Templar wrote:

"I think people who say things like "I feel sorry for you Templar" or "I pity you templar and those around you" are self righteous pompus mental cases who should probably increase thier medication. "

LOL (sincerely)

Great post! Finally someone not beating around the bush! And at least 2 of us know you are not warytraveller2 and I am not Templar!

And I have no pity for you and don't feel sorry for you. I'm convinced you have little time or use for being a victim and no need for others sympathies.

And I admire that in someone!

Warytraveller responded:

"Thank God for the Food and Drug Administration. GSK is also the makers of Tums, Contac, Tagamet, to name a few. Do you think we should stop using them in light of this scandal?"

Heavens no ! If you think LGATs are taking heat, join the Life Extension Foundation (I have for other reasons, and think it is well worth the money if you know what you're doing... although many don't know biochemistry from a toilet plunger and consume all the wrong supplements for all the wrong reasons) which is rabidly anti FDA. However, the LEF has exposed abuses and incompetences within the FDA and probably improved the organization by daring to publicly take them to task, in print and in court.

I do strongly believe that one should be exceedingly wary of any single scientific experiment which claims to prove anything (a serving of cold fusion, anyone ?) much less surveys and social inquiries which assert that they know what's in other people's heads. A brief stint in the marketing world drilled this lesson into my thinking rather well.

My mother, too, was a specialist in psychometry, or psychological testing and measurement. My dad was an attorney. Both were constantly struggling with the problem of "what are the facts" versus "what is the truth"

For example, the famous psychological test, MMPI, or Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, is held out by some ignorant devils as a perfectly objective test of some parameters of the "real self". Completely untrue, which is why you can't buy the test instruments unless you are a degreed professional. The authors of the MMPI insist that no objective evaluation can be made based on the MMPI scores alone. The whole form of life of the subject must be taken into account. Results which may indicate severe disturbance in one personality type/intelligence level may indicate high creativity and ability to see from unsusal perspective in another.

In brief, a tremendous amount of digging, cross checking, restating of questions, retesting, submitting results to more than one statistician for mathematical confirmation, and so on are necessary before you can say you have a pretty good idea something is what it appears to be.

I learned this twice over from my dad who was forever having to test the evidence that was being submitted by opposing parties. The most dangerous of these was photographic evidence because of the strong presumption that pictures don't lie. But often pictures do lie. Depending on the filter you put on your camera for a black and white photography, the scene can be dramatically transformed, dark things made to appear light, light things made appear to be dark, but to the judge it looks like an honest depiction, right there in black and white. Until, that is, the judge sees a second photograph that shows the scene unaltered. Then you have one very angry judge.

The take home lesson is that knowing things demands getting out of the box, particularly when somebody with an agenda has taken pains to construct a box for you, paints it blue and calles it Paradise.

The Yankelovich study cited is of no meaningful importance, other than it proves Landmark is good at convincing people they have "gotten it" and that "it" is good.

No one on this board has ever disputed Landmark's persuasion techniques are effective.

They can convince most people that they have received a benefit from the program.

The point is what have they received?

Other than subjective anecdotal evidence Landmark/EST has never proven objectively, i.e. through a scientific study that has been peer-reviewed and published, that their courses change people, or improve anyone.

Large group awareness training (LGAT) has been done within the prison system. For example, within the Arizona State Prison system, which once allowed Lifespring in.

There was no evidence that the LGAT changed prisoners behavior for the better, in fact quite the opposite. The program was subsequently shut down.

There have been a number of nervous breakdowns and reported psychosis directly related to EST and Landmark over the years. These results are well-documented. So well-documented that Landmark has taken extraordinary steps to insulate itself from lawsuits.

The Yankelovich poll proves nothing.

If Landmark really wanted to demonstrate the efficacy of its programs, i.e. that they objectively change people for the better and substantially improve their lives, they would commission a scientific study, have it peer-reviewed and then published.

They have never done this that I am aware of and it seems doubtful they ever will.

Apparently this is because they know such a study would simply prove that their programs have no meaningful measurable objective results, other than the breakdowns and psychosis previously cited.

A crop of smiling graduates telling Yankelovich they are happy, doesn't prove anything other than Landmark did a good selling job.

A meaningful study would chart graduates behavior, performance and family life for some time after the graduation to demonstrate the impact of the program(s) through direct as measured through the graduate's subsequent life.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Templar,

Your post is making me laugh to the point of tears.

I never thought you were, nor do I think anyone in that list is the same person. It's just another ploy to try to make us question our judgment.


As for the 9/11 comment brought up by Wary:

When I was involved with landmark, they opened at noon since most of their activities occurred at night. If they still follow that schedule, then no one from landmark would have been in the towers. The staff I knew followed that schedule strictly, never arriving before noon, attending to any landmark business from their homes if it was before noon.

rrmoderator wrote:

"The Yankelovich poll proves nothing.

If Landmark really wanted to demonstrate the efficacy of its programs, i.e. that they objectively change people for the better and substantially improve their lives, they would commission a scientific study, have it peer-reviewed and then published. "

Well, it's just a customer satisfaction poll. And it does show that many people were satisfied with the Forum. When I did Est, at the end of the training we broke up into groups of 10 and each person "shared" what they got. 1 man in my group thought it was bullshit. 1 thought it was just OK. The other 8 liked it to varying degrees. Yankelovich's poll is illustrating just what I saw way back in "the bad old days" of Est. My guess is it is an accurate representation of what people got or thought they got. But the satisfaction level is high.

I need to correct something in my previous post. I think I referred to it as a scientific study. It is a customer satisfaction poll using scientifically proven methods. Sorry for the incorrect description.

I think it would be hard if not impossible to scientifically verify the efficacy or lack thereof with Landmark's programs. A double blind study of this type would cost millions upon millions. I viewed it as eductaional and entertaining.

But I did not like their "sales" approach or their organizational structure. I met Werner several times and wasn't impressed. Maybe I was just jealous at how people, especially the women, fawned over him like a demi-god. There was a strange "cult of personality" that sent up warning signals for me. So I said Adios amigoes!

But all that didn't change the fact I loved those 2 weekends I took almost 25 years ago. If I saw the bullshit I didn't like first, I probably wouldn't have done it.

But paradoxically, I'm glad I took the Est Training.

Warytraveller2:

Again, Landmark is good at convincing people through its controlled environment and persuasion techniques that they got "it" and that getting "it" is good.

It is not surprising at all that a poll reflects this.

It seems to me though, that if they really believe their programs are so good they would follow-up with people. This could easily be done through a study to see if there really is any objective change for the better, e.g. at work, family life, education and general behavior (e.g. people on probation, drug rehab programs etc.).

A study was done some time ago in the prison system regarding large group awareness training (LGAT). The results demonstrated no change whatsoever.

Prisoners that were a discipline problem remained a discipline problem. Productivity, academic achievement and behavior remained the same.

As I mentioned previously the Arizona Center for Women in Phoenix allowed a Lifespring program to take place within that prison facility.

Not only was there no change, the inmates involved actually behaved badly and there were serious security problems. The program seemed to make them feel grandiose and "empowered" to the point of being arrogant and confrontational-- fights broke out.

I have received many, many complaints about Landmark and EST over the years.

People have lost jobs, had breakdowns and experienced family problems directly related to the programs. There have been many divorces.

EST/Landmark makes many millions of dollars every year in profits and is a for-profit privately owned company.

They easily have the resources to do a study and demonstrate the supposed effectiveness of their programs to change lives for the better.

IMO--they have not done a study after all these years for the most obvious reason--it would demonstrate that their programs either accomplish nothing objectively and/or actually hurt people.

>>And I have no pity for you and don't feel sorry for you. I'm convinced you have little time or use for being a victim and no need for others sympathies.

And I admire that in someone!>>>



Oh, I dunno, Wary.....you might want to look up the defining characteristics of sociopathy before you go parading around with this confession.


Ellen

Ellen,

Dont expect even a shred of integrity from Wary. He contradicts himself between his posts and proves two things time and again:

1. He came here seeking confrontation and starving for attention. I guess congratulatoins are in order, he suceeded in his quest for both.

2. That the truth and any form of consistency in his posts is as foreign to him as Cantonese is to me.

For the rest of us regulars; go look at page 1 of this topic and tell me who was the first person to recognize Wary's more 'endearing' qualities.

Can we say "I told ya so!!"

Hi, It's hurting. I'm back to clarify something. My mother definately was being influenced by others. I think this goes back to an old friend she had known from a long time ago (don't know where or how they met.) This woman divorced her husband, changed her name to a new, made up name (just like my mom ended up doing) and I believe she has been working on my mom for a long time.