Laslow,

I noticed that you have not attempted to answer my question on ethics and Landmark.

I would appreciate a specific answer. My original posting is referenced here:

[/quote]Dear Laslow,

You claim to be a researcher attached to Mclean Hospital, a psychiatric facility of Harvard University.

This organisation is a prestigious facility and I believe that the employees are highly qualified.

I would extend that the practices of the Hospital may be highly ethical and that there would be a demand upon employees, including resarchers, to be not only aware and estute of ethics but also to practice ethics.

Allow me to regress to your Landmark Forum experience and I invite you to recall the Fear Exercise on the Saturday Night. This is a crude form of In Vivo Desensitisation from Ellis' REBT delivered through Trance Induction - Hypnosis. Participants ARE NOT advised that they will be hypnotised nor that they will be crudely therapuetically treated and desensitised from all fear. Fear is well known as a survival mechanism, facilitating a flight response upon impending danger.

I ask you as an ethical researcher from Mclean Psychiatric Hospital - Is this ethical practice?

Thank you for taking the time to read this and welcome to the board.

Oz[/quote]

Thanks,

Oz[/quote]

>>What do you know and how do you know it? That was a question from my previous post.>>>


Uh........ "laslow,"


YOU didn't ask me this question in a previous post.


If you're going to try this one. you've got to remember what you've written under this identity.



Ellen

I've noticed that all of Laslow's claims -- being a researcher in biochemistry research, any information about McLean, etc., can be easily picked up from their website, which can be easily googled after one reads the article that began this thread. And it's quite a coincidence that a "new" poster here who concidentally is a researcher at McLean concidentally stumbled across that article here and used it to talk about a "positive" experience at the Landmark Forum.

I asked my three simple questions days ago to see if "Laslow" would answer them, which of course he did not. And of course, he refutes and ignores all links and information that are not positive about Landmark.

Any guesses about who "Laslow" might actually be?

Quote
glam
I've noticed that all of Laslow's claims -- being a researcher in biochemistry research, any information about McLean, etc., can be easily picked up from their website, which can be easily googled after one reads the article that began this thread. And it's quite a coincidence that a "new" poster here who concidentally is a researcher at McLean concidentally stumbled across that article here and used it to talk about a "positive" experience at the Landmark Forum.

I asked my three simple questions days ago to see if "Laslow" would answer them, which of course he did not. And of course, he refutes and ignores all links and information that are not positive about Landmark.

Any guesses about who "Laslow" might actually be?

From time to time Landmarkers send over some new "grad" to toughen him up for the questions and criticisms he will face on the outside; probably someone they are grooming or think has the ~potential~ for more than the usual slave-labor-type, lower-level, chair-straightening enthusiast. Either that or he's a "rogue" player. Some "independent" who thinks he can use his Landmark "tools" on non-Landmarkers and is trying to prove Landmark's validity in his own mind.

In "laslow's" case, I suspect he's some "old friend" who has paraded his defenses around for some time, worn out the track, alienated whatever friends he had, and is looking to get some kind of a rise out of us. If he comes up with some valid point, I say go ahead and address it. So far, I haven't seen one.


Ellen

Wow! Not what I would expect from a professional researcher, especially from McLean, and I've corresponded with some over there regarding their work on omega-3s.

When one thinks of all the ways people can be humiliated, LGAT methods obviously do not come to mind immediately. Yet for thousands of people participating in Forums where humiliation is, in fact, used, one would think serious researchers would want to take a look at the situation and not immediately defend LGAT techniques.

Well, "laslow" has disappeared, (or been ~disappeared~ <TIC>) but the same old Landmark defenses will sprout again in some new form. I think I'll just examine a couple of them here, for ducks...

"laslow" wrote above:

>>I wasn't defending Landmark,>>>


(Lie. ~Creating his own reality.~ "It's ~so~ if I say it's so." Landmarkers are "convinced," probably under hypnosis or some other indirect suggestion, that Landmark is so good it doesn't need "defending," so "defending" it is some sort of an admission that it isn't all that great - one of those uncomfortable double-binds that Landmark uses to keep people off balance at some level.)




>>just contending that humiliation that can lead to depression as stated in the above article was not observed by me or my colleagues in our Forum. Landmark isn't therapy or promoted as such and no one here is recommending it to patients.>>>



Landmarkers, who dismiss or discount the ~experiences~ of others, or their recounting of them as just ~interpretation,~ will often parade their own experiences as somehow sacrosanct. (From scientology: "If it's YOUR experience, it's TRUE for you.) Laslow, above, claimed to speak for his "colleagues." How would he "know" what his colleagues did or did not experience? And who do you imagine appointed him to speak for them? Do you really think he conducted a survey amongst them before posting here? And even if they all volunteered that they did not personally experience any humiliation, what's to say they were telling the truth? Would you, under the same circumstances, necessarily admit to a colleague that you felt humiliated? Also, as Corboy pointed out, Landmarkers probably tailor their appeal differently for professionals, scientists, or others in high-status fields. They figured that one out. Do you not think scientology treats its celebrities a little differently from the rank-and-file?

They also know repeating "Landmark isn't therapy" will register in people's minds as "Landmark may be an alternative to traditional therapy, (which still carries a huge stigma)." Landmark is designed to prey on people who might ordinarily benefit from some type of psychotherapy or counselling, but who are reluctant to go or even admit that they might need to.



>>What do you know and how do you know it? That was a question from my previous post. Unsubstantiated opinion from anonymous sources does not pass the critical litmus test of legitimacy. And my only claim was that humiliation was not a "technique" or byproduct of the Forum I attended. Just stating my observations. Could be that every other Forum ever held was some sadomasochistic orgy. I don't know.>>>


This is a trap. Landmarkers use this type of dismissal to attempt to undermine their own only partially indoctrinated (trained) members, outsiders, the curious, or skeptics. The implication is that MY ~experience,~ or my recounting of that experience, even if I were willing to discuss it, is just so much ~interpretation.~ While true, on some philosophical level, it is used by Landmarkers to defuse criticism. It only works on those trusting souls willing to suspend their own judgment and defer to some supposed "authority."


Also, note "laslow's" "plausible deniability:" "My only claim," "Could be that every," "I don't know," blah, blah, blah. Since neither I, nor any other critic, has any way of knowing what happened in "his" Forum, or indeed, how he ~experienced~ "his" Forum, well then......here's this "authority figure," and HE says it's OK, and HE says there's no humiliation, and HE must be really smart, so........


Sad that so many people are fooled by this stuff. Cialdini should be required reading in the schools. What do you think the likelihood of that happening is?


Ellen

Quote

Cialdini should be required reading in the schools. What do you think the likelihood of that happening is?

I'd like nothing more than to see the school systems adopt some sort of education about cults and the methods they use for recruitment. Unfortunately, in my opinion, large and powerful cults have so much influence in various governments (including the U.S.), I think it would be extraordinarily difficult to get such a thing into the schools. I'd also like to see a general education or awareness campaign launched for the adult population...it would be great if parents could teach their kids about this, or recommend reading for their children. Certainly, at the least, psychologists and counselors should be required to learn about cults and the psychological tactics they employ, since even when someone leaves a cult and seeks counseling, chances are the person they receive counseling from is unfamiliar with cultic influence and doesn't know how to deal with those issues.

First, he wrote on his post of 10-3-2004

Quote

I'm a researcher at Mclean hospital. Dr. Bruce Cohen, whom is quoted above, is my boss and the head honcho at Mclean.

Then, on 10-5-04 after I posted the article on psychotherapy ethics and the problems of dual relationships, laslow backpedalled and wrote

Quote

For the record, I'm working in biochemistry research. I couldn't write a prescription for someone to Landmark if I wanted to. [/u]

Let this be a lesson to us all:

*First, if our friend 'laslow' had indeed been 'in biochemistry research' his boss would not have been a psychiatrist, nor even 'head honcho' at Mclean Hospital.

*His boss would've been head of the biochemistry department, or a high ranking person within that department.

Two, [b:11a7895626]no [/b:11a7895626]responsible staff member at a hospital or university would ever speak in these terms in a public forum--he or she would have arranged for someone in the Media Relations Department to issue a statement instead.

We have just been given a new example of how ruthless certain disruptive persons can be when visiting the RR.com message board.

For the future, if someone pops up and claims affiliation with an important person or institution, yet shows signs of indiscretion, sloppy thinking and rude behavior incompatible with their alleged social status and affiliations, we have every right to trust our street smarts, be skeptical and fact--check.

Me, I started to get suspicious when a person claiming to be in medical research -- a field renowned for multiple author papers -- couldn't spell the word collaborate.

Penny

Ah - that's the norm. Medical secretaries, transcriptionists and editors make them look good in the journals. It's when they have the time to seek out what's being said on cult education forums and lose scientific curiosity to defense of LGATS. Say hi to Dr. Stollar, Laslow.