Often LEC words are just slightly twisted to favour the aims of the organisation.

COMMIT = (1) Be on time; (2) Bring a friend or two; (3) Submit fully to your relationship with Landmark, no questions asked; and (4) Keep doing courses.

Because Landmark doesn't have an official book outlining their lexicon, like a dictionary or a printed glossary, those in power are free to alter the meanings of these words.

Jack,
I think I'm getting what you mean about twisting a word or it's usage in favor of the aimed result. Please tell me if you agree with this situation and the use of the words here:

Last month, the boss proposed a project that would take place over the month. The staff agreed to do so. A couple days ago, we recieved a message reminding us that we had "commited" to do this. Of course, it was never so formal, no one stepped up and promised to do so, it was just decided together.

Does anyone think I am incorrect in my interpretation of her wordage? (is wordage a word?) I don't want to go overboard in my assumptions, but have decided I should keep my eyes/ears open to potential situations. Thanks so much for any opinions.

Quote
Concerned Employee
Jack,
I think I'm getting what you mean about twisting a word or it's usage in favor of the aimed result. Please tell me if you agree with this situation and the use of the words here:

Last month, the boss proposed a project that would take place over the month. The staff agreed to do so. A couple days ago, we recieved a message reminding us that we had "commited" to do this. Of course, it was never so formal, no one stepped up and promised to do so, it was just decided together.

Does anyone think I am incorrect in my interpretation of her wordage? (is wordage a word?) I don't want to go overboard in my assumptions, but have decided I should keep my eyes/ears open to potential situations. Thanks so much for any opinions.

She's using Landmark's so-called "technology" to attempt to control and manipulate you. That IS what it's all about, after all -- getting other people to do what YOU want them to do. But because Landmark teaches deception, under-handed emotional extortion, and covert influence, it's not ethical. It's slimey. It's a reflection of the mind of the jerk who concocted it, Werner Erhard, who was a used-car and door-to-door encyclopedia salesman who fashioned his sales tricks and tactics into an "awareness training" that made him lots and lots of money.

It's sad when you think about it -- these scammers don't give a fig about anything resembling "committment" but they sucker in those who do with their counterfeit cult-version.


Ellen

Ellen, thank you for confirming my suspicion. It's a big help to know that I'm not imagining this change in her, and hopefully I'm starting to arm myself against the manipulation techniques. Thanks, again.

Quote
Concerned Employee
Last month, the boss proposed a project that would take place over the month. The staff agreed to do so. A couple days ago, we recieved a message reminding us that we had "commited" to do this. Of course, it was never so formal, no one stepped up and promised to do so, it was just decided together.

It seems innocent enough to me in the context of this agreement that she's not trying to brainwash you. If she is employing Landmark words and principals in her interaction with her staff it certainly needs to be addressed. I mean, a word like commitment means just that - sticking to the agreement until such time as a new agreement is made. It's only fair. Now, if she's being a typical Landmark bully then she has to be made accountable - sometimes just making her aware that she's acting aggressively is enough. There's no need for her to remind the staff of their obligations unless she feels there is a need. If it's getting out of hand, go higher. Don't get into the backstabbing groups too much. It doesn't solve anything in the long term.

Be careful in dealing with your boss. She is driving with landmarkian goggles covering her eyes, nothing appears to her as it does to you, and the notion of being fair or courteous will not apply...don't expect to be treated professionally in the earthly sense of 'professional'
....and remember that snakes leave true landmarkians alone out of professional courtesy...Is your boss a true landmarkian?

A few good vocab giveaway examples are using words like "assist" to replace "help" and "working or not-working" as opposed to "right or wrong". Also, emphasis and fequent vocalizations about honesty, integrity and LOVE especially. I seem to have LGAT-radar when it comes to this language conditioning thing, and it has led me to find LGAT grads where I would have least expected them. Its actually fun to play my own version of "spot the looney". Another good clue can be the refusal to speak in the third person, this does not allow one to "own ones power", so to for a trainee to "own ones self" and not disrespect onself and others by speaking for them, all descriptive conversation is conducted in the first person. Also, consistant/excessive body language like uninterrupted eye-contact and not crossing ones legs or folding ones arms (open body position so you don't appear closed to people etc) are good signs. Mental conditionioning is crazy, but as they say, you can't change what someone thinks or feels, but if you can change their behavior, you can access and manipulate those things.

Another telltale sign of Landmark lingo at play is the word "authentic." They are very concerned with "being authentic" (the irony, of course, being that the Landmark ideology is anything [i:67d73d5300]but[/i:67d73d5300] authentic).

Thank you all for the "words" and the advice. I've been seeing this questionable behavior in the past couple months, which I'm wondering if it's normal for some one who's been involved in LM for a couple years? It's clear she's becoming more and more involved. Anyway, I'm thinking I'm going to make myself a list of the phrases and words to keep in mind. I don't know what help it will be, except to keep me aware of potential pitfalls.

Quote
Jack Oskar Larm

Quote
Concerned Employee
Last month, the boss proposed a project that would take place over the month. The staff agreed to do so. A couple days ago, we recieved a message reminding us that we had "commited" to do this. Of course, it was never so formal, no one stepped up and promised to do so, it was just decided together.

It seems innocent enough to me in the context of this agreement that she's not trying to brainwash you. If she is employing Landmark words and principals in her interaction with her staff it certainly needs to be addressed. I mean, a word like commitment means just that - sticking to the agreement until such time as a new agreement is made. It's only fair. Now, if she's being a typical Landmark bully then she has to be made accountable - sometimes just making her aware that she's acting aggressively is enough. There's no need for her to remind the staff of their obligations unless she feels there is a need. If it's getting out of hand, go higher. Don't get into the backstabbing groups too much. It doesn't solve anything in the long term.

Jack, I think the word "commit" through up a flag for me because I never heard her speak that way before. I don't want to leap to conclusions, that won't help anything, but I don't want to be naive, either. Sometimes it seems like I'm walking a very fine line these days with her. I also think she may be frustrated at this point because every recent attempt to get staff to attend an introductory meeting has failed. I have to leave for work soon, so I can't get into my conversation with her about it earlier this month. Later, I will give a description. I'd like to get everyone's take on it, and my response.