Hi Towest,

Yes, I recruited my sister.

I read some of your experience with your wife's personality change. My recruitment of my sister (and my attempts to recruit others) was part of my personality change.

Your wife and I are responsible for being covertly manipulated into a personality change?

skeptic

>>Your wife and I are responsible for being covertly manipulated into a personality change?

Yes you and her are responsible as everything what you are doing as adults!

>>I read some of your experience with your wife's personality change. My recruitment of my sister (and my attempts to recruit others) was part of my personality change.

Could you please explain connection between recruiting for LGAT and personality change?

Hmmmm, I wonder what mind control is?

Don't have any experience of LGats, but this is a question I have wondered about a lot on the cult front: who is responsible for actions adults take under group influence?
Steve Hassan has a couple of articles on his website showing how susceptible almost all of us are to group persuasion.
Towest: maybe you have been lucky, or maybe in similar circumstances you would have been one of the small percentage who behaved differently. If you have not been in the situation though, hard to judge.

In this case, though it seems you can't have it both ways.His sister was also an adult.In this case:is he responsible for persuading her, or is she as an adult totally responsible for everything she does?

Disclaimer regarding Steve Hassan

The Ross Institute of New Jersey/May 2013

See [www.culteducation.com]

The inclusion of news articles within the Ross Institute of New Jersey (RI) archives, which mention and/or quote Steven Hassan, in no way suggests that RI recommends Mr. Hassan or recognizes him in any way.

News articles that mention Steve Hassan have been archived for historical purposes only due to the information they contain about controversial groups, movements and/or leaders.

RI does not recommend Steven Hassan.

RI has received serious complaints about Steve Hassan concerning his fees. Mr. Hassan does not publicly disclose his fee schedule, but according to complaints Steve Hassan has charged fees varying from $250.00 per hour or $2,500.00 per day to $500.00 per hour or $5,000.00 per day. This does not include Mr. Hassan's expenses, which according to complaints can be quite substantial.

Steven Hassan has charged families tens of thousands of dollars and provided questionable results. One recent complaint cited total fees of almost $50,000.00. But this very expensive intervention effort ended in failure.

Dr. Cathleen Mann, who holds a doctorate in psychology and has been a licensed counselor in the state of Colorado since 1994 points out, "Nowhere does Hassan provide a base rate and/or any type or accepted statistical method defining his results..."

Steve Hassan has at times suggested to potential clients that they purchase a preliminary report based upon what he calls his "BITE" model. These "BITE reports" can potentially cost thousands of dollars.

See [corp.sec.state.ma.us]

Steve Hassan runs a for-profit corporation called "Freedom of Mind." Mr. Hassan is listed as the corporate agent for that business as well as its president and treasurer.

RI does not recommend "Freedom of Mind" as a resource.

RI also does not list or recommend Steve Hassan's books.

To better understand why Mr. Hassan's books are not recommended by RI read this detailed review of his most recently self-published book titled "Freedom of Mind."

See [www.cultnews.com]

Steve Hassan's cult intervention methodology has historically raised concerns since its inception. The book "Recovery from Cults" (W.W. Norton & Co. pp. 174-175) edited by Dr. Michael Langone states the following:

"Calling his approach 'strategic intervention [sic] therapy,' Hassan (1988) stresses that, although he too tries to communicate a body of information to cultists and to help them think independently, he also does formal counseling. As with many humanistic counseling approaches, Hassan’s runs the risk of imposing clarity, however subtly, on the framework’s foundational ambiguity and thereby manipulating the client."

RI has also learned that Mr. Hassan has had dual-relationships with his counseling clients. That is, clients seeing Mr. Hassan for counseling may also do professional cult intervention work with him.

Professionals in the field of cultic studies have also expressed concerns regarding Steven Hassan's use of hypnosis and Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP).

Based upon complaints and the concerns expressed about Mr. Hassan RI does not recommend Steve Hassan for counseling, intervention work or any other form of professional consultation.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/10/2013 09:27PM by rrmoderator.

Steve Hassan has a couple of articles on his website showing how susceptible almost all of us are to group persuasion.

Almost all of as are not susceptible to group persuasion, actualy percentage maybe promiles are very low in population. Some personal factors are important for somebodu to fall for scam not only group influece to blame.

Towest: maybe you have been lucky, or maybe in similar circumstances you would have been one of the small percentage who behaved differently. If you have not been in the situation though, hard to judge.

I been in the situation very deeply involved in atempt to get my wife out and save family. I was talking many times with my wife and her new friends about what about is all mess. I never get acceptable and responsible answer based on reality. It was bunch of salfish, arrogant and greedy people. After one year I decided to pull out and left them to enjoy their "wonderful" new personalites.

People can only be responsible within the context of known facts and consequences. When someone attends a personal growth course, generally accepted to be a good thing, and has what feels like and appears to be a good experiences (without knowing what coercive persuasion is or that they were subject to it) and that person then recommends the same course to a friend or family member, then I can't see how this can be judged as morally wrong or in any other way blameworthy.

That is the situation the majority of 'graduates' are in when they recruit people. Its far different to trying to understand something extreme like murder, which is generally accepted to be a bad thing and is, apart from anything else, against the law. Not so for recommending a course to a friend / sister / wife.

The problem to me arises when the facts become available - for example, after someone has read the many research articles on this site - and a person CONTINUES to believe in and promote the lgat, and refuse to change their view despite the evidence. Anyone who continues to recruit after being given these facts (particularly the facts about the risks to mental health and relationships) is irresponsible at best.

The worst a graduate can be accused of is not doing enough research before going on a course. But then there is nothing in popular culture to suggest that a personal growth course could possibly dangerous, and for the more obscure lgats (Like Quest and Context) the information is just not available unless you know what you're looking for.

This is very different to the trainers and owners of the course who are already aware of the dangers to relationships and mental health and don't care.

Another point is that THE ENTIRE PURPOSE of an lgat, especially the basic coures, is to CONVINCE PEOPLE TO RECRUIT OTHERS. Every concept they teach, every game they play, the timing of the messages - all of it is carefully structured to do one thing - create the illusion of a great experience and a conceptual framework that makes the line "if you really love your friends and family, share this training with them. Take a risk and share it with them, get over looking good fears of what they'll think of you when you invite them here - get over yourself and share the love, make a difference.

Lastly, blaming oneself or the person who recruited you is not useful. There is nothing to be learnt from it beyond - be more skeptical in future, and don't take advice from people you trust because they can be mistaken too. On the other hand blaming the organisation is VERY useful, because then you can study what they did, how their techniques worked, how they affected you - which is actually a good lesson to take forward in the world, far more useful than beating yourself up or carrying a grudge against the person who was unlucky enough to be conned a short time before you. And then you can also try to prevent more people becoming victims by speaking up about the lgats and publicising the problems as much as possible and, where feasible, making legal cases against them.


PS

Vodnik, I didn't think skeptic's original comments were looking for sympathy, looked more like he/she was trying to be helpful to Jeri. I don't think your interpretation is kind or accurate.

Thanks SaneAgain, yes, I wasn't looking for sympathy and I was trying to be helpful to Jeri.

Regarding people who can't see the covert mind bending techniques even when given information about them, do you think that could be because the programming is still effectively blinding them? That's what I think is going on with my sister. Partly.

Also, partly I think she does not want to consider that the person who she thinks turned her life around is a scammer.

This is where it gets confusing and difficult for some: when the lgat had a positive effect. I've tried telling my sister that just because her experience was good does not mean that randy revell didn't use known techniques of covert manipulation.

<sigh>

Quote
SaneAgain
Lastly, blaming oneself or the person who recruited you is not useful. There is nothing to be learnt from it beyond - be more skeptical in future, and don't take advice from people you trust because they can be mistaken too. On the other hand blaming the organisation is VERY useful, because then you can study what they did, how their techniques worked, how they affected you - which is actually a good lesson to take forward in the world, far more useful than beating yourself up or carrying a grudge against the person who was unlucky enough to be conned a short time before you. And then you can also try to prevent more people becoming victims by speaking up about the lgats and publicising the problems as much as possible and, where feasible, making legal cases against them.

SaneAgain,

Well said, that is basically the approach that I am using. I am not at all angry with my friend that got me into the Landmark LGAT. She was honestly trying to help me better my life. I wish I could get my friend out but she is so deep that I doubt that it will happen anytime soon. The last I heard she is in the Wisdom course having just completed the ILP.

I did go down the path of blaming myself. But once I started reading about other peoples experiences with Landmark, especially here on this Forum I stopped blaming myself for what was going on with me. This has made life much better.

I have directed my anger towards Landmark. But I'm doing it constructively and not like a loose cannon. I tell people about it when the opportunity presents itself and I'm learning about LGAT's and their techniques so that I can have intelligent conversations with people that are fact based instead of hear say.

Quote
yasmin
Don't have any experience of LGats, but this is a question I have wondered about a lot on the cult front: who is responsible for actions adults take under group influence?
Steve Hassan has a couple of articles on his website showing how susceptible almost all of us are to group persuasion.
Towest: maybe you have been lucky, or maybe in similar circumstances you would have been one of the small percentage who behaved differently. If you have not been in the situation though, hard to judge.

In this case, though it seems you can't have it both ways.His sister was also an adult.In this case:is he responsible for persuading her, or is she as an adult totally responsible for everything she does?

I think these are interesting questions too, and would love to hear others' thoughts. Who is responsible for what? In the lgat I was 100% accountable, I was told. Nice way for lgats to shift blame that belongs to them onto their victims.

skeptic

Zorro wrote:

Quote

I have directed my anger towards Landmark. But I'm doing it constructively and not like a loose cannon. I tell people about it when the opportunity presents itself and I'm learning about LGAT's and their techniques so that I can have intelligent conversations with people that are fact based instead of hear say.

I wished I could direct my anger towards PSI Seminars in a constructive manner and use this to stop, at least this LGAT. I have seen first hand what this did to my ex-girlfriend. And after her call last night I would like to strike out at someone or something.

I guess that using this board is an avenue to voice our problems and address the issues that this group caused.