I see that Louise Samways in Dangerous Persuaders names Hoffman as a dangerous lgat. Hoffman is in countries around the globe and ALL KINDS OF PROMINENT people endorse it. This amazes me.

Zorro, do you know where I can get a hard copy of the book?

You might try Amazon.com or a used booksite. Otherwise the best bet is to download it and print it out.

I have extensively researched the Institute and am astounded at what I've uncovered. It is not the therapeutic program that I thought it was and is based on no science and is very much a cult-like experience.

This was the best article I found on the institute. It specifically deals with how the Hoffman process developed and on Hoffman's background:
[jesuskoan.blogspot.com]

I won't go into much detail only to say that it really opened my eyes and debunked the entire process and all those associated with it.
Hoffman was a tailor from Oakland. He was not a therapist and had no background in psychology. Rather, he claimed to be a psychic and actually railed against psychology, therapists and others frequently and vehemently.

Hoffman died many years ago and now the torch has been passed to Ingrasci who is a very dubious character. He too has no formal education in psychology, nor any clinical training. His only degree is a BA in Theatre Arts! Ingrasci has a bio published on the Hoffman Inst web site, but it's so obviously lacking key information. For example, some basic research shows that President/CEO Charles Ingrasci was the former top aide to another "guru", Werner Erhard, who founded the est movement. This was another "self help", zen-based program that "enlightened" folks in hotel ballrooms. Where did Erhard get his training? He was basically self-taught. In the late 1960s, Erhard studied Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard became a significant influence. Scientologists to this day accuse Erhard of having stolen his main ideas for est from Hubbard. Why doesn't Charles Ingrasci's bio on the Hoffman Institute's web site mention this experience? I mean this was his formative experience? Because it is considered "cult-ish" and has been disregarded as psychobabble by many in the field of psychiatry and psychology, I believe this experience is not directly listed in his bio.

Additionally, I have received the "marketing materials" from the Hoffman Institute and have found them to be very deceptive and overpromise the benefits of their treatment. The Institute has an Advisory Council composed for several Ph.Ds and M.D.s however the courses and mostly taught by "teachers" who have no clinical experience or certification in therapy. Another interesting detail is that Sonia Choquette, one of their advisors, is listed as an "intuitive" on the Hoffman web site. When you research who this woman is, she is actually a psychic. She describes herself as a third-generation psychic. In my book, that's marketing speak for GYPSY. The Hoffman marketing materials all have quotes from Ph.D.s sprinkled throughout the pages. In my opinion, this is just their attempt to give credibility to a program that is not based on any science nor developed by someone who had any practical experience or formal education.

The Hoffman Institute's web site is very vague about the origins of the process. It says that "Hoffman was renowned for his intuitive capacities..."
This is a dressed-up way of saying he was a psychic, too. He used to offer psychic reading out of his tailor shop in Oakland.
[www.quadrinity.com]

It's also interesting to note that the process used to be known as the Fisher-Hoffman Psyhic Therapy. The name "Fisher" refers to Dr. Siefried Fisher, an Austrian-born psychiatrist. Hoffman was a patient of his, not a colleague. His name was removed from the Hoffman brand after the Fisher widow sued because she felt Hoffman was discrediting her husband's legacy through this association. That's very telling.

I would also like to point out that the Hoffman Institute points to published research from the UC Davis as to a benefit for the program. However, it's purely anecdotal. How could you apply scientific research to a program that is not based on science? How could you apply science to evaluate a program designed by someone who completely eschewed science in favor or "intuition"?

I attended one of these 8 day sessions in 2007. Found this forum when I was looking for a Hoffman site to find someone's email address, and felt compelled to wade into your old discussion about Hoffman and whether its a white collar cult. I worried about that when I decided to look into it. I come from a conservative American Episcopalian background and we are neither happy clappy open about our emotions, nor willing to join group discussion forums very often!! But I have to tell you that Obi Wan's experience was similar to mine. ( I actually don't believe that we are supposed to promote it to our neighbors, strangers, or as in Nervous Nellie's case, the wife of work colleagues! But some people do because they feel they have cleaned out so much of their personal attic that others should do so as well. ) The basic premise of the place is that we all have some form of personal problems. And alot of them are linked to the messages we took in during our early childhood. If we can forgive our parents, while understanding how we've adopted or rejected their negative traits, then we can see our adult selves in a clear light and live happier more balanced lives.

I don't know how you define a cult, but I've always thought of them as these nefarious groups trying to influence its members, brain wash them, and milk them of their money, family's money and contacts' money. see Scientology I guess as the best example of that in recent memory. Hoffman isn't like that at all. In fact they teach you, during these 8 days of "therapy" to focus on yourself and don't try to convince others to join. Obi Wan described it as 7 years of therapy in 8 days and that is exactly how I felt. I've done about 2.5 years of therapy with a couple of different types of therapists. These 8 days, with 20 other strangers, and several therapists, with different levels of training and psych backgrounds, helped me more than those therapists by far. It wouldn't have mattered if they weren't "trained" or "doctored" shrinks, in fact at least 2 of the 4 leaders of the groups were not at all from that background. But they understood people and were excellent at teaching us a method of addressing these negativities in our lives.

Its not for everyone. Some people decide to leave because it can be pretty intense. There are all kinds in the sessions from bankers to cabbies. Men and Women. Healthy food, and healthy discussions and workshops. There is no follow up if you don't want it. There are no commitments. There is only you, choosing to take time out of your life to examine it and talk about how it was formed. Thats why I cannot believe that anyone claims anything about its "effectiveness". Its all so personal that you take from it what you want. I have seen classmates of mine from Hoffman completely change their lives and others who have gone right back into their old habits. It just depends on the person and how completely they wanted to address their personal issues.

Its definitely not a cult......even if this kook from the 70's is on its board.
I hope this helps.

The issue is not whether or not the groups fits the profile of a "cult," but whether it is potentially unsafe.

It appears that this program may be similar to mass marathon training, such as Lifespring or Landmark Education.

See [www.culteducation.com]

This is a research study done by a clinical psychologist about such training. He points out 13 liabilities to watch out for within such programs.

13 liabilities of encounter groups, some of which are similar to characteristics of most current mass marathon psychotherapy training sessions:

1. They lack adequate participant-selection criteria.

2. They lack reliable norms, supervision, and adequate training for leaders.

3. They lack clearly defined responsibility.

4. They sometimes foster pseudoauthenticity and pseudoreality.

5. They sometimes foster inappropriate patterns of relationships.

6. They sometimes ignore the necessity and utility of ego defenses.

7. They sometimes teach the covert value of total exposure instead of valuing personal differences.

8. They sometimes foster impulsive personality styles and behavioral strategies.

9. They sometimes devalue critical thinking in favor of "experiencing" without self-analysis or reflection.

10. They sometimes ignore stated goals, misrepresent their actual techniques, and obfuscate their real agenda.

11. 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.

12. They pay inadequate attention to decisions regarding time limitations. This may lead to increased pressure on some participants to unconsciously "fabricate" a cure.

13. They fail to adequately consider the "psychonoxious" or deleterious effects of group participation (or] adverse countertransference reactions.

He also points out four dager signs.

The groups were determined to be dangerous when:

1. Leaders had rigid, unbending beliefs about what participants should experience and believe, how they should behave in the group. and when they should change.

2. 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.

3. Leaders had an evangelical system of belief that was the one single pathway to salvation.

4. 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."

Various mass marathon training programs have also allegedly used coercive persuasion techniques.

See [www.culteducation.com]

The key factors that distinguish coercive persuasion from other training and socialization schemes are:

1. The reliance on intense interpersonal and psychological attack to destabilize an individual's sense of self to promote compliance

2. The use of an organized peer group

3. Applying interpersonal pressure to promote conformity

4. The manipulation of the totality of the person's social environment to stabilize behavior once modified

Coercive persuasion differs from other means of persuasion such as education, advertising, propaganda and indoctrination in distinct ways.

See [www.culteducation.com]

Such distinctions are outlined in the above linked chart by clinical psychologist and researcher Margaret Singer.

OK, RRmoderator, will try to address, if I can:

The issue is not whether or not the groups fits the profile of a "cult," but whether it is potentially unsafe.
1. They lack adequate participant-selection criteria.
Not sure whether this applies. They definitely try to screen the participants to keep seriously disturbed people from being subjected to the process. One has to make a choice to join, isolate for roughly a week, and dig in to their own problems. This isn't for everybody and they try to be careful about the participants. I think.
2. They lack reliable norms, supervision, and adequate training for leaders.
I think they take this seriously and all the leaders in our group were on the same page and had roughly the same approach to the process. But as I wasn't involved in the background of the program, I cannot say whether this is a valid criticism or not.
3. They lack clearly defined responsibility.
Not sure if you are talking about the group here or the teachers. But I guess you could say this applies since alot of this is left up to the students or participants to sort out on their own after the course.
4. They sometimes foster pseudoauthenticity and pseudoreality.
Not their game at all.
5. They sometimes foster inappropriate patterns of relationships.
Could happen, but they discourage and will kick people out if it happens during the course.
6. They sometimes ignore the necessity and utility of ego defenses.
Not bullies like this. But it could be a valid critique for some.
7. They sometimes teach the covert value of total exposure instead of valuing personal differences.
Not their game at all.
8. They sometimes foster impulsive personality styles and behavioral strategies.
Yes. True. As part of the process.
9. They sometimes devalue critical thinking in favor of "experiencing" without self-analysis or reflection.
Yes. True. As part of the process.
10. They sometimes ignore stated goals, misrepresent their actual techniques, and obfuscate their real agenda.
Yes. True. As part of the process, which is all revealed at the end of each exercise. And the sum of the exercises, at the end of the week. So not a nefarious agenda, simply one that is being taught in that style.
11. 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.
Yes. True. And their goal is to make you focus on yourself, not the group, nor others' problems. So true of Hoffman.
12. They pay inadequate attention to decisions regarding time limitations. This may lead to increased pressure on some participants to unconsciously "fabricate" a cure.
Yes. True. Could be for some participants a problem.
13. They fail to adequately consider the "psychonoxious" or deleterious effects of group participation (or] adverse countertransference reactions.
They did not fail in this area. In fact, caught several of us doing so and used the experience to teach us about transference and its place in our lives.
The groups were determined to be dangerous when:
1. Leaders had rigid, unbending beliefs about what participants should experience and believe, how they should behave in the group. and when they should change.
Our leaders did not. Not sure about the muckety mucks who created the process and run it from California.
2. 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.
Yes. Could be seen as a valid criticism of some of the leaders. But most of them did have a sense of "differential diagnosis and assessment skills" and we spent time individually each day discussing progress or lack therof. Individually as well as in a group. So I don't really buy that as a generic critique of Hoffman.
3. Leaders had an evangelical system of belief that was the one single pathway to salvation.
Not true of our leaders. Could be of Raz and the gang.
4. 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."
Not their game at all.
The key factors that distinguish coercive persuasion from other training and socialization schemes are:
1. The reliance on intense interpersonal and psychological attack to destabilize an individual's sense of self to promote compliance
Not their game at all.
2. The use of an organized peer group
Only during the week of group therapy. Therafter, left to your own. So I don't think this applies.
3. Applying interpersonal pressure to promote conformity
Not their game at all.
4. The manipulation of the totality of the person's social environment to stabilize behavior once modified
Not their game at all.



Anyhow, thanks for the list. Its interesting to think about how those critiques apply and don't apply to Hoffman. In general, I think its an interesting program that has had a positive impact on my life. As I wrote earlier, others I know who have done the program have used it in different ways to address their lives and personal problems. Still others have it in the back of their mind and haven't decided whether it meant anything to them at all. Different strokes for different folks! Thanks again, Jack

The problem with such groups is often accountability.

Unless the leaders are trained and licensed mental health professionals they don't have meaningful accountability regarding their education, training and practices to a licensing body or board.

Unless they are trained and licensed as mental health professionals they speficially don't have the proper training and education to recognize the 13 liabilities completely from a professional and psychological perspective.

Bottom line--people are safer going through counseling, group therapy or educational programs supervised and led by licensed professionals accountable to licensing boards and bodies, such as clinical psychologists, pscychiatrists, marriage and family therapists etc. There are also accredited programs for continuing education regarding various subjects of interest provided by community colleges and universities.

A support group and/or group therapy focused on a particular concern or issue is also often available through community social service agencies led and/or facilitated by a properly trained and licensed professional.

These are the safer alternatives offered within most communities that people often forget about before becoming involved in unlicensed and essentially not accountable mass marathon training or large group awareness training (LGAT) groups and companies.

You know I really respect this little site and you guys have thought about all the negative consequences of group therapy or group activities alot more than I ever have. And so I take everything you and RRmoderator have to say very seriously. But....I really don't think they are in the business of trances or forcing enlightenment on anybody.

Were the Hoffman participants, during the course of the week, hammered into shape, into the same molded shape?
During our week together, we had a rigid schedule filled with activities and exercises and individual writing and reflection sessions and time alone with our group leaders now and then. There was no attempt to hammer us into a single form, in fact quite the opposite. Each person was there for their own reasons and were allowed to be as open or closed with the group about their reasons as they saw fit. If someone wanted special individual attention, it was there for them. If someone just wanted to coast along with the group, that was possible too. So I don't think this part of the LGAT stereotype fits very well.

Did you all have the same new lingo and subscribe to the same viewpoints, a la Hoffman? Did you all follow the same script, that you had to adhere to, in order to "complete" the course in self-improvement? Was there not conformity of thought by the end? And didn't you all feel bonded by it? You could have exchanged your unique language and beliefs with each other in such a way as to exclude outsiders, I bet.

There was certainly some lingo. There was some recognition of the Hoffman viewpoints. But again, I don't think there was a single script and completion was pretty subjective. There were lessons/exercises/and work that we had to do.....to stay engaged with the group, but there wasn't a particular judgement of success/completion nor conformity, because what they were trying to help us with is always so individual. There was a natural bond, as you wrote, from spending time together and opening up about our personal issues, but there isn't some kind of exclusion of outsiders at all.

The only thing being crammed down our throat was an awareness of how a person's positive and negative personal traits can be built on a lifetime of copying or rejecting our parents' positive and negative personal traits. There were ways suggested and tools suggested that we could use to address those traits. But these aren't secrets and these aren't exclusive and I really feel it is more of a non-coercive group therapy session, than a white collar cult as you guys describe them.

Anyhow, again, thanks for the thought provoking questions. Best, Jack