Now there's a vision, nutrino!

I think this is the beginning of that society-wide discussion, hopefully.

No, RU?ing, haven't seen "Outfoxed", but I'll keep a look out, now that you mentioned it.

IMO, the reason there have been no complaints about AA, maybe, is because not many folks would think of them as a cult - again, that word gets in the way of educating people and can be a real conversation stopper.

AA explains away the higher power thing as being whatever that means to the individual, HOWEVER, the higher power issue is the thing that keeps people in AA. To convince people they are powerless over their addiction makes them powerless over their addiction and reliant on AA. The big hook is that if you don't go to meetings, don't tell all to your sponsor, you will fail, makes people dependent upon AA.

Many of the homeless people I worked with were alcohol-dependent and tried meetings and were really taken advantage of - people offering get-rich quick schemes, pimps, screwing around with benefit checks, etc. The homeless people I knew also had horrible experiences, some born addicted to alcohol, and they were continuously asked when were they going to hit bottom. The homeless, the mentally ill\abused\developmentally disabled and addicted usually do not have a concept of a higher power that is good, which is why I'm so against having AA meetings be a sentence to some of them. The homeless might not be the best example to use, but the county hospitals and judges do order them to attend AA meetings. It saves them a bundle, as detox and rehab services that are available to the poor are inadequate.

And AA is everywhere. So many rehab programs use the AA model, which makes AA seem like a credible organization. AA even admits it has a low total recovery rate, yet that hasn't stopped them from infiltrating the medical and justice systems everywhere. Addiction hotlines that serve addicts and their friends and relatives use the AA language of enabling, codependency, hitting bottom, relapse and, in my experience, are downright rude to anyone looking for help for someone addicted (enabling, codependent - no exceptions!).

All this really is not much different than any LGAT discussed here.

There are some people who claim to have had success with AA, but the ones I know also had access to therapists, long-term detox centers and rehab. The poor and homeless do not have access to these services.

I personally think Rational Recovery is a great self-treatment program. It promotes awareness of the dynamics of alcohol use and then directs people to proper professional treatment, when needed. Unfortunately, this treatment usually ends up being AA-based.

Nutrino! I couldn't agree with you more.

The best thing that ever happened to me was getting caught up with a doctor involved in the whole Landmark-New-Age thing. What I know now has been very useful in educating people, especially at work, on "cults in our midst."

For instance, I work for a mentoring program and a guy came in for training to be a mentor. He claimed to be very spiritual, realized money and material stuff wasn't the end-all, and started telling people in the class what SHOULD be their priorities (spirituality, meditation, lots of new age hooey). Turns out he was part of an international ponzi scheme, had taken lots of AR classes, neurolinguistic programming courses, the whole nine yards. The required presentation in training really had lots of red flags and I discussed them with the director after the class. I predicted he would have some kind of LGATish background and possibly a record. He already had been hard to reach, no paper trail, etc. and sure enough. The public record of the indictment actually listed manipulative language, the actually training of people he had brought in to his "company" on how to sell anything to anyone, how to be vague but to seem like you're being detailed. When we got his background check back, it revealed he was awaiting sentencing. Documents relating to the sentencing stated that if he had enough community service (like mentoring), he could avoid jail time. It was really amazing.

I provided the director with lots of info then on AR, NLP, coercive persuasion, New Age groups and methods, etc. When I signed up for free yoga at my library and it turned out to be Sajaha yoga, I brought in info about that and let the library know who they were hosting.

I don't use the word cult, cultish, or even New Age anymore, but "spiritual scammers". My director is now taking yoga classes at a Dahn yoga in her town. She is aware of the "controversy" but says it's only if you want to go higher up. I asked her if she really wants to be sending her $ higher up and that made her stop and think.

Seems to me as if we're groomed from birth to turn off the critical thinking, in service to our need for social perks...first in the family, then the schools, peer groups, consumer driven media, politics...it just goes on and on.

I recently read, (in someone's critique of AA, I don't remember which), that it's those people who possess a relatively strong identity, concept of self, (I would call it faith in self), that are most easily able to recover when they do fall prey to those who would redefine them ( IOW, the "spiritual scammers").

This very human need for the approval and love of others seems to be our critical Achilles' heel, so to speak. It's damn hard to stand up against the disapproval of your peer group. I seriously doubt that I would have been up to the task, (AA-wise), if I hadn't had extensive childhood training in rebellion, revolt, and black-sheepery.

It's not all about approval and acceptance of others in all cases. In families where there is no emotional nurturing, there might also be religious abuse (guilt, legalism, etc) which turns a person away from following a spiritual path. There might not be religion or spirituality of any kind. IMO, I think both scenarios are quite common, though I can't cite any research that would confirm that. It would not be unusual then for someone to believe that spirituality is what is missing and not have the critical thinking skills to reject what turns out to be a cult or scam before getting deeply involved.

I have been considering that perhaps "cult" is the default mode for humans. I don't know how or if this relates to humans but in the world of herd/pack/group animals, being apart from the group is unnatural for them. They are hardwired to do what it takes to stay in the group. This is why dogs are so easy for humans to train and dominate, for example.

Are humans hardwired to re-form and even sacrifice themselves to be part of the group? And while individuation is a (higher) human need, is the first basic need of survival itself rooted in being part of a group?

I wonder. Just pure speculation as I ponder the cult phenomenon. There [u:75ecee15ab]is[/u:75ecee15ab] something in cults that appeals to something in us that seems to be outside the realm of cognition, something related to basic survival maybe.

Quote
nutrino
The lesson is that public awareness, thus public attitudes CAN change, sometimes dramatically, about issues that previous generations accepted as the status quo .... and in every case, the "discussion before the discussion" took place in small outposts of dissenting opinion, such as this one we have before us.

the public certainly can and certainly does, history proves that, we are just so painfully slow uniting! Nothing human has ever been achieved without human interactions first taking place, as without an other, there is no I. That is what LGATs do - upset and confuse that balance. And boy is it a fine balance, even in the healthies of souls! Dissent IMO is essential for any healthy democratic discussion or change

Quote
bonnie
Seems to me as if we're groomed from birth to turn off the critical thinking, in service to our need for social perks...first in the family, then the schools, peer groups, consumer driven media, politics...it just goes on and on.

I'm afraid what you have written makes me think of the difference in the social sciences between the US (and to a small degree the UK) and the rest of Europe/World. In particular, the differences in communication science and political science - particulary the importance US social scientists seem to have placed on Skinners' Behaviourism (a progression of Pavlovs approach) over the last 60 years. I can only hope me raising this promotes some US citizens to start looking in this direction. Oh how we can sometimes seem to be worlds away! I am of course not saying that Europeans are not 'groomed from birth' to think less critically (indeed we are, and increasingly so in the UK over the rest of Europe) and through the same social conditioning tools that you mention. I just think that we have had more freedom of dissent over this side... did the US not notice that it was the only country scared of 'reds under the beds'?

My own interest in this, aside from linguistically, is from the 'corporate takeover' perspective of these and other social spheres, such as schools, peer groups (yes, there is corporate influence BIG time here - school children dropping in names of cars into relevant conversations etc. The corporate takeover of the US and UK democratic model is now well documented. Unfortunately, the negative impacts of the 'free' market seem to outweigh the positives - IF you look at it from a species perspective at least. It is in a corporations interest to NOT have critical thinking, just as it is for a cult or LGAT. Think of the cult of 'nike', where people get the 'swoosh' tattoed on themselves, to remember to 'just do it'. How far in the 'nike' reality was that kid?!

Quote
bonnie
This very human need for the approval and love of others seems to be our critical Achilles' heel, so to speak. It's damn hard to stand up against the disapproval of your peer group. I seriously doubt that I would have been up to the task, (AA-wise), if I hadn't had extensive childhood training in rebellion, revolt, and black-sheepery.

Hmmm, I would hazard from your statement Bonnie that you are from a large(ish) family. I certainly believe that myself coming from a larger family has helped all of our critical awareness - could this a reason why large families became to be frowned upon? Blood is thicker than water (think of that from a governments perspective - frightens them I bet!).

We may need love and approval Bonnie - but what is it that stops us being critical of those who apparently shower us with these things? I respect dissenters more than sheep for sure!

What is it about the US that has made all this so popular and profitable though? Why do we in Europe scorn even AA so much more, let alone landmark? This is not an 'anti-american' question, it is an observation on statistics and culture. Per capita more US citizens are in one form of therapy or another than any other nation.... even therapists having therapy! lordy, is there no end to the need?! More seriously though - whats the situation in Canada and Australia? And why do Canadians/Australians think it is better/worse/no different?

Quote
skeptic
I have been considering that perhaps "cult" is the default mode for humans. I don't know how or if this relates to humans but in the world of herd/pack/group animals, being apart from the group is unnatural for them. They are hardwired to do what it takes to stay in the group.

Well, if you apply behaviourism (think Skinner), then yeah, thats it, but for me, thats a little reductionist. I believe it is right, to the point that those who fall for a cult and its philosophy have reduced (or had reduced) their ability for critical reasonsing - the aspect of the human that behaviourism had so much trouble explaining. I believe it is human to find ways OUT of a box, not IN the box. That is basically what seperates us from the rest of mammals. Don't get me wrong, we are all social beings, just some seem too much so!

Interestingly, the words cult and culture share a similar root - from the latin colere, meaning to till or worship. Maybe we are doomed ;o)

Quote
skeptic
I wonder. Just pure speculation as I ponder the cult phenomenon. There is something in cults that appeals to something in us that seems to be outside the realm of cognition, something related to basic survival maybe.

Hmmmmm good point to ponder on....! I don't believe it has anything related to our survival instincts though, except in a many-working-as-one sense. I do believe it has a lot more to do with our over-riding need to belong. This I believe is actually manipulated, by media, advertising and government, to be more intense a need than is actually healthy or natural - this relates back to my 'larger family' point earlier. Those from larger families honestly seem more democratic IMO. I would love to know if any studies back this up, or indeed have looked into this! This is perhaps just a moan about a homogenous culture, but... well, anyone following me?!

Basically I think we (the species, but particullary the English speaking world) have serious issues with self, other and the relation between the two. We are so mediarised that we are unsure what real is, so we are more willing than ever to search for the 'real'. The 'real' is quite a new worry, we used to know what 'real' was. Maybe all this is a subconcious psychological rejection of postmodernism? A quest for the hyperreal myth? Being postmodern, it would have to mix old with new (scientology replaces the old myth of god with aliens, the function is still the same, MKP need to mix pagan and native american practices alongside pseudo-scientific ramblings) otherwise it would not be 'authentic'.

(I think I'll stop thinking about this for a while!)

Hope;
I was thinking about this in terms of AA; that's where the "approval and acceptance of others" came from. Of course there are other reasons for joining a "group". (I certainly am not passing judgement, as I love acceptance and approval as much as anyone.)
And I'm operating under the assumption that critical thinking is innate. I could definitely be wrong on that point.

Sceptic;
that's a very interesting line of thought.
I have given some thought to the human need to "worship"; many religious teachers would find this to be proof that there is indeed a God who wants to be worshipped. (Isn't that a tautology?).

But a fondness for "worship", "idolization", etc., does seem to be hard-wired into us.
(Love of the mother? Infatuation related to sexuality? Where does it come from?)

The [b:d10d0e8c2f]"bliss"[/b:d10d0e8c2f] experienced during ecstatic religious worship is [seems to me to be] maybe the only reward of cult involvement. But it's a big perk. Didn't get it in the self-help organization, though, too bad.

RU?ing;
I came from a small family run by narcissistic egotists.

Just got reminded of something:

The groups I am familiaer with are centered on [b:d10d0e8c2f]"ego-deflation"[/b:d10d0e8c2f].
[b:d10d0e8c2f]Both[/b:d10d0e8c2f] teach that [b:d10d0e8c2f]"spritual advancement"[/b:d10d0e8c2f] is impossibile without it!


Don't most "spiritual scammers" use this as a thought-control technique?

I don't think we're "doomed" by our fondness for the experience of worship; I think we just need to be aware of it as another type of [b:d10d0e8c2f]"hunger"[/b:d10d0e8c2f].
As such, it can lead us into traps, and we need some degree of [self] control over it.
(Just as it can be harmful to over-eat, it came be harmful to over-worship?)

I think AA offers the idea of support and convinces prospective members that they cannot do it alone. Yes - there is acceptance, as in 'we're all in the same boat", but I don't know of anyone who went to their first meeting looking for approval and acceptance. It is sad that AA has permeated the healthcare field so much that people think it is their only hope.

Quote
bonnie
As such, it can lead us into traps, and we need some degree of [self] control over it. (Just as it can be harmful to over-eat, it came be harmful to over-worship?)

Exactly it Bonnie.

I'm plenty spiritual - just my 'god' certainly doesnt need material money :wink:

a healthy cyniscm is essential - just for laughters sake I believe!

With regard to the AA - its the placing of the power to change in a higher being, rather than the individual, that disturbs me. That is not an anti-religious/god statement, it is just I believe that there are alternatives that are perhaps more valid, in approach and results. If a person is religious, fine, that could/can be a benefit to their aim to stop. But as with any addiction, an addict will only stop when they want to, not when someone, or some court tells them to (not that court may not be a wake up call) - I speak as someone who smoked for 1/2 their life - quit 16 months ago :D