Please use this website as a guide to help you decide whether or not you want to join New Era. Be very careful as to what you hear from people who have graduated from this; do your research. Nothing about New Era is worth it at all. Why pay $1,300 to have other people tell you that you're life's not good enough! YOU DON'T NEED A BUNCH OF STRANGERS TO TELL YOU HOW TO LIVE YOUR LIFE. THIS IS WHY YOU HAVE FRIENDS! FRIENDS GIVE GREAT ADVISE, AND BETTER YET, IT'S FREE! They say that if you join and don't like it, you get your full $1,300 back, but really.. YOU DON'T. Instead they start instigating, and make you feel bad because you "don't want to change you're life for the better," or "you're putting your life on hold."

Also, stay away from New Era graduates who try to lure you in! They'll do what ever they can to get you to join the program. They'll try to mess with you psychologically, tell you that you have so much potential to be somebody, and the way your life is going is not that great. Last time I checked, we live on planet earth, no one's perfect!

If you're really considering New Era, make friends first and see how that goes.
Think about it. $1,300 to join a program that claims they can change your life or $1,300 you can have for pocket money?

Hey guys,

I've taken both the Landmark Foum and the New ERA (first level - explore) trainings, and I have gained a tremendous amount out of both programs. Having said that, I still can't say that these two programs are for everyone - like any LGAT.

Being a software programmer by profession, I consider myself an analytics and logical person by nature. However, spending most of my childhood in Taiwan, I grew up with a strong Daoism and Zen background. I have found that many of the concepts in the New ERA program to be in common with Daostic teachings. They do, however, the trainings are conducted in a very intense and rigorous fashion - perhaps not unlike my very demanding father growing up. :) I've also worked in the non-profit sector and AmeriCorps, which have provided me with a great variety of self-awareness, leadership, and teamwork training as well. I was a very introverted and quiet boy, coming to the States at the age of 13. Fortunately, since then I've become a performance dancer, owner of a tech start-up that went profit in year 1, and having a flurry of friends whom I could trust, both in and out of these trainings and seminars. How much of that would I attribute to the trainings? It's hard to say. But I want to say that I've gone there, trusted the coaches, cried like a silly man - the whole nine yards. And I think I turned out just fine - if not better than when I went in.

What I would recommend is much like what other folks have suggested - do your research, ask for personal experience from your friends who are past participants (though also likely the ones recruiting you), and observe those same friends to see how the training have "transform" them - for better or worse. And don't forget to apply the same "self-awareness" and "dig deep in your heart" approach when you attend the trainings themselves. Know what your heart tells you, and don't forget to think for yourself and examine your own actions. After all, such self-awareness is a big component of what these trainings (and many religions and school of thoughts like Dao and Zen) are all about.

If you think it can work for you, great. If it doesn't work for you, keep it real and don't lose yourself. My personal belief is that you ALREADY know if you could benefit from something like LGAT, counseling, or formal seminars. If you find it difficult getting into it, chances you shouldn't fight it because it's not for you. Like love, if it's true to you, it comes easily and in fact, you can hardly avoid it. In Dao, they call this "Wu Wai" - act of non-acting, and letting things take its natural course. I'm probably butchering my explanation of Wu Wai, but I hope you guys understand my point. :)

Best of luck to everyone with regards to LGAT and other large group trainings!

Mantle:

You seem to be here as an apologist and offer only anecdotal subjective evidence about LGATs, e.g. "if it's true to you" etc.

You say that LGATs are "not for everyone" which is a common apology offered by supporters to deflect criticism, but LGATs remain very controversial for good reasons.

See [www.culteducation.com]

Psychologist Philip Cushman researched the subject and isolated 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.

Cushman found that such trainings could "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."

Many participants of mass marathon trainings say that they use coercive persuasion techniques.

Sociologist Rihard Offshee and professor at Stanford University found that "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."

For more details see [www.culteducation.com]

Mass marathon training or large group awareness training (LGAT) generates more serious complaints than any other subject/topic at this message board.

Beware.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/09/2009 10:22PM by rrmoderator.

Moderator:

It's not for everyone and participants choose to go through it at their own risk. It is no more dangerous than going to a licensed psychiatrist, and I would even argue that it is less so- many people are misprescribed drugs all the time by licensed professionals, and this can leave permanent adverse marks on one's health. What is the worst that can come out of New Era Trainings? Once you go through the program and you decide you got nothing out of it, you lose $49 and five days of time. However, most people who agree to trying out New Era have five spare days already, or else they wouldn't even participate in the first place, and $49 is pocket money for people who can so easily shell out $1349.

I personally went through the first session of New Era Trainings, entirely scared and skeptical. What I found was that these trainings do actually work, in a surprisingly healthy way. One makes close connections with people in incredibly short periods of time because the program allows people to let their guards down. So yes, strangers are telling you how to live your life, but the difference is that you are paying large sums of money to trust them, and the strangers might not have licenses, but they do what they are paid to do. I would say that it is almost like money for facilitated friendship, and when it's put in these terms it sounds cold and fake, but friendship is friendship and it's up to the individual to maintain if they want the newly found relationships to turn into something lifelong and real.

While it was fun getting to know people, I decided that it wasn't for me, or to put it into New Era terms, "I just didn't 'get' it." So I got my refund, and I don't hate or fear the program. They're not a cult and they are less dangerous than going to the psychiatrist to get your typical antidepressants or whatever it is that middle class America can't seem to live without.

bacaon:

Interesting.

You say "less dangerous than going to the psychiatrist to get your typical antidepressants..."

But a psychiatrist is accountable to a licensing board and is a medical doctor.

Professional licensed counselors have educational requirements, licensing boards and accountability.

What accountability does "New Era" have?

What educational requirements do they have for training staff?

What credentials did the staff have that you worked with at New Era?

Do they require signing a release before people begin the training?

As someone who has been through the program:

1. They lack adequate participant-selection criteria. SOMEWHAT TRUE
This is somewhat true. They do background checks, but people can easily lie on these.

2. They lack reliable norms, supervision, and adequate training for leaders. FALSE
As they aren't treating mental disease or disabilities, no licenses are required here. Maybe if enough lawsuits go through and the trainings are actually hurtful, they will require licenses for this type of group training, but that hasn't been the case as of yet.

3. They lack clearly defined responsibility. FALSE
It is very clearly defined.

4. They sometimes foster pseudoauthenticity and pseudoreality. TRUE, BUT
But they clearly warn that the workshop is NOT reality.

5. They sometimes foster inappropriate patterns of relationships. TRUE, BUT
I can't think of anything in the WORLD that doesn't.

6. They sometimes ignore the necessity and utility of ego defenses. TRUE, BUT
People with ego defenses are actually among the first to realize the value of the trainings. At least this has been what I have observed.

7. They sometimes teach the covert value of total exposure instead of valuing personal differences. FALSE
Personal differences are always valued. Total exposure is never required or even asked for.

8. They sometimes foster impulsive personality styles and behavioral strategies. TRUE
Sometimes participants can show improper amounts of excitement and ardor for the program. They do not warn against this enough.

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

10. They sometimes ignore stated goals, misrepresent their actual techniques, and obfuscate their real agenda. PERHAPS, THEY MIGHT BE TRYING TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD.

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. WHAT? Self-learning happens to be the POINT of the program.

12. They pay inadequate attention to decisions regarding time limitations. This may lead to increased pressure on some participants to unconsciously "fabricate" a cure. WHAT? They aren't trying to treat anything.

13. They fail to adequately consider the "psychonoxious" or deleterious effects of group participation (or] adverse countertransference reactions. TRUE. Group participation has never been considered bad. People are praised for sharing, but nobody is ever pushed to it against their will. What is so wrong with that?

Harm ratio: 1/13

Cushman found that such trainings could "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. FALSE
Leaders believe that these are all self-determined.

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. FALSE
Not Jim, at least.

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

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." UNKNOWN
I haven't personally witnessed a poor result yet.

Harm ratio: 1/3 +? Yes, they are evangelical to an extreme.

Many participants of mass marathon trainings say that they use coercive persuasion techniques.

Sociologist Rihard Offshee and professor at Stanford University found that "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 FALSE
This doesn't happen unless one didn't have a strong "self" to begin with.

2. The use of an organized peer group TRUE...? Yes, they are an organized peer group. How is this harmful? Would a disorganized peer group be better? Or an anarchist group of enemies? I don't understand.

3. Applying interpersonal pressure to promote conformity FALSE
They don't promote conformity.

4. The manipulation of the totality of the person's social environment to stabilize behavior once modified." TRUE
Some people don't have the best support group in the world, or they don't have good interpersonal communication skills. What is wrong with providing a healthy, safe social environment?


Verdict: No more dangerous than organized religion, with slightly more breathing space to argue with their reasons. Dissenters are usually quieted, as with any dogmatic system, but the only true crime they are guilty of is inciting intense evangelism. Annoying, but not life-ending, if you are against them, but effective and healthy otherwise.

I believe that it could be possible that NEW Era Trainings is not included in the programs targeted by Cushman and Offshee. If someone would refer me to their publications to prove otherwise, I would be glad to read them.

Moderator:

You're right. New Era Trainings isn't accountable for anything, should anything happen. Although I do think the probability of something happening is very low, it may not be impossible. Isn't that what lawsuits are for? Also, I would argue that they are more like a gym than a clinic. You do sign a waiver, but the chances of anything happening is very low so long as you use common sense and follow basic instructions.

The only credentials that the staff had that I worked with at New Era was that they genuinely cared a lot. I believe most of the staff is unpaid and are willing to do their best for everyone. Generally speaking, good-hearted volunteers can be trusted. However, the main teacher I believe was following a script, probably similar to the ones used by "Lifespring". (This is a guess) I am guessing that in his decades of experience teaching, he may have found ways to subdue whatever harmful parts there were. (This is a hope)

In short, NET is for a normal person with normal common sense who just wants to work on his or her mental self a bit, but not go so far as to do mental plastic surgery.

bacon:

First you compare the training to mental health professionals, opining that it is better than receiving help from licensed professionals.

Then you insist it's not therapy and therefore cannot be licensed.

You took the time to critique a psychologist's research on mass marathon training, such as New Era, but offer only your subjective experience.

Then you compare New Era to "any dogmatic system" including "intense evangelism" and admit the trainers are "evangelical."

So New Era is more like a religious experience based upon faith not facts.

The Cushman and Ofshee research directly applies to LGATs (large group awareness training).

Please understand that your attempt to dismiss this either by insinuating that the victims of LGATs are somehow responsible for their own injuries and/or relegate any point you don't like as being somehow "false" based upon your subjective personal experience isn't a meaningful response, though it is revealing.

Your admissions that New Era trainers have no credentials, no meaningful accountability and that the company wants participants to sign a waiver so they have limited liability is striking.

No counseling professional or educational program at an accredited school would require such a waiver.

When a company wants people to limit legal recourse for those that take its training it's a big red flag and a potentially unsafe place for anyone to work on their "mental self."

BTW--the Cushman paper was based upon researching and attending Lifespring, a frequent defendant in personal injury lawsuits.

You are really rather a pretty typical LGAT apologist.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 06/25/2009 06:58AM by rrmoderator.

Where can I find this Cushman paper? I heard about the lawsuits from Lifespring, and I'd hope that they'd be smart enough to change things about the program besides the name.

The reason I compare it to mental health professionals is that both attempt to achieve the same goals on people without too many "real" problems. One treats with drugs, the other treats with a social network. The only difference is what happens when they "mess up". A psychiatrist can lose millions of dollars and the license to continue profiting off of bored Americans and their petty problems, while New Era will probably just have to give that person a monetary refund. However, this makes sense as psychiatrists are far more popular and have a higher chance to make false diagnoses and are prone to wrongful treatments, so of course they need to be held more accountable.

New Era is as dangerous as any form of peaceful organized religion, and as far as I know, people with a spare $1349 live in countries with freedom of religion. It ain't a cult.

bacon:

The points you offered subjective responses to were from the Cushman paper.

See [www.culteducation.com]

Lifespring was sued until it closed.

I receive constant complaints about LGATs like Lifespring.

Your apologies have become redundant and frankly you are not contributing much to this thread.

Your admission that an LGAT is like "religion" is interesting, but that's not how LGATs like Lifespring market their programs.

Many LGATs are Lifespring spin-offs.

See [pagesperso-orange.fr]