Big question....
Posted by:
Guy
()
Date: January 28, 2004 02:23AM
Rookie is right on about motivating factors. LEC uses that knowledge of human motivation to garner revenue
The center staff of LEC is incredibly low paid. The work on salary and average somewhere around 70 hours per week.
We get so hooked on the mind virus that we forego reason.
Money was not the impelling influence for me to go to work for LEC and become an employee. I was making way more money than they would pay. I thought it was about making a difference in the world.:rolleyes: Silly me. Once I got there though: It's numbers, numbers, numbers, etc... :D
Numbers=revenue.
We're led to believe that numbers=making a difference.
The only difference being made is what Werner is having for dinner on his yacht.
This is where the false nature of the monster rears it's ugly head. Money is the motivation for the company. Everything else is just more advertizing to generate more recruits and revenue.
The game is to get recruits to bring in revenue while they think they're saving the world(their family, friends, environment,etc...).
Glen,
After you read "Influence" and those other books mentioned you will get a clear picture of the dynamics involved.
As to your other question, I became aware I was in a cult. GC4062 may concur with his his own experience. It is not the cult of a Branch Davidian nature.
There is no written dogma to follow. It is all spoken.
We did not hole up in a compound fighting off the ATF. We did spend enormous amounts of time at the centers fighting off "resignation and cynicism"
:rolleyes:.
That was one of the "battle-cries".
"Standing for a world...blah, blah, blah..." was another rallying call to arms.
Dissent is excoriated. Critical thinking is reduced to "cynicism" and expelled.
This is a new form of cult using the methodolgy of cult procedures, while seeking to avoid the segregating nature of religion.
Having the variety of differing church members participating and voicing support is supposed to give the perception that LEC is exempt from cultic properties. All it really shows is that we were craftier in our methods in garnering revenues. "You can be one of them and still be one of us." Matter of fact LEC wants you to go back to your church and bring in your pastor and the flock. Just think what kind of $$$ they'll bring in for the coffers.:D:D:D
LEC attempts to master the perception of itself. Inside of it's own philosophy is that you can mold other peoples perception of you to your benefit. All you have to do is read any of their propaganda with some critical thinking applied to see their attempt to position themselves as a credible venue.
If you can get people to think that you are credible, you've won the battle for their minds.
There is no credibility to their company.
Training is a joke.
The only credentials you need to become a Forum Leader is producing numbers=recruits=revenue.
The only one I know that is properly credentialed is Art Schreiber because he had to take a bar exam to practice law. They couldn't fake that....I think...
The center staff of LEC is incredibly low paid. The work on salary and average somewhere around 70 hours per week.
We get so hooked on the mind virus that we forego reason.
Money was not the impelling influence for me to go to work for LEC and become an employee. I was making way more money than they would pay. I thought it was about making a difference in the world.:rolleyes: Silly me. Once I got there though: It's numbers, numbers, numbers, etc... :D
Numbers=revenue.
We're led to believe that numbers=making a difference.
The only difference being made is what Werner is having for dinner on his yacht.
This is where the false nature of the monster rears it's ugly head. Money is the motivation for the company. Everything else is just more advertizing to generate more recruits and revenue.
The game is to get recruits to bring in revenue while they think they're saving the world(their family, friends, environment,etc...).
Glen,
After you read "Influence" and those other books mentioned you will get a clear picture of the dynamics involved.
As to your other question, I became aware I was in a cult. GC4062 may concur with his his own experience. It is not the cult of a Branch Davidian nature.
There is no written dogma to follow. It is all spoken.
We did not hole up in a compound fighting off the ATF. We did spend enormous amounts of time at the centers fighting off "resignation and cynicism"
:rolleyes:.
That was one of the "battle-cries".
"Standing for a world...blah, blah, blah..." was another rallying call to arms.
Dissent is excoriated. Critical thinking is reduced to "cynicism" and expelled.
This is a new form of cult using the methodolgy of cult procedures, while seeking to avoid the segregating nature of religion.
Having the variety of differing church members participating and voicing support is supposed to give the perception that LEC is exempt from cultic properties. All it really shows is that we were craftier in our methods in garnering revenues. "You can be one of them and still be one of us." Matter of fact LEC wants you to go back to your church and bring in your pastor and the flock. Just think what kind of $$$ they'll bring in for the coffers.:D:D:D
LEC attempts to master the perception of itself. Inside of it's own philosophy is that you can mold other peoples perception of you to your benefit. All you have to do is read any of their propaganda with some critical thinking applied to see their attempt to position themselves as a credible venue.
If you can get people to think that you are credible, you've won the battle for their minds.
There is no credibility to their company.
Training is a joke.
The only credentials you need to become a Forum Leader is producing numbers=recruits=revenue.
The only one I know that is properly credentialed is Art Schreiber because he had to take a bar exam to practice law. They couldn't fake that....I think...
Big question....
Posted by:
Rookie
()
Date: January 28, 2004 11:50AM
GC--
I think you are confused between cynicism and skepticism. There is a distinction.
Cynicism is more of an attitude. Skepticism can be very healthy.
Being skeptical about Landmark is good. Cynicism doesn't accomplish much.
I think you are confused between cynicism and skepticism. There is a distinction.
Cynicism is more of an attitude. Skepticism can be very healthy.
Being skeptical about Landmark is good. Cynicism doesn't accomplish much.
Big question....
Posted by:
Guy
()
Date: January 29, 2004 03:36AM
Rookie,
That's an interesting opinion. Let's distinguish the particles of that opinion.
Cynicism= (attitude>=not attitude)
Skepticism = (=or (not=) health)
Therefore,
Skeptical times Landmark = good.
Cynicism times anything = (nil +or- small amount of X).
I think you're confused about logic.
I get confused about it too.
I'm not an expert on the subject of logic, but every time I read your post I'm trying to figure out what you are attempting to communicate. Your statements and conclusions do not match and your use of language is misleading.:confused::confused:
I'm trying to ascertain why you would attempt to correct GC4062 on his understanding and usage of the term cynicism. His use is completely accurate in normal english. In Landmarkese, it would be a faux pas.
Do you speak Landmarkese?
Here are a collection of logical fallacies that I find useful to understand.
Go and check out the site I've provided below; I think you'll enjoy the distinctions.:)
[b:2534e5affe]Prejudicial Language[/b:2534e5affe]
Definition:
Loaded or emotive terms are used to attach value or moral goodness to believing the proposition.
Examples:
(i) Right thinking Canadians will agree with me that we should have another free vote on capital punishment.
(ii) A reasonable person would agree that our income statement is too low.
(iii) Senator Turner claims that the new tax rate will reduce the deficit. (Here, the use of "claims" implies that what Turner says is false.)
(iv) The proposal is likely to be resisted by the bureaucrats on Parliament Hill. (Compare this to: The proposal is likely to be rejected by officials on Parliament Hill.)
Proof:
Identify the prejudicial terms used (eg. "Right thinking Canadians" or "A reasonable person"). Show that disagreeing with the conclusion does not make a person "wrong thinking" or "unreasonable".
[b:2534e5affe]False Analogy[/b:2534e5affe]
Definition:
In an analogy, two objects (or events), A and B are shown to be similar. Then it is argued that since A has property P, so also B must have property P. An analogy fails when the two objects, A and B, are different in a way which affects whether they both have property P.
Examples:
(i) Employees are like nails. Just as nails must be hit in the head in order to make them work, so must employees.
(ii) Government is like business, so just as business must be sensitive primarily to the bottom line, so also must government. (But the objectives of government and business are completely different, so probably they will have to meet different criteria.)
Proof:
Identify the two objects or events being compared and the property which both are said to possess. Show that the two objects are different in a way which will affect whether they both have that property.
[b:2534e5affe]Begging the Question[/b:2534e5affe]
( petitio principii )
Definition:
The truth of the conclusion is assumed by the premises.
Often, the conclusion is simply restated in the premises in a slightly different form. In more difficult cases, the premise is a consequence of the conclusion.
Examples:
(i) Since I'm not lying, it follows that I'm telling the truth.
(ii) We know that God exists, since the Bible says God exists.
What the Bible says must be true, since God wrote it and God never lies. (Here, we must agree that God exists in order to believe that God wrote the Bible.)
Proof:
Show that in order to believe that the premises are true we must already agree that the conclusion is true.
[b:2534e5affe]Affirming the Consequent[/b:2534e5affe]
Definition:
Any argument of the following form is invalid:
If A then B
B Therefore, A
Examples:
(i) If I am in Calgary, then I am in Alberta. I am in Alberta, thus, I am in Calgary. (Of course, even though the premises are true, I might be in Edmonton, Alberta.)
(ii) If the mill were polluting the river then we would see an increase in fish deaths. And fish deaths have increased. Thus, the mill is polluting the river.
Proof:
Show that even though the premises are true, the conclusion could be false. In general, show that B might be a consequence of something other than A. For example, the fish deaths might be caused by pesticide run-off, and not the mill.
[b:2534e5affe]Denying the Antecedent[/b:2534e5affe]
Definition:
Any argument of the following form is invalid:
If A then B
Not A
Therefore, Not B
Examples:
(i) If you get hit by a car when you are six then you will die young. But you were not hit by a car when you were six. Thus you will not die young. (Of course, you could be hit by a train at age seven, in which case you still die young.)
(ii) If I am in Calgary then I am in Alberta. I am not in Calgary, thus, I am not in Alberta.
Proof:
Show that even though the premises are true, the conclusion may be false. In particular, show that the consequence B may occur even though A does not occur.
[b:2534e5affe]Existential Fallacy[/b:2534e5affe]
Definition:
A standard form categorical syllogism with two universalpremises has a particular conclusion.
The idea is thatsome universal properties need not be instantiated. Itmay be true that 'all trespassers will be shot' even if there are no trespassers. It may be true that 'all brakeless trains are dangerous' even though there are no brakelesstrains. That is the point of this fallacy.
Examples:
(i) All mice are animals, and all animals are dangerous, so some mice are dangerous.
(ii) No honest people steal, and all honest people pay taxes, so some honest people pay taxes.
Proof:
Assume that the premises are true, but that there are no instances of the category described. For example, in (i) above, assume there are no mice, and in (ii) above, assume there are no honest people. This shows that the conclusion is false.
These are alll found at this site: [www.datanation.com]
:D
Guy
That's an interesting opinion. Let's distinguish the particles of that opinion.
Cynicism= (attitude>=not attitude)
Skepticism = (=or (not=) health)
Therefore,
Skeptical times Landmark = good.
Cynicism times anything = (nil +or- small amount of X).
I think you're confused about logic.
I get confused about it too.
I'm not an expert on the subject of logic, but every time I read your post I'm trying to figure out what you are attempting to communicate. Your statements and conclusions do not match and your use of language is misleading.:confused::confused:
I'm trying to ascertain why you would attempt to correct GC4062 on his understanding and usage of the term cynicism. His use is completely accurate in normal english. In Landmarkese, it would be a faux pas.
Do you speak Landmarkese?
Here are a collection of logical fallacies that I find useful to understand.
Go and check out the site I've provided below; I think you'll enjoy the distinctions.:)
[b:2534e5affe]Prejudicial Language[/b:2534e5affe]
Definition:
Loaded or emotive terms are used to attach value or moral goodness to believing the proposition.
Examples:
(i) Right thinking Canadians will agree with me that we should have another free vote on capital punishment.
(ii) A reasonable person would agree that our income statement is too low.
(iii) Senator Turner claims that the new tax rate will reduce the deficit. (Here, the use of "claims" implies that what Turner says is false.)
(iv) The proposal is likely to be resisted by the bureaucrats on Parliament Hill. (Compare this to: The proposal is likely to be rejected by officials on Parliament Hill.)
Proof:
Identify the prejudicial terms used (eg. "Right thinking Canadians" or "A reasonable person"). Show that disagreeing with the conclusion does not make a person "wrong thinking" or "unreasonable".
[b:2534e5affe]False Analogy[/b:2534e5affe]
Definition:
In an analogy, two objects (or events), A and B are shown to be similar. Then it is argued that since A has property P, so also B must have property P. An analogy fails when the two objects, A and B, are different in a way which affects whether they both have property P.
Examples:
(i) Employees are like nails. Just as nails must be hit in the head in order to make them work, so must employees.
(ii) Government is like business, so just as business must be sensitive primarily to the bottom line, so also must government. (But the objectives of government and business are completely different, so probably they will have to meet different criteria.)
Proof:
Identify the two objects or events being compared and the property which both are said to possess. Show that the two objects are different in a way which will affect whether they both have that property.
[b:2534e5affe]Begging the Question[/b:2534e5affe]
( petitio principii )
Definition:
The truth of the conclusion is assumed by the premises.
Often, the conclusion is simply restated in the premises in a slightly different form. In more difficult cases, the premise is a consequence of the conclusion.
Examples:
(i) Since I'm not lying, it follows that I'm telling the truth.
(ii) We know that God exists, since the Bible says God exists.
What the Bible says must be true, since God wrote it and God never lies. (Here, we must agree that God exists in order to believe that God wrote the Bible.)
Proof:
Show that in order to believe that the premises are true we must already agree that the conclusion is true.
[b:2534e5affe]Affirming the Consequent[/b:2534e5affe]
Definition:
Any argument of the following form is invalid:
If A then B
B Therefore, A
Examples:
(i) If I am in Calgary, then I am in Alberta. I am in Alberta, thus, I am in Calgary. (Of course, even though the premises are true, I might be in Edmonton, Alberta.)
(ii) If the mill were polluting the river then we would see an increase in fish deaths. And fish deaths have increased. Thus, the mill is polluting the river.
Proof:
Show that even though the premises are true, the conclusion could be false. In general, show that B might be a consequence of something other than A. For example, the fish deaths might be caused by pesticide run-off, and not the mill.
[b:2534e5affe]Denying the Antecedent[/b:2534e5affe]
Definition:
Any argument of the following form is invalid:
If A then B
Not A
Therefore, Not B
Examples:
(i) If you get hit by a car when you are six then you will die young. But you were not hit by a car when you were six. Thus you will not die young. (Of course, you could be hit by a train at age seven, in which case you still die young.)
(ii) If I am in Calgary then I am in Alberta. I am not in Calgary, thus, I am not in Alberta.
Proof:
Show that even though the premises are true, the conclusion may be false. In particular, show that the consequence B may occur even though A does not occur.
[b:2534e5affe]Existential Fallacy[/b:2534e5affe]
Definition:
A standard form categorical syllogism with two universalpremises has a particular conclusion.
The idea is thatsome universal properties need not be instantiated. Itmay be true that 'all trespassers will be shot' even if there are no trespassers. It may be true that 'all brakeless trains are dangerous' even though there are no brakelesstrains. That is the point of this fallacy.
Examples:
(i) All mice are animals, and all animals are dangerous, so some mice are dangerous.
(ii) No honest people steal, and all honest people pay taxes, so some honest people pay taxes.
Proof:
Assume that the premises are true, but that there are no instances of the category described. For example, in (i) above, assume there are no mice, and in (ii) above, assume there are no honest people. This shows that the conclusion is false.
These are alll found at this site: [www.datanation.com]
:D
Guy
Quote
Rookie
GC--
I think you are confused between cynicism and skepticism. There is a distinction.
Cynicism is more of an attitude. Skepticism can be very healthy.
Being skeptical about Landmark is good. Cynicism doesn't accomplish much.
Big question....
Posted by:
Glen
()
Date: January 30, 2004 03:35PM
Just want to thank you all for your help here, certainly learnt a thing or two... now just wish those books would arrive! Also ordered "L. Ron Hubbard: Messiah or Madman?" - looking forward to that one!
Big question....
Posted by:
Guy
()
Date: January 31, 2004 12:38AM
Glen,
You're welcome.
I look forward to more of your investigations. There is a lot of material available for you to get a clear picture.
"Messiah or Madman" ....it's not a comic book, is it????
:D kidding :D
He should be a character in a Batman movie.
;)
Guy
You're welcome.
I look forward to more of your investigations. There is a lot of material available for you to get a clear picture.
"Messiah or Madman" ....it's not a comic book, is it????
:D kidding :D
He should be a character in a Batman movie.
;)
Guy
Big question....
Posted by:
Rookie
()
Date: January 31, 2004 08:21AM
[b:ca1f1bd928]I am confused[/b:ca1f1bd928]
Guy writes:
There is no written dogma to follow. It is all spoken.
and then later writes:
All you have to do is read any of their propaganda with some critical thinking applied to see their attempt to position themselves as a credible venue.
Which is it Guy? Is it all spoken or is there written propaganda?
Thanks!
Guy writes:
There is no written dogma to follow. It is all spoken.
and then later writes:
All you have to do is read any of their propaganda with some critical thinking applied to see their attempt to position themselves as a credible venue.
Which is it Guy? Is it all spoken or is there written propaganda?
Thanks!
Big question....
Posted by:
Guy
()
Date: January 31, 2004 11:57AM
Rookie,
Let's just cut to the chase.
You shown up here without any reason as far as I can tell but to undermine credibility.
You've never talked about your experiences or why you're here.
Your inability to distinguish the meanings of words and their usage, i.e. dogma does not equal propaganda, shows that either you have no interest in making sense other than spin value or are too young to understand the english language.
This places you firmly in the position of bulletin board troll.
If you are not a BB Troll, I'm interested in why you are here in this board.
If you have something to contribute or you would like to share your experinces with being involved in a LGAT, please do so and be welcome. :D
If you want to play preadolescent word-games to show how clever you are, go back to the bulletin boards.:o
Before you deign to play Grand Inquisitor and look for inconsistencies among us or our posts, know that your posts illustrate you publicly beyond the confines of your computer room.:rolleyes:
If I'm wrong, mea culpa.
I'd like to be wrong about you.:D
Guy
Let's just cut to the chase.
You shown up here without any reason as far as I can tell but to undermine credibility.
You've never talked about your experiences or why you're here.
Your inability to distinguish the meanings of words and their usage, i.e. dogma does not equal propaganda, shows that either you have no interest in making sense other than spin value or are too young to understand the english language.
This places you firmly in the position of bulletin board troll.
If you are not a BB Troll, I'm interested in why you are here in this board.
If you have something to contribute or you would like to share your experinces with being involved in a LGAT, please do so and be welcome. :D
If you want to play preadolescent word-games to show how clever you are, go back to the bulletin boards.:o
Before you deign to play Grand Inquisitor and look for inconsistencies among us or our posts, know that your posts illustrate you publicly beyond the confines of your computer room.:rolleyes:
If I'm wrong, mea culpa.
I'd like to be wrong about you.:D
Guy
Quote
Rookie
[b:e085cb5ac1]I am confused[/b:e085cb5ac1]
Guy writes:
There is no written dogma to follow. It is all spoken.
and then later writes:
All you have to do is read any of their propaganda with some critical thinking applied to see their attempt to position themselves as a credible venue.
Which is it Guy? Is it all spoken or is there written propaganda?
Thanks!
Big question....
Posted by:
Rookie
()
Date: February 01, 2004 07:30AM
Do you know anything about Scientology, Guy? Part of Landmark is based on it.
"Attack, never defend" is one of their mottos. You are doing a good job of employing it but calling me a troll whatever the hell that means, but I assume it is a demeaning label. Just because I don't fit into your neat, tight world of what I should be posting, you attack. Why do I have to share any experience with you?
All I wanted to do was read written stuff by Landmark since I have never seen it. Don't start freaking out that I am undermining your credibility.
By the way, is this is your news board? Don't go around commanding people how to post or not to post.
Regards
"Attack, never defend" is one of their mottos. You are doing a good job of employing it but calling me a troll whatever the hell that means, but I assume it is a demeaning label. Just because I don't fit into your neat, tight world of what I should be posting, you attack. Why do I have to share any experience with you?
All I wanted to do was read written stuff by Landmark since I have never seen it. Don't start freaking out that I am undermining your credibility.
By the way, is this is your news board? Don't go around commanding people how to post or not to post.
Regards
Big question....
Posted by:
Glen
()
Date: February 01, 2004 09:28AM
Cosmo I've read your posts on the AR forum - could you perhaps discuss the mind control techniques AR uses in more detail, or point me to a post where you've written about it already (if you have) please?Quote
Cosmophilospher
I got tricked by Tony Robbins, and that whole scene, so we can all get duped.
Big question....
Posted by:
Cosmophilospher
()
Date: February 01, 2004 04:36PM
I wouldn't say Robbins is doing classical "mind control", unless of course i wanted to create a fuss!
BUT, he uses very very very powerful techniques of "Unconscious Influence". He uses Eriksonian Hypnosis, and literally EVERY other technique that is available.
The question is, what DOESN'T Robbins do?
EVERYTHING Robbins does is to manipulate. To him, manipulation is a Virtue. It is "Influence", and his specialty is Unconscious Influence.
Believe me, Robbins is capable of Mass Persuasion at an amazing level.
I am certain he operates as a consultant to those in power in need of those services.
Robbins can literally "take over" the mind of certain suggestible persons, all the while telling you he is not your Guru, and you don't have to attend his courses...
I was censored and "banned" from the Robbins forum, for simply talking about his techniques, which Robbins TEACHES in his advanced courses! Most people, including the people running his website, don't have a clue about what he is doing. Don't get me started!!!
Coz
I got someone to start a thread on this at that forum, and then just brainstormed some ideas out.
Unconscious Influence
[www.tonyrobbins.com]
Tony's lies exposed...
[www.tonyrobbins.com]
[www.tonyrobbins.com]
Also on THIS forum..
[forum.culteducation.com]
Here is a search for my zillion posts on the Robbins forum...
[www.tonyrobbins.com]
BUT, he uses very very very powerful techniques of "Unconscious Influence". He uses Eriksonian Hypnosis, and literally EVERY other technique that is available.
The question is, what DOESN'T Robbins do?
EVERYTHING Robbins does is to manipulate. To him, manipulation is a Virtue. It is "Influence", and his specialty is Unconscious Influence.
Believe me, Robbins is capable of Mass Persuasion at an amazing level.
I am certain he operates as a consultant to those in power in need of those services.
Robbins can literally "take over" the mind of certain suggestible persons, all the while telling you he is not your Guru, and you don't have to attend his courses...
I was censored and "banned" from the Robbins forum, for simply talking about his techniques, which Robbins TEACHES in his advanced courses! Most people, including the people running his website, don't have a clue about what he is doing. Don't get me started!!!
Coz
I got someone to start a thread on this at that forum, and then just brainstormed some ideas out.
Unconscious Influence
[www.tonyrobbins.com]
Tony's lies exposed...
[www.tonyrobbins.com]
[www.tonyrobbins.com]
Also on THIS forum..
[forum.culteducation.com]
Here is a search for my zillion posts on the Robbins forum...
[www.tonyrobbins.com]
Quote
Glen
Cosmo I've read your posts on the AR forum - could you perhaps discuss the mind control techniques AR uses in more detail, or point me to a post where you've written about it already (if you have) please?
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.