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.
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).
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.