Quote
boonetahoe
I don't think anyone has ever thought about having trainers "pretend to be graduates." There are thousands and thousands off GLF graduates who would speak glowingly of the training and be willing to be filmed. The video clips weren't produced by Great Life, they were made (and published on YouTube) by an independent company composed of graduates. GLF had no control over how they did this. I know, however, that their ultimate goal is to produce a feature similar to The Secret and that they interviewed the GLF trainers as guest commentators for that video. Since the video wasn't meant to directly promote GLF, the video producers listed their professional credentials instead of their training credentials (as per The Secret.)
Quote
boonetahoe
I'm comfortable with my own level of research into psychology and heuristics (and the education/study I've conducted) and I'm comfortable with the level of psychological oversight into the LGAT with which I'm associated.
I rather doubt that a debate with you regarding my study or qualifications will yield much in the way of mutual enlightenment (regardless of how thorough my studies have been.) And, that's why I'm not addressing your assertions tit-for-tat. If I gave you an impressive bibliography of the books and studies I've read, would you then be open to the possibility that you may be off-base in generally rejecting the LGAT model?
Quote
boonetahoe
Unfortunately, I can't go into the data, method, etc. without exposing my identity (and I'd rather not do that given the topic, ie. Impact.) Let's just say that my approach was considerably more scientific and with a much larger base of respondants than yours.
Quote
boonetahoe
"You claim to have gathered evidence but you have made no effort to disclose any of it." If I tell you how I gathered "evidence" (which I have never claimed is strictly "hard evidence" but that is substantial, anectdotal evidence,) it will absolutely expose my identity. I would rather not do that because of Hans and Sally's vindictive nature and some of the things I've said have been very negative toward them. You have shown no willingness to protect my identity, so I'm certainly not going to discuss it with you. So, I promise that (unless you've spoken to hundreds of LGAT graduates a year or more after they completed the training,) you have less formal and less complete information on this matter than do I. Of course, you're not going to want to believe that, so I'm wasting my breath.
Quote
formerimpactgradQuote
boonetahoe
I don't think anyone has ever thought about having trainers "pretend to be graduates." There are thousands and thousands off GLF graduates who would speak glowingly of the training and be willing to be filmed. The video clips weren't produced by Great Life, they were made (and published on YouTube) by an independent company composed of graduates. GLF had no control over how they did this. I know, however, that their ultimate goal is to produce a feature similar to The Secret and that they interviewed the GLF trainers as guest commentators for that video. Since the video wasn't meant to directly promote GLF, the video producers listed their professional credentials instead of their training credentials (as per The Secret.)
If the goal was to create a video similar to the Secret then why were all of the Great Life trainers talking about the Great Life Trainings and not a series of principles, processes or other topics that exist independently of Great Life? I watched a few of the videos and they were completely devoted to promoting the Great Life Trainings. You're either a fool or a liar for trying to convince us that these videos were made for some purpose other than the promotion of your trainings.
If they were intended to be used in a feature like "The Secret" then it seems like there would have more there then just a promotion of the Great Life Trainings. As far as the "Professional Credentials" are concerned, using a company's employees in a video promoting the company then choosing not to acknowledge them as employees is completely dishonest. If it was produced by graduates and starring trainers then you are absolutely responsible for the content. To say otherwise is merely an attempt to avoid accountability.
Impacted was absolutely right to criticize your attempt to prove that the company was not fictitious. It costs about $20 to register an entity with the state but it takes a lot more than that to honestly be able to say that a company is in business.
Well, I wish I could say you haven't come across this way on the Rick Ross forums.Quote
boonetahoeQuote
Impacted
>>The foundation has no control of the content of the videos mentioned here<<
Maybe you should try "inspiring" instead of controlling.
(chuckle.)Quote
Are you not IN the videos YOURSELF?!?!
Yes, there's a clip of me looking and sounding like a doofus.
Quote
If the goal was to create a video similar to the Secret then why were all of the Great Life trainers talking about the Great Life Trainings and not a series of principles, processes or other topics that exist independently of Great Life? I watched a few of the videos and they were completely devoted to promoting the Great Life Trainings. You're either a fool or a liar for trying to convince us that these videos were made for some purpose other than the promotion of your trainings.
If they were intended to be used in a feature like "The Secret" then it seems like there would have more there then just a promotion of the Great Life Trainings. As far as the "Professional Credentials" are concerned, using a company's employees in a video promoting the company then choosing not to acknowledge them as employees is completely dishonest. If it was produced by graduates and starring trainers then you are absolutely responsible for the content. To say otherwise is merely an attempt to avoid accountability.
Quote
formerimpactgradQuote
boonetahoe
I'm comfortable with my own level of research into psychology and heuristics (and the education/study I've conducted) and I'm comfortable with the level of psychological oversight into the LGAT with which I'm associated.
I rather doubt that a debate with you regarding my study or qualifications will yield much in the way of mutual enlightenment (regardless of how thorough my studies have been.) And, that's why I'm not addressing your assertions tit-for-tat. If I gave you an impressive bibliography of the books and studies I've read, would you then be open to the possibility that you may be off-base in generally rejecting the LGAT model?Quote
boonetahoe
Unfortunately, I can't go into the data, method, etc. without exposing my identity (and I'd rather not do that given the topic, ie. Impact.) Let's just say that my approach was considerably more scientific and with a much larger base of respondants than yours.
I thought I would move these posts of yours over to this forum and quote a pm that you sent me...Quote
boonetahoe
"You claim to have gathered evidence but you have made no effort to disclose any of it." If I tell you how I gathered "evidence" (which I have never claimed is strictly "hard evidence" but that is substantial, anectdotal evidence,) it will absolutely expose my identity. I would rather not do that because of Hans and Sally's vindictive nature and some of the things I've said have been very negative toward them. You have shown no willingness to protect my identity, so I'm certainly not going to discuss it with you. So, I promise that (unless you've spoken to hundreds of LGAT graduates a year or more after they completed the training,) you have less formal and less complete information on this matter than do I. Of course, you're not going to want to believe that, so I'm wasting my breath.
Two things are funny about your pm. The first was that obviously you had claimed to have gained "hard evidence" but you tried to retract your statement when pressed. The second was that when you wrote this message, I had known your identity for some time but had not "outed you" on the thread.