rrmoderator -

I cannot figure out why you think I, personally, would have the answer to any of those questions. (Especially given that you are asking me on the assumption that I don't work for Landmark. Which, by the way, I don't!)

SomewhereInMiddleAmerica;

The questions asked don't require any in-depth knowledge of Landmark or first hand personal association with its founder Erhard.

If Landmark is an effective way to resolve personal issues through its training why didn't it work for the creator of the Forum Werner Erhard?

And if Landmark's claim that it substantially improves people's lives is true why not prove that by funding a scientific study published in a peer review journal?

The most obvious answers to these two questions is that Landmark's programs don't work that well, as demonstrated by Werner Erhard's life subsequent to his epiphany that forms the bases for Landmark training, and the total lack of any meaningful objective scientific evidence to support such claims.

Why would anyone seriously interested in a meaningful discussion on this message board attempt to avoid addressing those two very basic questions?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/22/2023 08:02PM by rrmoderator.

rrmoderator -

I am genuinely perplexed as to why you think I would have insight into either of those questions. For real. The answer to your first question, would, in fact require rather intimate knowledge of Werner Erhard.

You have declared an interest in objective scientific rigor, so I'll offer that your assertions are what are known as spurious correlations. If you are not familiar, spurious correlations are statements that are (or may be) independently true but lack evidence of a causal relationship. In other words, they lack scientific rigor.

Feel free to read more about spurious correlations here.

To elaborate…

X is true (Werner Erhard developed this methodology) and Y is true (Werner Erhard has an apparently dysfunctional personal life), therefore Z is true (Landmark doesn't work).

Or...

X is true (there is no peer-reviewed study of the effectiveness of Landmarks' methodology) and Y is true (Werner Erhard has an apparently dysfunctional personal life), therefore Z is true (Landmark doesn't work.)

These are both spurious correlations. They might feel related, but they do not contain evidence of a causal relationship - nor have you provided it. To be able to provide causal evidence would require, in the first case, first-hand knowledge of Werner Erhard's decision making and, in the second case, conversations with high-level people at Landmark. Feelings, assumptions, and hunches are not evidence of causality. They would not pass peer review.

To indulge this further, imagine you are asking a similar question about anyone else. It is not possible to know the intricacies of a person's life from afar. It is not possible to know what’s really going on with someone who you do not know. Judgments are easy to make - I make them, myself! But people are complex and surprising. To make a reductive assumption about the supposed truth of what's going on with a person you've never met is folly. This is not a defense of Werner Erhard, this is something that any adult human learns through relationships with other people.

Beyond that, it is incredibly common for people who employ effective methodologies in their work lives to not follow them in their personal lives.

Does a doctor being fat mean they are bad at medicine, or that modern medicine doesn’t work? Does a marriage counselor being divorced mean they don't give good relationship advice? The world is filled with people who don't follow their own advice. The internet is chock full of articles about it. I am willing to assert that you, yourself, have given advice you do not follow. I know I have. Does that mean the advice itself is wrong?

Regardless, Werner Erhard's failure or success in utilizing his own methodology has nothing to do with whether or not Landmark's methodology works for me. It does. I would be happy to provide as many examples as you would like of ways it has been effective for me as well as a number of people I know.

I am not "avoiding" addressing your questions. The answers to your questions require a level of information to which I am not privy.

Again, I said in my post, I am happy to discuss my own experience.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 09/22/2023 10:54PM by SomewhereInMiddleAmerica.

SomewhereInMiddleAmerica:

Your apologies for Erhard and Landmark ring quite hollow.

The questions raised are not "spurious" and instead directly relevant to Landmark and its claims about the efficacy of its training and Erhard's inherent philosophy.

Here are some pertinent historical links concerning Werner Erhard's sordid history.

See [culteducation.com]

See also [culteducation.com]

And see [culteducation.com]

Also see [culteducation.com]

And see [culteducation.com]

You are not only totally avoiding responding to these two thought provoking questions, but additionally not even demonstrating the minimum of critical thinking about them.

All of the information necessary to consider these questions is immediately accessible and available online.

See [www.culteducation.com]

Also see [www.culteducation.com]

And see [www.culteducation.com]

Anyone seriously interested in historical facts about Erhard, the Forum and Landmark can see that this for-profit company and its founder has a sordid history of personal injury lawsuits, bad press and ongoing complaints.

Thankfully there are many safer and not so sordid alternatives to Landmark and its controversial training, which has been called "cult-like" and compared to "brainwashing."

People that have personal difficulties can see a licensed professional counselor and/or seek a support group that addresses their concerns facilitated by a licensed professional. Moreover there is continuing education offered by accredited institutions of learning (e.g. colleges and universities) to help people enhance and improve their lives.

What you offer readers here is only your subjective opinion about Landmark based upon your own personal experience, which is anecdotal evidence. You offer nothing objective and scientifically measured. And you cite no meaningful evidence to support your opinions.

Anyone reading this thread that is engaged in serious due diligence concerning Landmark must instead look for objective established facts about Landmark training, which sadly will lead serious researchers to a litany of negative published information about Landmark. That information demonstrates conclusively that paying for such training is risky and its benefits deeply in doubt and totally questionable.



Edited 11 time(s). Last edit at 09/23/2023 12:36AM by rrmoderator.

rrmoderator -

I have to say, I am confused by your noting that I have not provided evidence to support my opinions (which, by the definition of the word, are not empirical and therefore do not require evidence) while at the same time asking me to answer empirical questions for which I would not be able to provide evidence. It is inexplicable.

Nonetheless, I don't recall defending either Landmark or Werner Erhard. I was making a point about your having asserted a causal link between two independent statements without providing evidence for causality - and then asking me to disprove your unsubstantiated connection. Your assertion that this connection is backed up by evidence would suggest that you don't understand what it means to provide causal evidence. That is fair enough - causality is a fairly nuanced concept and not well-understood by the general public.

I don't know your educational or professional background, but the way you have been discussing evidence in this conversation suggests, and I mean no offense by this, that you lack formal training in evidence gathering.


For the sake of engagement, here's an example:

In the second link you posted, there are a few key things to highlight. First, "Erhard didn't practice what he preached. Second, "...Werner Erhard never embodied his own training." Third, from a former president of est, "Erhard never lived up to his potential."

Notice that none of these quotes say. None of them say, "Erhard implemented the methodology and it failed him." What they say is, rather, Erhard didn't implement the methodology. (The first one almost literally says exactly that.) He didn't do the work! That is curious, to be sure, given that he invented the work. It is not, however, evidence that the methodology is ineffective. (Nor is it evidence that it is effective! It is an altogether lack of evidence.)

Again, I have no interest in defending Werner Erhard. If what I wrote above comes off as a personal defense of him, please know it is not. It is an attempt to clarify the nature of causal evidence, as you assert the existence of causal evidence that you have not provided.

There is nothing I saw in the links you provided that questions the overall effectiveness of the methodology when it is implemented as designed. Rather, the articles question, among other things, the extent to which Erhard himself practiced his own methodology. (And if there is something that suggests the methodology itself is not effective, please feel free to cite it here. I am open to the idea that I missed something.)

Beyond that...you are correct that I have not offered anything objective or scientifically measured. Of course, I never said I would offer such a thing! It is an odd thing to be accused of not doing something I never said I would do.

What I did say I would do is discuss my own personal experience. I'm still happy to do that! You're welcome to ask me literally anything about my own experience, if you like.

However, if you are going to continue to ask me to prove or disprove statements that have absolutely nothing to do with my own experience, you are, as they say, going to have a bad time.

In 2005 Landmark sued Rick Ross and tried to obtain the names of those discussing LEC on this message board.

The suit was dismissed with prejudice.

Here's an earlier discussion on this message board of methods reportedly used in Landmark (LEC) to train graduates to ignore anything one says except "Yes"

[forum.culteducation.com]



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/23/2023 10:15PM by corboy.

SomewhereInMiddleAmerica:

You did not read the links. The archives about Landmark and its training would take many hours to cover. The Cult Education Institute archives about Landmark are in-depth and quite detailed. As you may know it's one of the largest archives about Landmark online.

But you have no genuine interest in facts or historical context, just your own "experience," which if taken at face value is at best subjective and at worst the self-obsessed testimonial of someone who doesn't really seem to care about anyone or anything other than himself regarding Landmark. That is, you are ultimately selfishly dismissing the pain and suffering of others hurt by Landmark.

Your are being deliberately evasive and ignoring the questions, which are relevant and on point concerning Landmark.

You have offered nothing to support your opinions other than anecdotal remarks.

Suffice to say that I have been judicially qualified as an expert on LGAT (large group awareness training) in a court of law.

Landmark Education is an LGAT.

You read like a troll or someone here to offer apologies and ignore the facts shared at this message board.

You are not responsive to the historical facts or interested in a genuine discussion about much of anything as proven by your posts here.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/23/2023 04:08AM by rrmoderator.

@SomewhereInMiddleAmerica

They say, "It's not for everybody," but when i decided it wasn't for me, (after giving it more than a fair chance), they hounded me with phone calls for months.

My recruiter's partner also informed me that she and my recruiter were "grooming" me to take over the job of a staff member who was leaving. They hadn't asked me if i wanted the job. I did NOT want it, and told them so. I had already told them that i was going to be leaving the program. Arguments ensued.

After i left, i got countless harassing phone calls, trying to get me into the ILP. In one of those calls, I was told, "Your ILP starts next week." I told the caller that i had not signed up, and that i did NOT want to take the ILP. She told me that i was already registered, and that it was paid for. So i told her to refund the money to whoever paid for it. The calls continued. I kept telling them to fuck off, and finally told them that if they called again. I'd file a complaint for harassment.

Then things got much worse, but i've already written many posts about that.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 09/28/2023 08:20AM by kdag.