Well, I've finally met up with the Landmark friend and it was surprisingly unpainful. (don't worry, I still have absolutely no desire to go and my husband says he doesn't want to go either). But I was surprised -- he wasn't as bad as I expected. The worst thing he did was -- well, I thought he wasn't bringing up Landmark, and so I was relieved. But I later found out from hub that the first time the two of them were alone he tried to convince hub that he should go (I guess he gathered from our 3 hour conversation before that there was no way he'd convince me). When hub confronted him about their techniques, he was apparently surprisingly nonchalant: "Well, they're a business, of course they want to get more people -- I don't see their methods as any different from a store loyalty programme". Hmm. But at least when hub said he had no interest he didn't press it further (let's hope that holds after he goes to the final course, which apparently he's planning in the next few weeks).

The interesting thing was that his partner has been to one Landmark session, apparently decided that it wasn't for her, and that's been the end of it. Or, that's what he implied in any case... From everything I've heard about Landmark, I'm guessing this is a special case -- so how has she escaped the contant pressure to keep going? She is extremely intelligent (a surgeon and well respected in her field) -- but then, I thought the friend was intelligent too. She's a bit older than we are (mid-forties), but I gather that young and old are equally susceptible... so how has she some out of it seemingly unscathed and without her partner badgering her to do more courses?

There are lots of people who have no susceptibility to Landmark-type manipulation. Someone who has seen a family member or friend involved, for instance. Or, as a friend of mine, who declined to go who had been encouraged by her then fiancee to attend, told me: "I think it was because my father was a used-car salesman." She saw right through it without knowing anything about it or Werner Erhard. Someone who understands how cults operate might not be so gullible, though that's not a given.

In addition, most people who attend probably aren't significantly harmed by the thing. They may "deprogram" themselves with no residual problem when they test out the "ideas" in the real world. Or they may face the hostility from others they try to recruit and do some research. I can't imagine that any fan who reads "Outrageous Betrayal" would want to continue with it.

The number of people who become deeply "involved" roughly parallels the number of people who are deeply hypnotizable; ten to twenty per cent of the population. Those insiders who have posted here have spoken about the numbers they knew they would have to "convert" in any given audience. The variables include the persuasiveness of the varyious "trainers." Trainers rehearse and perfect their delivery for years. They know their success and future with the company depends on bringing in higher numbers. By the time they are "leading" the Forum, they are super-salesmen. Super-slick, also. And super-manipulative.

What it boils down to is comparable to a disease, plague, or epidemic. Some will escape untouched, some with mild symptoms, some will become severely ill, and some die. Landmark targets a specific population, they only want those they can control. They don't want to waste time on the recalcitrant and skeptical. Though they can create an atmosphere where more people are susceptible by using all their tricks and techniques, most people aren't and won't go along with the nonsense.

You wrote:

[When hub confronted him about their techniques, he was apparently surprisingly nonchalant: "Well, they're a business, of course they want to get more people -- I don't see their methods as any different from a store loyalty programme".]


Notice he didn't make the leap that most businesses don't rely on customers to recruit new customers. Or train or teach them how to sell their product. Or that he was giving a for-profit concern his labor. He was obviously "coached" on how to respond to this reaction. Would this person have pitched a product to you before he went through the program?


Ellen

To answer this question, one needs to understand that there are two processes running in the course:

1. The psychological process created by the room environment manipulation, restricting sustenance to only the meal at dinner, the long hours causing sleep deprivation and the implied threat of not breaking out from the group think, being at all times "coachable" and the use of "double speak";
[board.culteducation.com]

2. The hypnotic process that delivers the perverted existential philosophy of "being possibility", thinking that "everyone is out to get me" and "not fearing anyone or anything".
[board.culteducation.com]



These two processes are hidden from the participants.



It appears that almost all participants are affected to varing degrees by the process as outlined in point 1. This process affects participants in their mood. In respsonse to these stimuli, the brain produces large amounts of setetonin to combat the stress the brain is in. The affect of the seretonin gives the participant a "feel good" high. Large amounts of setetonin over a sustained period, (1 week), can induce a manic state, the direct opposite of severe depression.

The process in point 1 also assists the suggestibility of the participant by reducing their defences and critical thinking. (Parents would understand this well when their child persistantly asks for something right into the night when the parent is tied and finally relents.) Combining points 1 & 2, the participant enters a state of euthoria and connectedness while adopting this "new" philosophy that "I can create a life I love". The meshing of the affects of these two processes is what is termed as "getting it" or "transformation"

[b:3fa5fe77ec]So why do some people feel the euthoria but reject the philosophy?[/b:3fa5fe77ec]

As Ellen has said, only 10% of the population can be hypnotised while a further 10% cannot. The middle 80% have varing degrees of disposition towards hypnosis/trance induction/suggestibility.

However, combining the affects of point 1 with point 2 may increase a participants suggestibility.

I have spoken and conversed with people who have participated in Landmark Forum and other LGATs who experienced the "high" and connectedness but rejected the philosophy. One could summise that these people fall into the catagory that cannot be hypnotised.

One person I know a few years prior to going to the Forum, went to one of these hypnotist shows with his friends. They all went down to the stage to be hypnotised. He was the only one who could not be hypnotised. His experience with Landmark was that while he rejected all the philisophical teachings of Landmark, he experienced symptoms consistant with Mania for about 6 weeks, causing strain on his marriage.

Oz

From what I've read, groups like these target people who are at a low point in their lives or questioning things about themselves. They promise "transformation" to people who are feeling down or feel a need to change something about their lives. In my friend's case, he'd injured himself and was out of work for months, looking possibly for a new career. That's when he was approached and fell heavily into Landmark.

On the other hand, when he approached me, I was pretty happy with my life and didn't feel any need to "transform" anything about it. Also, I've been in the advertising business for years and immediately recognize half-truths and vague promises when I hear them. I'm familiar with sales pitches and am always looking for the fine print -- in other words, I'm quite skeptical. And I didn't like the change I saw in him -- it was scary.

I did find that over time his sales pitch softened and became more refined. I believe the longer you stay in Landmark, the more they coach you to tailor your message to your audience and winnow out people who are definitely not interested. This is probably why your friend stopped trying to convince you, but went after your husband when he was alone with him. Divide and conquer. I've also heard about people who resisted the sales pitch from a loved one for months, then got the ultimatum that it's Landmark or it's over. Some go to Landmark to save the relationship; others let it go. I hope this doesn't happen in your case.

Landmark purposely targets intelligent and successful people, by the way (gotta make enough money to pay for all those seminars!), so it's not surprising to hear that your intelligent friends got roped into it. Smart people have a desire to learn, and Landmark promises a higher level of enlightenment. And upfront, it sounds like you'll learn some really great philisophical life lessons at their "seminars." Ick.

Also, by the way, there's really no "final course." Landmark will always pitch a new and better seminar that you simply must attend.

Quote
elena
Notice he didn't make the leap that most businesses don't rely on customers to recruit new customers. Or train or teach them how to sell their product. Or that he was giving a for-profit concern his labor. He was obviously "coached" on how to respond to this reaction. Would this person have pitched a product to you before he went through the program?

:lol: Actually, he's exactly the type to pitch a product -- whatever he's doing in life, it's the only thing to do, whatever brand of electronic goodies he's using (he's a technofiend, so his life is dominated by electronic gadgets), you're a simpleton if you're not using them too -- whatever foods he's buying or recipes he's preparing, that's what you need to have too. Etc. He's a father now, and he's been pitching parenthood at us ever since his little one was born.

I'm sure he'd have answers to all of the above, but I don't have the energy to debate with him. Maybe I should send him an anonymous copy of "Outrageous Betrayal" (I haven't read it myself yet)

Oh, and here's another question. He claimed (to my hub) that his partner had been to one session, decided it wasn't for her, and hasn't gone since. I'm wondering if he just said that in order to make it seem less high-pressure. In the bedroom we stayed in (her office), she had this thing posted up which seemed a bit Landmarkian to me (based on the information I've got over the net anyway). It was a coloured bit of paper, with drawings and sparkles such as children might make in a school art class, but covered with adult handwriting. It was titled "What we like about Susie" (let's call the partner Susie :) ) -- and underneath were a lot of statements that you could imagine coming from some sort of exercise in a training seminar (ranging from the familiar, such as "She has such energy and enthusiasm" or "She's so kind and caring", to the less familiar, such as "Her profession is so worthy"). Is this likely to be something she retained from a Landmark session? (I'm curious because it seems to me that, if she bothered keeping something like that, she can't have been so convinced that it wasn't for her)

Quote

Maybe I should send him an anonymous copy of "Outrageous Betrayal" (I haven't read it myself yet)

I have heard that some people were surprised to hear what a jerk Werner is and it made them think twice about Landmark....but others in Landmark know all the Werner dirt and accept it...they're actually proud that he transformed his life. Is it possible to get your friend some information from here? Maybe Lifton's eight criteria or the study of Lifespring training?

Quote

Oh, and here's another question. He claimed (to my hub) that his partner had been to one session, decided it wasn't for her, and hasn't gone since. I'm wondering if he just said that in order to make it seem less high-pressure.

This is entirely possible. People in Landmark believe the ends justify the means, and they will lie if it helps get you to attend. My friend made all sorts of wild claims about how Landmark helped his life that weren't true or were extremely exaggerated. This also seems to be a standard part of the sales pitch if you've been holding out -- "So-and-so did the Forum, took what she/he needed, and threw away the rest! You can, too!" Very typical. I started a thread here a few weeks ago about this exact subject.

I'm not sure about the paper with sparkles, but it does seem landmarkian to me...and an awfully odd thing for a grown and intelligent woman to 1) have and 2) leave out where guests were sure to see it. Seems a bit planned, no?

Actually, at its core, Landmark is salesman's training. It might be similar to Dale Carnegie without the creepy scientological and Mind Dynamics content. Or some of it, anyway. Remember, Werner Erhard was training/teaching/coaching/ his teams of door-to-door, high-pressure, foot-in-the-door book sales teams when he started est. They were and are the lowest grade of persuasion and influence tactics originally designed to frighten, shame, and coerce parents into buying expensive encyclopediae for their kids. The product, (more Landmark courses), changed, but the techniques are mostly the same. They have had to soft-pedal and dampen the more obnoxious tactics. Just survival.

Most salesmen go through some similar training program, though many of them include some sort of ethical proscriptions, which Landmark has facilely dispensed with by it's inclusion of nihilistic or existential and narcissistic philosophical precepts; "There are no victims," for example, or "You create your own reality," which might as well be called "lying" or "making up anything you want." Most natural-born salesmen have a kind of predatory "instinct," but sales tactics are easy enough to teach, to some degree. Notice how many people balk at the pressure to sell Landmark to their friends and family, though. It's an eye-opener to find out how gullible people can be. I recommend "Influence," by Cialdini, if you haven't read it.


(Sounds like his "partner" has retained at least some of the Landmark stuff. They do a lot of "affirmations" or self-coaching-type meditation or self-hypnosis. They call them "processes." She probably also has the same sort of "document" listing "What we don't like about Susie" somewhere.)


Ellen

Glam - in your last posting, you made reference to "Pathology as "Personal Growth": A Participant-Observation Study of Lifespring Training" as a help for Landmarkians and those recovering.
[perso.wanadoo.fr]

I passed this to my ex girlfriend 5 weeks ago who was in Landmark. Last night she told me that she read it and found that 97% of it related to her experience even though it was a psychological, (psycho analytic), paper on Lifespring. She also told me that she became quite emotional reading it.

So, I can say it is recommended by an ex-Landmarkian who is trying to deal with what happened to her. I will update the relivent thread on this.

I would also like to say that this is further evidence to those Landmarkians who are deceiving themselves by thinking that Landmark courses are original. They are not, they are just one of the biggest around.


Ellen you mentioned:-

Quote

(Sounds like his "partner" has retained at least some of the Landmark stuff. They do a lot of "affirmations" or self-coaching-type meditation or self-hypnosis. They call them "processes." She probably also has the same sort of "document" listing "What we don't like about Susie" somewhere.)

Can you elaborate on this? Do you have examples?

Oz

Thanks, Oz...I found the Lifespring study very eye-opening. It really gave me a clear idea of what actually happens in an LGAT training weekend and the effects it has on people. I'm glad it helped your ex. I'm also very glad Rick Ross has all this info available to read online.

Quote
Concerned Oz
Ellen you mentioned:-

Quote

(Sounds like his "partner" has retained at least some of the Landmark stuff. They do a lot of "affirmations" or self-coaching-type meditation or self-hypnosis. They call them "processes." She probably also has the same sort of "document" listing "What we don't like about Susie" somewhere.)

Can you elaborate on this? Do you have examples?

Oz

Hi Oz,

There are accounts of this stuff in some of the old posts on afl regarding Mind Dynamics. The purpose of the "excercises" is to put or keep people on the "roller-coaster;" to "love-bomb" in the "What we like about blah, blah...." and to destroy, humiliate, and shame by the "What we don't like about blah, blah...."

Some of the accounts of the old Mind Dynamics and its spin-off Leadership Dynamics include having participants strip naked and stand in front of the group while the others "critique" the subject's body, posture, hygeine, etc. I think they "discovered" in est that they didn't have to take anyone's clothes off to get the same result. The "excercise" or "process" was combined, I believe, with something scientologists call "bull-baiting," in which the participant stands at attention in front of the audience and is screamed at by a trainer. This also serves to "regress" people to a child-like dependency. (Or sends them into some other state, like dissociation.)


Ellen