You are trying to confuse the issue by pretending to agree with Maurice.

His point is that the exercise is inherently meaningless, designed only to cause stress leading to psychological breakdown. Your list of thoughts implies there is meaning to the exercises, e.g.

Quote



4. I have been living my life in a poor manner.

This pre-supposes the exercies says something about how people have been living their lives, which would be meaningful. But the exercise says NOTHING about how people lived their lives, it is a contrived exercise carried out under contrived conditions.

The same goes for all your other "thoughts".

You are trying to muddy the waters by pretending two contradictory views are the same. Otter and co. had the same tactic of saying "I agree... " then proceeding to state the opposite of what they claim to agree with.

Moderator please also note that Philips aka Otter had the same pattern as Passionate in that he:

bashed TIT but spoke in favour of the rest
Quoted Jesus or standard christianity or LDS
Claimed several times that a more moderate attitude (with apologies to Impact) and kindness towards apologists would be more "effective".

Passionate:

What is your bottom line?

See [www.culteducation.com]

[b:c1834a526f]Here are the liabilities of LGATs.[/b:c1834a526f]

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. his 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.

[b:c1834a526f]IMO--Impact has all 13 liabilities.[/b:c1834a526f]

Do you agree or disagree?

[b:c1834a526f]Here are the four danger signs:[/b:c1834a526f]

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."

[b:c1834a526f]IMO--Impact exhibits all four of these critria.[/b:c1834a526f]

Do you agree or disagree?

See [www.culteducation.com]

[b:c1834a526f]These are the characteristics of a "thought reform" program, commonly called "brainwashing."[/b:c1834a526f]

Body of knowledge centers on changing people without their knowledge.

No meaningful exchange occurs, communication is one-sided.

Change occurs rarely; organization remains fairly rigid; change occurs primarily to improve thought reform effectiveness.

Takes authoritarian & hierarchical stance; no full awareness on part of learner.

Group attempts to retain people forever.

Is deceptive.

Individualized target; hidden agenda (you will be changed one step at a time to become deployable to serve leaders).

No respect for differences.

Improper and unethical techniques.

[b:c1834a526f]IMO--Impact falls repeatedly and consistently in this category of "thought reform" per the cited features.[/b:c1834a526f]

Do you agree or disagree?

Would you recommend Impact to anyone under any circumstances?

Just a simple "yes" or "no" would suffice.

Let's clear the air here as this thread has had more than its share of "Internet trolls."

Quote
Passionate
Maurice, I agree with you. I was saying the thoughts they might be having, and you were associating the feeling. All of those thought could have those feelings associated with them.

Fear, submission, stress...all definitely meant to clobber the trainee over the head and get them to do it Impact's way.

One prevalent thing that the trainees, while not asked to see but they feel anyway, is the motion to "get it" as you said. If anyone doesn't get it they are treated as an outsider and its their fault (in Impact's eyes) that they aren't getting the results they want. I heard one staff member say on more than one oocasion "Fake it till you get it" like that was going to help the trainee.

No you don't agree with me. We have nothing in common. I've read some of the past posts. You said you don't bash them. That sounds like an apologist to me as well. This is not something you can be neutral about. Do you have to bash Impact, Landmark and the other cults to prove you're out? Yes. It's the proof you understood what they did to you and to all the others. And after that you can't take a neutral position and say ever so calmly 'oh let's talk about it in front of a cup of tea'. You have to take a side about it.
Personally i can tell an apologist from a real ex-member from their attitude. An apologist, or someone not yet out of the indoctrination, they never swear. They never loose control. They never get angry. They have this unnatural peace-you-all attitude. I remember when i run into landmark's offices shouting 'you f**king piece of s**t give me my money back or i'll call every single journalist i'm friend with' and they smiled at me and like nothing was happening and said 'can we talk about it? i'm up to create a space of a conversation to complete whatever you feel the need to get complete'.
One more thing: there are plenty of articles about mind control, yet you stay here asking all the details to us. You'll find a lot of links in this very thread. Maybe you're on your way out still questioning everything, maybe you're an apologist trying to push a 'there's-something-good-anyway' agenda. I don't care. I don't. I answer your questions because i just felt like it, a point that i didn't make before. My answers are for me and my understanding, and for those out who wonder what really happen inside these cults before joining, in the hope that reading mine - and other's - explanation they'll run away from the cult.
I'll cut short: i don't trust you. If you are really out of the brainwashing, you wouldn't need to ask these questions, to discuss these. If you are out of impact you know how it works, because only when you find out how it works you can break free. So all your questions and willing to discuss are suspect to me. I remember my friends asking me the same question waiting for little mistake to attack me with or an 'i don't know that' to try to make me unsure about leaving. Don't think i didn't notice the way you twisted my answer:

Quote
Passionate
Maurice, I agree with you. I was saying the thoughts they might be having, and you were associating the feeling. All of those thought could have those feelings associated with them.

I was not associating the feeling. I said that the exercises are not based on the thoughts but on emotional pressure. The hell with 'all those thoughts could have those feelings associated'. They don't give a shit of what you think. They don't even listen when you say them what you think. Try ask them 'what did i just say?' and you'll never, ever, ever get an answer which is not a) a pun or b) a cult-jargon-translated version of what you said, usually twisted to make you wrong.
There would be more to say about the rest but i'll stop here

Rick, to answer your questions:

Quote

IMO--Impact has all 13 liabilities.

Do you agree or disagree?

I agree.

Quote

IMO--Impact exhibits all four of these critria.

Do you agree or disagree?

I agree.

Quote

IMO--Impact falls repeatedly and consistently in this category of "thought reform" per the cited features.

Do you agree or disagree?

I agree.

Would you recommend Impact to anyone under any circumstances?

Just a simple "yes" or "no" would suffice.

Oops, missed one...

Quote

Would you recommend Impact to anyone under any circumstances?

Just a simple "yes" or "no" would suffice.

No I would not.

Passionate wrote:

Quote

Passionate wrote:
No answers here. Former, could you take one process, say Lifeboat, and tell us what you saw were "predetermined responses" that Impact wanted them to have?

Here's what I think would be a few pre-determined responses, and there may be many:

1. I see that I don't value myself, and I will value myself in the future. I come first.

2. There is something for me to see about myself in how I took on this process.

3. Others don't see my value.

4. I have been living my life in a poor manner.

5. I hate myself.

6. There is no winning - no matter what I do the staff will yell at me.

Your thoughts on pre-determined responses reflect the Impact philosophy that what happens in the training room is a mirror of the outside world, and how someone responds in a training room says something about their life or their nature.

Do you agree with this philosophy?

The training room is not a mirror of life. It is a sick, controlled situation and how people respond to that might say something about how the individual responds to sick, controlled situations, but that's about it.

Quote
Passionate
No answers here. Former, could you take one process, say Lifeboat, and tell us what you saw were "predetermined responses" that Impact wanted them to have?

Here's what I think would be a few pre-determined responses, and there may be many:

1. I see that I don't value myself, and I will value myself in the future. I come first.

2. There is something for me to see about myself in how I took on this process.

3. Others don't see my value.

4. I have been living my life in a poor manner.

5. I hate myself.

6. There is no winning - no matter what I do the staff will yell at me.

Are these some of the responses you had in mind?

No, those are the "responses" used to mask the manipulation that is really going on. Like Pavlov's dogs, the food was used to condition the animals to respond to the bell. In this case those Impact answers act as the food, essentially a conditioning tool that is used to distract people from what is really going on.

In the end with Lifeboat the predetermined response is subservience to the trainers. Regardless of what kind of food the trainees choose, all of them become subservient to the summit trainers and staff through lifeboat, unless they leave the training all together.

If you don't see it happening then the conditioning is working.

Quote

Your thoughts on pre-determined responses reflect the Impact philosophy that what happens in the training room is a mirror of the outside world, and how someone responds in a training room says something about their life or their nature.

Yes i agree that this is one of Impact's philosophies. That's why I wrote them out. Ii thought those were some of their pre-determined responses. Maurice noted a few more, in a different vein.

Do I agree with it? Not totally. Like 90% not. An example of it can be is how I did the red-black game. I thought from the instructions given (and I was listening oh so closely to them) that there was no way to win the game, it was one more large-group interaction bound to fail. We were set up to fail from the start. Although that wasn't the actual porpose of the game, I was convinced of it. So I said something like that to the group and then shut up and didn't say anything again for a hour. I sniped at a few people, laughed at their certain ineptitude, and let them do their thing.

Well after I did that, we were all processed and I noticed that I do that in real life too. Was everything in the training room a reflection of my normal life? NO! There were a few that were representational though, this example being one. Others, like hugging stangers and eating with strangers, just isn't me.

Former, I didn't see it happening at the time. Thanks for clarifying in your post. I agree with you.