Should/Have To and Need/Want
Posted by:
Marcos
()
Date: June 18, 2004 04:03AM
I agree that Socrates screwing with the process sounds pretty darn scary. If we are using our power to "trance" people out, then what's to stop us from becoming as evil/manipulative as what we are trying to stop.
For me personally, I believe the process has to be pulled apart, analyzed, a post-mortem autopsy if you will. For me, it's not enough to say "Oh Boy, that training is bad, really bad." For me, I want to know How is it bad, what is manipulative, how are we deceived, what are the common implants of new thoughts and processes. I find the implantation of words to stop thought quite interesting. I want to know why my own mind resisted so much. What happened to make me feel like questioning the process was so much like questioning the very heart and soul of who I was.
I feel there's a dearth in the information provided. I have read every single link on this website numerous times. And I think the "what" is well defined, it's the "how" and maybe even "why" that is missing. What they do and what they cause is fairly evident from what is on this site and others. But, the how can be crucial. Socrates does have a good point, if you know how they do it, it's much easier to destroy that which you no longer want.
I know what happens there. I know what are the risks. I know that it is a dangerous, powerful experience. I have no intentions of replacing therapy or providing advice that would be better off in the hands of a professional.
But, to really know it. You have to know how. You have to know the dirty tricks. You have to know these things. The most powerful piece of information on the web I believe is the Kopp paper. I repeat, we need more Kopp's. We need more trainers and leaders to speak up and spill what they know. We need more scientific studies studying the effects. We need more people who are willing to say "I have had it, and I'm not going to take it anymore."
It seems like no matter how many people state that how harmful the experience was it's not enough. Harm in and of itself isn't enough, as it's easily explained as the shortcomings of an obviously flawed person. But showing how the Harm was created and manipulated and enforced willfully, purposefully and deceitfully is more of what is needed. There is not enough of that. The standard cult "apology" is that oh well, they were either too screwed up to begin with, or they just didn't "get" it.
Our sharing of stories isn't enough either. Because we're then down to he said/she said. If I say I had a horrible experience and this is how and why. And five others say, well I feel great, you must have not "got it". Who's to say which is more believable? For the general population it's so hard to believe that otherwise intelligent people could have been brainwashed or thought reformed. And after all hundreds of thousands have gone through this thing, and only a small percentage of the people are complaining.
Imagine taking the list of Margaret Singer's six criterias for Thought Reform. And get a forum leader or trainer to detail how each of the six criteria was brought about in their training. Can you see how powerful that could be? In fact now that I think about it, that would make a perfect article/web page. I don't think that has ever been done. We're taking so much time to discuss how the environment is used to enforce conflict and change, what other aspects of the six criterias are we missing? A new post on this board???
For me personally, I believe the process has to be pulled apart, analyzed, a post-mortem autopsy if you will. For me, it's not enough to say "Oh Boy, that training is bad, really bad." For me, I want to know How is it bad, what is manipulative, how are we deceived, what are the common implants of new thoughts and processes. I find the implantation of words to stop thought quite interesting. I want to know why my own mind resisted so much. What happened to make me feel like questioning the process was so much like questioning the very heart and soul of who I was.
I feel there's a dearth in the information provided. I have read every single link on this website numerous times. And I think the "what" is well defined, it's the "how" and maybe even "why" that is missing. What they do and what they cause is fairly evident from what is on this site and others. But, the how can be crucial. Socrates does have a good point, if you know how they do it, it's much easier to destroy that which you no longer want.
I know what happens there. I know what are the risks. I know that it is a dangerous, powerful experience. I have no intentions of replacing therapy or providing advice that would be better off in the hands of a professional.
But, to really know it. You have to know how. You have to know the dirty tricks. You have to know these things. The most powerful piece of information on the web I believe is the Kopp paper. I repeat, we need more Kopp's. We need more trainers and leaders to speak up and spill what they know. We need more scientific studies studying the effects. We need more people who are willing to say "I have had it, and I'm not going to take it anymore."
It seems like no matter how many people state that how harmful the experience was it's not enough. Harm in and of itself isn't enough, as it's easily explained as the shortcomings of an obviously flawed person. But showing how the Harm was created and manipulated and enforced willfully, purposefully and deceitfully is more of what is needed. There is not enough of that. The standard cult "apology" is that oh well, they were either too screwed up to begin with, or they just didn't "get" it.
Our sharing of stories isn't enough either. Because we're then down to he said/she said. If I say I had a horrible experience and this is how and why. And five others say, well I feel great, you must have not "got it". Who's to say which is more believable? For the general population it's so hard to believe that otherwise intelligent people could have been brainwashed or thought reformed. And after all hundreds of thousands have gone through this thing, and only a small percentage of the people are complaining.
Imagine taking the list of Margaret Singer's six criterias for Thought Reform. And get a forum leader or trainer to detail how each of the six criteria was brought about in their training. Can you see how powerful that could be? In fact now that I think about it, that would make a perfect article/web page. I don't think that has ever been done. We're taking so much time to discuss how the environment is used to enforce conflict and change, what other aspects of the six criterias are we missing? A new post on this board???
Should/Have To and Need/Want
Posted by:
rrmoderator
()
Date: June 18, 2004 04:15AM
Marcos:
A comparitive study of Singer's Six Conditions as practiced within Landmark would be interesting.
Also Lifton's eight criteria for thought reform.
I have done such studies regarding other groups, but not Landmark.
See the following reports:
[www.culteducation.com]
[www.culteducation.com]
[www.culteducation.com]
It seems the verbiage and outer visible facade changes from group to group, but most often the inner mechanics of thought reform remain the same.
A comparitive study of Singer's Six Conditions as practiced within Landmark would be interesting.
Also Lifton's eight criteria for thought reform.
I have done such studies regarding other groups, but not Landmark.
See the following reports:
[www.culteducation.com]
[www.culteducation.com]
[www.culteducation.com]
It seems the verbiage and outer visible facade changes from group to group, but most often the inner mechanics of thought reform remain the same.
Should/Have To and Need/Want
Posted by:
escapedintact
()
Date: June 18, 2004 01:42PM
Socrates said," I nicely fucked up a Six Day training and I knew exactly what I was doing. I out thought them and broke their trances. Well and thoroughly."
Why would you waste $1,200 to "fuck up" the Six Day training? You must have a lot of time and money on your hands.
You were also bragging that you were baffling the Trainers during your Est Training. If you were so in control and such a master of "all-things-consciousness" why were you wasting your time and money? It just doesn't add up.
It looks like you're still playing similar games, fooling yourself.
Why would you waste $1,200 to "fuck up" the Six Day training? You must have a lot of time and money on your hands.
You were also bragging that you were baffling the Trainers during your Est Training. If you were so in control and such a master of "all-things-consciousness" why were you wasting your time and money? It just doesn't add up.
It looks like you're still playing similar games, fooling yourself.
Should/Have To and Need/Want
Posted by:
socrates
()
Date: June 18, 2004 07:47PM
:D OK, in parting with your company, let me say this.
The problem has much to do with rigidity. It would help greatly if people who though about LGATs, cults, and all of their ilk had a good funtional model for the distinction between rigid and elastic thinking.
It is also very impostent to make the distinction between a finely honed mind and an elastic mind. A mind, as also can be true with steel, may be finely honed yet essentially quite rigid. I have found this to be especially true with doctors. I have also observed that doctors and medical people are more susceptible to cult indoctrination than you would expect, based on their educational attainments. My father represented a number of doctors who had fallen prey to financial schemes. He would say that doctors and dentists were the most highly scammed professionals he had assisted. This is in large degree because their training involves a great deal of deference to authority.
I think the notorious Milgram experiment at Yale in the 1960's demonstrated that about 60% of the American population (extrapolating from their data) were responsive to authoritarian suggestion, and this does not necessarily correlate with raw intelligence.
Herein is the great error many people make. They believe that a narrowly defined expertise in one area of life with automatically generalize into other areas of life. It doesn't, as some will discover to their discomfort.
My observation is that there are skills that may relate to Daniel Goleman's "emotional intelligence" that allow one to function around highly manipulative persons or environments without being strongly influenced, or that influence will be weak and transitory once that person is out of the environment.
I also believe that there are others who lack these internal communication skills. It is something akin to "internal illiteracy" that makes them vulnerable to external suggestion.
When I speak of powerful thought, that is to say, forms of though that makes us autonomous and free, and therefore not highly suggestible, not easily LGATed, what I mean by that is that the person has good internal communication skills, that person know how to internally debate the logical value of what is being given and decide its merits.
Another observation I have made is that persons who are internally unfree have a deep unconscious resentment for free minds, elastic freethinkers are disturbing to rigid thinkers and rigid thinkers will come up with a thousand rationalizations and justifications to shut down elastic thinkers. Mind envy ?
I was pondering whether the deeper motivations behind some of these LGATs, their leaders, their lieutenants (the staff), their seargents (the trainers) isn't some kind of deep seated inferiority complex. They just can't tolerate the idea of someone being freer, more alive, having richer, more complex, and most importantly, more inexplicable lives that they do !
The problem has much to do with rigidity. It would help greatly if people who though about LGATs, cults, and all of their ilk had a good funtional model for the distinction between rigid and elastic thinking.
It is also very impostent to make the distinction between a finely honed mind and an elastic mind. A mind, as also can be true with steel, may be finely honed yet essentially quite rigid. I have found this to be especially true with doctors. I have also observed that doctors and medical people are more susceptible to cult indoctrination than you would expect, based on their educational attainments. My father represented a number of doctors who had fallen prey to financial schemes. He would say that doctors and dentists were the most highly scammed professionals he had assisted. This is in large degree because their training involves a great deal of deference to authority.
I think the notorious Milgram experiment at Yale in the 1960's demonstrated that about 60% of the American population (extrapolating from their data) were responsive to authoritarian suggestion, and this does not necessarily correlate with raw intelligence.
Herein is the great error many people make. They believe that a narrowly defined expertise in one area of life with automatically generalize into other areas of life. It doesn't, as some will discover to their discomfort.
My observation is that there are skills that may relate to Daniel Goleman's "emotional intelligence" that allow one to function around highly manipulative persons or environments without being strongly influenced, or that influence will be weak and transitory once that person is out of the environment.
I also believe that there are others who lack these internal communication skills. It is something akin to "internal illiteracy" that makes them vulnerable to external suggestion.
When I speak of powerful thought, that is to say, forms of though that makes us autonomous and free, and therefore not highly suggestible, not easily LGATed, what I mean by that is that the person has good internal communication skills, that person know how to internally debate the logical value of what is being given and decide its merits.
Another observation I have made is that persons who are internally unfree have a deep unconscious resentment for free minds, elastic freethinkers are disturbing to rigid thinkers and rigid thinkers will come up with a thousand rationalizations and justifications to shut down elastic thinkers. Mind envy ?
I was pondering whether the deeper motivations behind some of these LGATs, their leaders, their lieutenants (the staff), their seargents (the trainers) isn't some kind of deep seated inferiority complex. They just can't tolerate the idea of someone being freer, more alive, having richer, more complex, and most importantly, more inexplicable lives that they do !
Should/Have To and Need/Want
Posted by:
rrmoderator
()
Date: June 18, 2004 08:03PM
Socrates:
No one said you have to leave.
But if you would rather leave than post within the guidelines of this board, that's certainly your choice to make.
Actually what you have said that is relevant to LGATs has already been covered within the writings of Margaret Singer, Robert Jay Lifton, Robert Cialdini and Richard Ofshe.
See the following links:
[www.culteducation.com]
[www.culteducation.com]
[www.culteducation.com]
[www.culteducation.com]
These authors have produced a wealth of material on the subject of coercive persuasion and influence techniques.
There is no need to "reinvent the wheel," when such excellent material is readily available.
For a better understanding of how Lifton applies to LGATs there are papers produced by John Hocman, a forensic psychiatrist and Paul Martin a clinical psychologist.
The doctors critiqued an LGAT called NXIVM, which seems to be largely based upon Landmark Education.
See the following links:
[www.culteducation.com]
[www.culteducation.com]
[www.culteducation.com]
In an apparent attempt to keep this information off the Internet NXIVM sued the Drs. Hochman, Martin and the Ross Institute.
See [www.culteducation.com]
Your belief/comment that those who lack so-called "internal communication skills" somehow suffer from "'internal illiteracy' and are thus "vulnerable to external suggestion" is victim bashing.
It is also a mistaken belief.
And this can be seen by reading the previously mentioned material and related research.
It serves no useful purpose to blame those victimized by groups that use coercive persuasion for the harm done to them.
In a way your beliefs on this subject seem to be an extension of Landmark thinking, i.e. that whatever happens to you is your personal responsibility and there are no "victims."
No one said you have to leave.
But if you would rather leave than post within the guidelines of this board, that's certainly your choice to make.
Actually what you have said that is relevant to LGATs has already been covered within the writings of Margaret Singer, Robert Jay Lifton, Robert Cialdini and Richard Ofshe.
See the following links:
[www.culteducation.com]
[www.culteducation.com]
[www.culteducation.com]
[www.culteducation.com]
These authors have produced a wealth of material on the subject of coercive persuasion and influence techniques.
There is no need to "reinvent the wheel," when such excellent material is readily available.
For a better understanding of how Lifton applies to LGATs there are papers produced by John Hocman, a forensic psychiatrist and Paul Martin a clinical psychologist.
The doctors critiqued an LGAT called NXIVM, which seems to be largely based upon Landmark Education.
See the following links:
[www.culteducation.com]
[www.culteducation.com]
[www.culteducation.com]
In an apparent attempt to keep this information off the Internet NXIVM sued the Drs. Hochman, Martin and the Ross Institute.
See [www.culteducation.com]
Your belief/comment that those who lack so-called "internal communication skills" somehow suffer from "'internal illiteracy' and are thus "vulnerable to external suggestion" is victim bashing.
It is also a mistaken belief.
And this can be seen by reading the previously mentioned material and related research.
It serves no useful purpose to blame those victimized by groups that use coercive persuasion for the harm done to them.
In a way your beliefs on this subject seem to be an extension of Landmark thinking, i.e. that whatever happens to you is your personal responsibility and there are no "victims."
Should/Have To and Need/Want
Posted by:
kittypaw
()
Date: June 18, 2004 08:04PM
I've no intention of attending another Landmark Forum meeting. I'd just like to be better informed about their techniques. If someone was determined enough to create a mind-manipulation lgat or pyramid scheme, they'll find the info out there anyway.
I think arming people with knowledge about techniques that can be used on them -in Landmark and in other situations -rather than only telling people to avoid all similar situations. I found Kopp's paper extremely helpful and hope that we'll see more information like that on these boards.
Thank you for all the info you've shared with us so far- I really appreciate it.
I think arming people with knowledge about techniques that can be used on them -in Landmark and in other situations -rather than only telling people to avoid all similar situations. I found Kopp's paper extremely helpful and hope that we'll see more information like that on these boards.
Thank you for all the info you've shared with us so far- I really appreciate it.
Should/Have To and Need/Want
Posted by:
socrates
()
Date: June 18, 2004 09:47PM
Well, I've got one foot out of the door. The other will follow soon.
Let's reframe this some. I think you will agree that there is a spectrum of responses to coercive methods. It isn't Either/Or. A few remain totally within their own locus of control. When I speak of internal literacy I mean that a person is skillful at mediating internal dialog, internal imagery, they are "at choice" about their internal processes. They consciously direct their thinking. When presented with external information, they seem to be able to quarantine that information, sort of like a firewall functions on your computer. The new information can be held in a safe place, tested, evaluated, and manipulated before it become internalized as an attitude or a belief.
Others are on the far extreme of the spectrum where information goes in and is too easily accepted as true or an attitude is too easily accepted as the right attitude without sufficient reality testing.
I think the majority tend towards the bulge on the bell curve. That's my guess. You have a high percentage with average "close reasoning" or firewall skills, and you have a few outliers who are either superb logicians on one side or easily victimized on the other.
It is hard to see how recognizing this fundamental part of human nature equates with victim bashing. Is acknowledging that there is a Gaussian distribution of I.Q. intelligence bashing ?
The game of every con on the face of the earth is to get the one to be conned to switch off their cognitive firewall. Personally I would be delighted to see the general population equipped with higher quality firewalls, because they are definitely going to need them, and soon.
All of these groups study each other. If one figure emerges as a master communicator or whatever, people from the other group will study him or her with great precision. Even thought the various LGATs maintain a competitive front, and they are probably intensely suspicious and defensive about the competitors out there, they do make an effort to master the knowledge, that is, the specific technical methods, of the others. It would be naive to think otherwise.
By the way, my understanding that the tendentious expression "bashing" was created by a public relations firm in Los Angeles for the Japanese government in thhe 1980s, when japan was perceived as having a disproportionate influence on America. The deployment of "bashing", was deliberately intended to create sympathy for the Japanse interests, and emotionalize and rational discussion about Japanese money flowing into the American political system through their network of lobbyists. Hencefore, whever a Japanese interest was called on the carpet for for, ummm... lavish donations in Washington, an emotional smokescreen of "Japan bashing" was summoned up. Nice work if you can get it. Anyway, the "bashing" trope was later deployed by the gay population, although I suspect that there may have been a low lying usage of "gay bashing" as a vulgar expression that then was deliberately manipulated into "Japan bashing" that then re-entered the gay lexicon viv a vis the media. "Bashing" was employed specifically because it conjures horrific and morally indefensible imagery. Do you honestly think that's what THIS discussion is about ? Or is it merely a verbal tic ?
Let's reframe this some. I think you will agree that there is a spectrum of responses to coercive methods. It isn't Either/Or. A few remain totally within their own locus of control. When I speak of internal literacy I mean that a person is skillful at mediating internal dialog, internal imagery, they are "at choice" about their internal processes. They consciously direct their thinking. When presented with external information, they seem to be able to quarantine that information, sort of like a firewall functions on your computer. The new information can be held in a safe place, tested, evaluated, and manipulated before it become internalized as an attitude or a belief.
Others are on the far extreme of the spectrum where information goes in and is too easily accepted as true or an attitude is too easily accepted as the right attitude without sufficient reality testing.
I think the majority tend towards the bulge on the bell curve. That's my guess. You have a high percentage with average "close reasoning" or firewall skills, and you have a few outliers who are either superb logicians on one side or easily victimized on the other.
It is hard to see how recognizing this fundamental part of human nature equates with victim bashing. Is acknowledging that there is a Gaussian distribution of I.Q. intelligence bashing ?
The game of every con on the face of the earth is to get the one to be conned to switch off their cognitive firewall. Personally I would be delighted to see the general population equipped with higher quality firewalls, because they are definitely going to need them, and soon.
All of these groups study each other. If one figure emerges as a master communicator or whatever, people from the other group will study him or her with great precision. Even thought the various LGATs maintain a competitive front, and they are probably intensely suspicious and defensive about the competitors out there, they do make an effort to master the knowledge, that is, the specific technical methods, of the others. It would be naive to think otherwise.
By the way, my understanding that the tendentious expression "bashing" was created by a public relations firm in Los Angeles for the Japanese government in thhe 1980s, when japan was perceived as having a disproportionate influence on America. The deployment of "bashing", was deliberately intended to create sympathy for the Japanse interests, and emotionalize and rational discussion about Japanese money flowing into the American political system through their network of lobbyists. Hencefore, whever a Japanese interest was called on the carpet for for, ummm... lavish donations in Washington, an emotional smokescreen of "Japan bashing" was summoned up. Nice work if you can get it. Anyway, the "bashing" trope was later deployed by the gay population, although I suspect that there may have been a low lying usage of "gay bashing" as a vulgar expression that then was deliberately manipulated into "Japan bashing" that then re-entered the gay lexicon viv a vis the media. "Bashing" was employed specifically because it conjures horrific and morally indefensible imagery. Do you honestly think that's what THIS discussion is about ? Or is it merely a verbal tic ?
Should/Have To and Need/Want
Posted by:
rrmoderator
()
Date: June 18, 2004 10:48PM
Socrates:
Despite your supposed "firewall," you and/or anyone else can potentially be "brainwashed." And you are not immune or unsususceptible to the coercive persuasion techniques described.
Frankly it seems like your intention at this message board is to pontificate and promote pet theories.
That is not the purpose of this board.
The hard research that disproves your theories is easily accessible.
Read the links and learn why your postulated pronouncements don't make much sense.
As stated before your theories come across as a form of victim bashing.
Despite your supposed "firewall," you and/or anyone else can potentially be "brainwashed." And you are not immune or unsususceptible to the coercive persuasion techniques described.
Frankly it seems like your intention at this message board is to pontificate and promote pet theories.
That is not the purpose of this board.
The hard research that disproves your theories is easily accessible.
Read the links and learn why your postulated pronouncements don't make much sense.
As stated before your theories come across as a form of victim bashing.
Should/Have To and Need/Want
Posted by:
Alexis
()
Date: June 19, 2004 12:13AM
Quote
socrates
It is also very impostent to make the distinction between a finely honed mind and an elastic mind. A mind, as also can be true with steel, may be finely honed yet essentially quite rigid.
What an extraordinary coincidence!! I happened to have also studied Material Engineering while I was in college. And though it is true that steel can be honed and made quite rigid, the more elastic steel is the less strength it has. Material Engineering is a fascinating subject. Before you start drawing life lessons from it, perhaps you should know what it's really about.
As far as I'm concerned, you're posting under the influence ---- the influence of Warner Erhard.
Really that statement about steel is indicative of how landmark thinks/works ---- they make statements based on a small portion of a subject people may know a little something about and then make grand generalizations about life based on their construed statements.
Correlations can be made only when there is sufficient proof to make them. Just because intelligence can be graphed in a bell curve doesn't mean susceptibility can. IQ is determined, after all, by a test. I have never heard of a test for the susceptibility to cult indoctrination. The tests for determining steel's hardness, strength and elasticity look nothing like a bell curve.
Sorry but your conclusions are not based in logic.
I guessed I opened a Pandora's box. I figured if people knew what I was talking about in my original post, they would tell me their experiences by either posting or PMing me.
Should/Have To and Need/Want
Posted by:
socrates
()
Date: June 19, 2004 12:41AM
to quote directly from one of your links:
"Recently, theories of learning have become more interactional, seeing acquired or inherited behavior. internal cognitive factors, and environmental influences operating as reciprocal determinants of each other (ie, behavior affects the environment and cognitions; cognitions affect the environment and behavior; and the environment influences behavior and cognitions). "
( Group Psychodynamics and CULTS )
Please notice that the second component, internal cognitive factors, is the category of mental function that I have addressed. It would appear that you don't have a good account of what this might mean.
OK, set aside "my" pet theories. What do YOU believe the internal cognitive factors are ? What words do you use when you discuss internal cognitive facors ? How do you think about them ? What does this concept mean to you ?
Do you hold that they are an illusion, a chimera ? There is no such thing as an "internal cognitive factor" ? Or, are only specific words permitted when discussing them ? Or, are only certain persons allowed to discuss them ?
Should we pretend they don't exist ? Should we insist they don't exist ?
Or what, exactly ?
"Recently, theories of learning have become more interactional, seeing acquired or inherited behavior. internal cognitive factors, and environmental influences operating as reciprocal determinants of each other (ie, behavior affects the environment and cognitions; cognitions affect the environment and behavior; and the environment influences behavior and cognitions). "
( Group Psychodynamics and CULTS )
Please notice that the second component, internal cognitive factors, is the category of mental function that I have addressed. It would appear that you don't have a good account of what this might mean.
OK, set aside "my" pet theories. What do YOU believe the internal cognitive factors are ? What words do you use when you discuss internal cognitive facors ? How do you think about them ? What does this concept mean to you ?
Do you hold that they are an illusion, a chimera ? There is no such thing as an "internal cognitive factor" ? Or, are only specific words permitted when discussing them ? Or, are only certain persons allowed to discuss them ?
Should we pretend they don't exist ? Should we insist they don't exist ?
Or what, exactly ?
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.