like other people... susceptible to the bystander effect and, since you have much more important things to do, it is disrespectful for me to think that you should drop what you're doing to help me.
I would also just like to sincerely thank those of you who have reached out to me to make sure that I'm okay. I'm glad you could look past your dented egos and recognise that, perhaps, I'm just not well and that a kind word was what I really needed.
Love from
John
[youtu.be]
On Sunday, 28 June 2020 J Hunter <johnhun1@aol.com> wrote:
David Rosenhan would be chuckling quietly to himself...
Fox reviewed this usage of material from Fight Club and removed the copyright claim...
It's 6 mins and 33 seconds of your lives...
[www.youtube.com]
I'm holding you all accountable for every person that is harmed in one of these trainings going forward.
On Friday, 26 June 2020 J Hunter <johnhun1@aol.com> wrote:
This man (JS Ondara) is, perhaps, a prophet?
"Will you dare to hear those children marching on the street?"
"When the time it is sweet, it won't matter who your God is... or the tone of your skin... or who you choose to share your love with..."
(From a song called 'God Bless America'... from an album called 'The Second Coming'... released on the 15th of February 2019...)
Yes, I realise this sounds delusional.
P.s. This footage is now on YouTube...
[youtu.be]
On Wednesday, 24 June 2020 J Hunter <johnhun1@aol.com> wrote:
It's strange how we think that the bystander effect only applies to other people...
This is the full 90-minute documentary from 2012:
[www.dropbox.com]
-----Original Message-----
From: J Hunter <johnhun1@aol.com>
To: collings@ukzn.ac.za <collings@ukzn.ac.za>; cartwrightd@ukzn.ac.za <cartwrightd@ukzn.ac.za>; sapolsky@stanford.edu <sapolsky@stanford.edu>; lross@stanford.edu <lross@stanford.edu>; marc.fisher@washpost.com <marc.fisher@washpost.com>; mark.solms@uct.ac.za <mark.solms@uct.ac.za>; spurrett@ukzn.ac.za <spurrett@ukzn.ac.za>; haakenj@pdx.edu <haakenj@pdx.edu>; howellsfleur@gmail.com <howellsfleur@gmail.com>; sljohnson@berkeley.edu <sljohnson@berkeley.edu>; Andrew.Newberg@jefferson.edu <Andrew.Newberg@jefferson.edu>; durrheim@ukzn.ac.za <durrheim@ukzn.ac.za>
Sent: Mon, Jun 22, 2020 7:52 pm
Subject: Re: The God Hypothesis - Mental Illness, Manipulation, and the Cost of Conscience
I made a statement in the foreword that was unfair to some of the people who were brave enough to film George Floyd's murder. The truth is that I only forced myself to watch that footage after I'd written the foreword, so I've corrected this. I gave this book to my dad yesterday (he's the person who I wrote the poem "Success" about... and at that point I had not been diagnosed with bipolar disorder, so he's even more amazing than I was able to communicate back in 2003), and so this is the official version.
Please don't sit - like those police officers - with your hands in your pockets. You all know that if no one steps forward to help me, the weight of this burden will crush me. You don't have to engage with me - I realise that I'm fairly persistent (to put it mildly) and that I would annoy you forever if you responded to me - but just forward this book and the link to this footage to someone who can help. Given what I've done to put this all together, I don't think I'm asking much.
[www.dropbox.com]
Please help me.
-----Original Message-----
From: J Hunter <johnhun1@aol.com>
To: collings@ukzn.ac.za <collings@ukzn.ac.za>; cartwrightd@ukzn.ac.za <cartwrightd@ukzn.ac.za>; sapolsky@stanford.edu <sapolsky@stanford.edu>; lross@stanford.edu <lross@stanford.edu>; marc.fisher@washpost.com <marc.fisher@washpost.com>; mark.solms@uct.ac.za <mark.solms@uct.ac.za>; spurrett@ukzn.ac.za <spurrett@ukzn.ac.za>; haakenj@pdx.edu <haakenj@pdx.edu>; howellsfleur@gmail.com <howellsfleur@gmail.com>; sljohnson@berkeley.edu <sljohnson@berkeley.edu>; Andrew.Newberg@jefferson.edu <Andrew.Newberg@jefferson.edu>; durrheim@ukzn.ac.za <durrheim@ukzn.ac.za>
Sent: Tue, Jun 16, 2020 6:42 am
Subject: The God Hypothesis - Mental Illness, Manipulation, and the Cost of Conscience
Because you have all provided me with support while doing this work, I wanted to share the final version of my book with you. I am aware that I'm at least somewhat manic right now (perhaps it's more serious than that); however, I ask that you don't filter everything that I've written through this lens... and rather consider the evidence. For the sake of my own mental health, I need to stop working on this for a while; however, over the last ten years, you have all treated me with sensitivity and kindness and I trust that... if what I have written is crazy... you will protect me from the consequences of this impulsive gesture.
Kind regards,
John Hunter
Re: I'm just a soul whose intentions are good...
Posted by:
John Hunter PhD
()
Date: July 18, 2020 07:27PM
It may be a little unclear, but the post above is my correspondence with the twelve people who I thank in my foreword (generally, senior academics who have helped me over the years... but also Marc Fisher, who wrote some articles about Lifespring in the 1980s,and who is now a senior editor at the Washington Post).
What is clearly revealed in this email exchange is how all the knowledge in the world is completely worthless when you don't have the compassion to help those who are really struggling. I've been off work "sick" (apparently, I'm crazy) and so I let my students know that I had to take some time off for my mental health. I received so many messages from these young people, expressing such compassion and kindness, yet nothing from these professors... some of whom have worked with me, who invite me to give (free) workshops on bipolar disorder every year, who have supervised my masters and PhD, and who have far more insight into the severity of my mental health problems than these young students. What age were you when you became hard to the suffering of others... when you lost hope that the world could be a better place? What would you give to regain that hope... to live in a world where people loved each other?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/18/2020 07:29PM by John Hunter PhD.
What is clearly revealed in this email exchange is how all the knowledge in the world is completely worthless when you don't have the compassion to help those who are really struggling. I've been off work "sick" (apparently, I'm crazy) and so I let my students know that I had to take some time off for my mental health. I received so many messages from these young people, expressing such compassion and kindness, yet nothing from these professors... some of whom have worked with me, who invite me to give (free) workshops on bipolar disorder every year, who have supervised my masters and PhD, and who have far more insight into the severity of my mental health problems than these young students. What age were you when you became hard to the suffering of others... when you lost hope that the world could be a better place? What would you give to regain that hope... to live in a world where people loved each other?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/18/2020 07:29PM by John Hunter PhD.
Re: I'm just a soul whose intentions are good...
Posted by:
kdag
()
Date: July 19, 2020 09:48AM
Gavin de Becker talks about trusting one's gut in "The Gift of Fear," and also gives a scientific explanation, (he has also trained secret service agents. This can be confirmed by looking up his bio). Much of what he is saying is that we know more than we think we do. We have thousands of pieces of information being processed by our brains, at any moment, but are only focused on two or three. I would highly recommend this book to everyone:
The following link will take you to a free download, or you can read the book online.
[blindhypnosis.com]
Here is an excerpt:
www.oprah.com/oprahs-lifeclass/the-gift-of-fear-by-gavin-de-becker/all
(I guess you'll have to copy and paste the link for the excerpt).
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/19/2020 09:52AM by kdag.
The following link will take you to a free download, or you can read the book online.
[blindhypnosis.com]
Here is an excerpt:
www.oprah.com/oprahs-lifeclass/the-gift-of-fear-by-gavin-de-becker/all
(I guess you'll have to copy and paste the link for the excerpt).
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/19/2020 09:52AM by kdag.
Re: I'm just a soul whose intentions are good...
Posted by:
John Hunter PhD
()
Date: July 19, 2020 01:11PM
Hi kdag
Since Oprah pushes The Secret, and James Arthur Ray (an LGAT trainer who is responsible for... ie has been convicted and sent to prison for... the deaths of those who trusted him), I would steer clear of her recommendations when it comes to critical thinking. Malcolm Gladwell's book Blink similarly emphasises the benefits of trusting your gut, but many who read it fail to acknowledge the flaws with this.
Nobel prize winner Daniel Kahneman, author of Thinking, Fast and Slow which speaks to rationality's advantages over intuition, says of Gladwell's book:
"Malcolm Gladwell does not believe that intuition is magic. He really doesn't...But here his story has helped people, in a belief that they want to have, which is that intuition works magically; and that belief, is false."
LGATs push the idea that you should trust your gut (intuition) and then manipulate the factors that guide intuition. While intuition can be useful, and can be useful often, it is dangerous to trust it in an LGAT and so it is strange that you are pushing the virtues of intuition in this space.
If you would like to create a thread to discuss the benefits of intuition over rationality - something I have studied for many years (and have just written a book on)-then I would be happy to have that discussion there, but by singing the praises of intuition on this thread (in the context of LGATs) you are advocating a way of thinking that will make people MORE VULNERABLE TO LGAT MANIPULATION.This is not the space to advocate the benefits of intuition (while there are many) without also promoting an understanding of the many risks of intuition (which social psychology and cognitive psychology reveal with copious evidence... See Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman, The Wisest One in the Room by David Gilovich and Lee Ross, Persuasion by Robert Cialdini, Descarte's Error by Antonio Damasio, or an understanding of heuristics...).
In promoting the value of intuition on this thread, you are undermining my work and this seems like a strange thing to do here? Anxiety disorders are the result of trusting your gut with regards to fear and feeling fear when it is inappropriate to do so? Depression is the result of trusting your gut about your own sense of worth and about the hostility of the world... so trusting your gut can be highly flawed. I'm not saying that there is no value to trusting your gut, but that - if you consider the evidence - it can be highly problematic in some circumstances. One of these circumstances is in an LGAT environment, so again... this is a strange place to be promoting intuition?
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/19/2020 01:33PM by John Hunter PhD.
Since Oprah pushes The Secret, and James Arthur Ray (an LGAT trainer who is responsible for... ie has been convicted and sent to prison for... the deaths of those who trusted him), I would steer clear of her recommendations when it comes to critical thinking. Malcolm Gladwell's book Blink similarly emphasises the benefits of trusting your gut, but many who read it fail to acknowledge the flaws with this.
Nobel prize winner Daniel Kahneman, author of Thinking, Fast and Slow which speaks to rationality's advantages over intuition, says of Gladwell's book:
"Malcolm Gladwell does not believe that intuition is magic. He really doesn't...But here his story has helped people, in a belief that they want to have, which is that intuition works magically; and that belief, is false."
LGATs push the idea that you should trust your gut (intuition) and then manipulate the factors that guide intuition. While intuition can be useful, and can be useful often, it is dangerous to trust it in an LGAT and so it is strange that you are pushing the virtues of intuition in this space.
If you would like to create a thread to discuss the benefits of intuition over rationality - something I have studied for many years (and have just written a book on)-then I would be happy to have that discussion there, but by singing the praises of intuition on this thread (in the context of LGATs) you are advocating a way of thinking that will make people MORE VULNERABLE TO LGAT MANIPULATION.This is not the space to advocate the benefits of intuition (while there are many) without also promoting an understanding of the many risks of intuition (which social psychology and cognitive psychology reveal with copious evidence... See Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman, The Wisest One in the Room by David Gilovich and Lee Ross, Persuasion by Robert Cialdini, Descarte's Error by Antonio Damasio, or an understanding of heuristics...).
In promoting the value of intuition on this thread, you are undermining my work and this seems like a strange thing to do here? Anxiety disorders are the result of trusting your gut with regards to fear and feeling fear when it is inappropriate to do so? Depression is the result of trusting your gut about your own sense of worth and about the hostility of the world... so trusting your gut can be highly flawed. I'm not saying that there is no value to trusting your gut, but that - if you consider the evidence - it can be highly problematic in some circumstances. One of these circumstances is in an LGAT environment, so again... this is a strange place to be promoting intuition?
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/19/2020 01:33PM by John Hunter PhD.
Re: I'm just a soul whose intentions are good...
Posted by:
John Hunter PhD
()
Date: July 19, 2020 02:19PM
Apologies, Robert Cialdini's book is called 'Influence', not 'Persuasion'.
Oprah (and I know that people love her) is literally the physical embodiment of outsourcing your thinking. She has promoted dangerous people and dangerous new age thinking her whole career, and while she brought James Frey (author of A Million Little Pieces) back onto her show to chastise him for exaggerating his experiences in a book, she didn't bring James Arthur Ray back on her show (a person she endorsed more than once). She felt comfortable publicly humiliating James Frey (because he "made a fool of her" for promoting his book), but didn't think it was necessary to say anything publicly about James Arthur Ray, who she promoted, and whose narcissism and sociopathy resulted in the deaths of three people at his Spiritual Warrior retreat (an LGAT of sorts). If Oprah was as concerned about the public as she was about her brand she would have addressed this problematic endorsement (James Ray) rather than the (far less dangerous) other one (James Frey). Since James Arthur Ray (or "Death Ray" as he is known by many) has been trying to relaunch his LGAT guru career since leaving prison, it would be useful for Oprah to use her position to warn the public that maybe... just maybe... her endorsement of this man was not a great moment for her?
Oprah (and I know that people love her) is literally the physical embodiment of outsourcing your thinking. She has promoted dangerous people and dangerous new age thinking her whole career, and while she brought James Frey (author of A Million Little Pieces) back onto her show to chastise him for exaggerating his experiences in a book, she didn't bring James Arthur Ray back on her show (a person she endorsed more than once). She felt comfortable publicly humiliating James Frey (because he "made a fool of her" for promoting his book), but didn't think it was necessary to say anything publicly about James Arthur Ray, who she promoted, and whose narcissism and sociopathy resulted in the deaths of three people at his Spiritual Warrior retreat (an LGAT of sorts). If Oprah was as concerned about the public as she was about her brand she would have addressed this problematic endorsement (James Ray) rather than the (far less dangerous) other one (James Frey). Since James Arthur Ray (or "Death Ray" as he is known by many) has been trying to relaunch his LGAT guru career since leaving prison, it would be useful for Oprah to use her position to warn the public that maybe... just maybe... her endorsement of this man was not a great moment for her?
Re: I'm just a soul whose intentions are good...
Posted by:
John Hunter PhD
()
Date: July 19, 2020 03:09PM
Consider that "trusting your gut" (relying on heuristics) in the LGAT space results in participation. People do not participate because they have considered all of the evidence (the rational approach) - they participate because of little pieces of evidence, like "this person I trust has recommended it to me" (this is a form of intuition... or "trusting your gut"). Evidence is evidence regardless of who it comes from, which is why throughout my book I explain that I may be crazy. I don't want people reading it to just trust the conclusions. I want them to really question them, because if they simply trust me (perhaps because I have a PhD) then they've missed the whole point. Don't use shortcuts when it comes to important decisions - think for yourself and try to gather all the evidence you can to make decisions.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/19/2020 03:10PM by John Hunter PhD.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/19/2020 03:10PM by John Hunter PhD.
Re: I'm just a soul whose intentions are good...
Posted by:
kdag
()
Date: July 19, 2020 06:21PM
John Hunter,
I'm not saying that instinct or intuition should be trusted over rational thinking. I don't think that Gavin Dr Becker is saying that, either. I am much aware of some of Oprah's leanings. I only used that link because that was the only excerpt i could easily find, at the time. I have previously used other links as excerpts for that book, but couldn't find them today.
I think that we need both. We most definitely need our critical thinking, but we should not ignore our gut. It may be warning us that we are missing something. That's all, really.
In my LGAT experience, they seemed to try to derail both, by the way. Not only did they insist that we use their logic - not just entertain it for a moment, but subscribe to it, but they also tried to get us to ignore our gut. This happened over and over. In fact, and I think that this also had much to do with breaking us down, on an even more internal level than the logical flaws. They had people calling people either late at night or early in the morning for some assignment, and inviting molesters to introductions, and even ignoring their internal, physical cues, as to when to sleep, when to eat, when to use the bathroom. I think the whole thing is an assault on the entire self. And the whole time, we sensed that it wasn't good for us, despite their reassurances that it was just fine. Most of us probably sensed that something was off during the introduction. I did, but I ignored it.
They say that the program is experiential, but I also found much, (most), of it to be counterintuitive. And my recruiter and others keep explaining that away as "wanting to stay in one's comfort zone." Really, that's just more of their gaslighting. Staring into someone's eyes, as they have people do, goes against the gut, on a very primitive level, I think. They really try to forcefully break down every defense we have.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/19/2020 06:27PM by kdag.
I'm not saying that instinct or intuition should be trusted over rational thinking. I don't think that Gavin Dr Becker is saying that, either. I am much aware of some of Oprah's leanings. I only used that link because that was the only excerpt i could easily find, at the time. I have previously used other links as excerpts for that book, but couldn't find them today.
I think that we need both. We most definitely need our critical thinking, but we should not ignore our gut. It may be warning us that we are missing something. That's all, really.
In my LGAT experience, they seemed to try to derail both, by the way. Not only did they insist that we use their logic - not just entertain it for a moment, but subscribe to it, but they also tried to get us to ignore our gut. This happened over and over. In fact, and I think that this also had much to do with breaking us down, on an even more internal level than the logical flaws. They had people calling people either late at night or early in the morning for some assignment, and inviting molesters to introductions, and even ignoring their internal, physical cues, as to when to sleep, when to eat, when to use the bathroom. I think the whole thing is an assault on the entire self. And the whole time, we sensed that it wasn't good for us, despite their reassurances that it was just fine. Most of us probably sensed that something was off during the introduction. I did, but I ignored it.
They say that the program is experiential, but I also found much, (most), of it to be counterintuitive. And my recruiter and others keep explaining that away as "wanting to stay in one's comfort zone." Really, that's just more of their gaslighting. Staring into someone's eyes, as they have people do, goes against the gut, on a very primitive level, I think. They really try to forcefully break down every defense we have.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/19/2020 06:27PM by kdag.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.