Quote
Gulab Jamon

Quote
rrmoderator
Gulab Jamon:

Many controversial groups, movements and leaders are discussed here that are not labeled as "cults" and have not been called "cults."

I know you yourself have not called Byron Katie's organization a "cult", but a poster above implied that she is a guru and has guru-like tendencies, and even said that her denying that she is a guru is guru-like! I guess you can't win.

Guru doesn't necessarily imply cult. What I was trying to say is that it looks to me as if people (called Katiedids?) guru-ize her and perhaps she (covertly) helps stoke that fire with her humble denial of being anything special. Just a thought I had. I overstated it by implying that it's a tactic she's intentionally using to guru-ize herself.

Disclaimer: I haven't paid too much attention to BK because after I heard what she taught in the workshop I had NO interest in her.

Point well taken, skeptic. One of the requirements for the existence of cults is a group of gullible and willing followers. Not a few charismatic spiritual leaders have renounced any claim to being special (Jesus, for example) but were deified willy nilly. People, some in particular, seem to have a drive to worship other people. On that score, I wonder what the incidence of serial cult members is, meaning those who go from one cult to another.

Some of you may be thinking, "Hey, this poster seems to be 'turning it around' and blaming the cult members for the cult's existence. It's Katie epistemology in action." Indeed, I do think that the turnaround part of Katie's stuff is one of its most interesting characteristics. Of course, the idea is a lightning rod for critics, who get understandably annoyed at the suggestion that child sexual abuse survivors, for example, be asked to consider whether they bore some responsibility for what happened. I believe this reaction is an overreaction, however. Katie doesn't go anywhere near suggesting that child sexual abuse is always or ever solely the fault of the survivor. She does suggest, however, that some survivors consider whether they may bear some responsibility because, for instance, they didn't report long-term abuse when they might have, and that it might be a good idea to look at this possibility, not for purprses of legal defense of offenders, but in the context of bringing the understandably emotionally tortured survivor some long overdue peace. How unpleasant must it be to have experienced something like that and to have in the back of your mind the sneaking suspicion that you are partially complicit in some way? Rather than utterly denying the possibility, why not drag that suspicion out where we can get a look at it? There may be something there or not, but it could possibly be worth examining, painful as it could be.

And it's much more useful in more mundane cases. The interesting thing about the turnaround is not that it infallibly leads to ineradicable truth. What it does is suggest some new avenues of inquiry, some possibilities that may not have occurred to us who are trying to figure something out that is bothering us. Katie explicitly and often states that hers is a process of inquiry, not revelation, and I think it is valid. The question can be more important than the answer, Einstein said.

Note that Katie suggests exploring several different versions of the turnaround during an inquiry. For instance, if I am thinking, "She hates me," then one turnaround might be "I hate her." Another: "She doesn't hate me." And: "I hate me." It seems unlikely that all of these can be true. It seems more likely that one or more of them contains significant truth and insight that can help someone understand how to deal with a vexing situation.

Another thing: The kickoff Katiedid question about whether something is absolutely true is upsetting to many people, who may feel it's destabilizing, opening the door to a reality-bending shift in which anything goes because nothing is certain. Maybe it is. But it's also good to remember that Katie's process deals a lot with semantics. This is not all bad. Language is great for describing and communicating, but it's not without flaws. Most people use only 20,000 or so words with any facility, which isn't a lot to describe something as complicated as life. (For instance, we have no English word or phrase for the tendency of cellphone ring downloaders to choose the most annoying musical selection imaginable -- ringtonedeafness? attack ring? nitwitinnabulation? -- a topic for another forum, probably.)

The point is that when we're using words to describe something, especially if that description is causing us a lot of unhappiness, it's not a bad idea to examine those words to see if perhaps they are not 100 percent accurate or there might be better ones. Example: The word "should" can be troublesome in many contexts and almost any conceivable amount of doubt that that can be brought to bear on its usage is, in my view, justifiable.

My suspicion is that Katie has more cult potential than your average person because she has the personality for it. I see no indication that she is cynically manipulating people in order to strip them of money and possessions, have sex with them, exert ego-gratifying power over them or do any of the other things bad cult leaders do. Her disciples, maybe, but not her, at least so far. I think some of the approaches contained in "the Work" may eventually find their way into mainstream cognitive behavioral therapy and that's why she interests me, my own tendency to join cults being modest.

V

Verbalizin:

You seem to be here to defend Byron Katie.

Yes you do seem to blaming everyone other than Byron Katie for whatever negative or questionable impression her "work" has wrought.

Again, Katie is not a qualified therapist. And her sessions do seem to reflect the problems of other self-help awareness training groups as previously outlined.

Katie is marketing and selling herself.

Cynical manipulation?

Just another guru with a Jaguar, support staff and devotees, but of course there is no "ego-gratifying."

The LA Times article captured the issue in a more balanced and objective way then the posts you have offered here.

Thanks for the feedback, rrmoderator. I'm not sure I'm doing a very good job of defending anybody. On the other hand, I'm not dismissing or attacking anybody either. I'm strictly in this for myself and even if I were inclined to defend Byron Katie, she seems capable of looking out for her own interests, whatever those might be, so I probably wouldn't expend my energies on protecting her from criticism.

Anyone who's read my posts knows that I have pointed out that Katie appears to be a viable candidate for cult leader, based on the proven appeal of her combination of charisma and message. Personally, I am uncomfortable around and about charismatic people. I dislike and avoid them. The chances of me shaving my head and following Katie around hoping for a pat on the rear are nil -- and this is despite the fact that I already shave my head anyway.

If I had purchased Katie's book rather than checking it out from the library, I might be going through it with a thick black Sharpie, marking out the sections that would cause the hair on the back of my neck to rise if I had any. She or her co-author and spouse, Stephen Mitchell, frequently and egregiously stimulate my personal BS detector. Statements that something -- anything -- is for every person and applies to every situation are, in my opinion, throwaways. Chances that they are literally true are nil. Her admonitions to "breathe through" problems (I think I'm quoting that right) seem to me sheer mysticism.

Etc., etc., etc. Katiedids + Byron Katie + plus adoring knuckleheaded Hollywood types = high abuse potential and frankly I could not care less. People who are going to be in cults are going to be in cults. Education, just like that provided by this forum, is the best way to deal with that threat, not commentary about her mode of transportation which, in any event, was adequately explained by that LA Times article.

On that topic, the LA Times is one of the handful of top newspapers for which I have not written during 25 years as a journalist (full disclosure, I am mainly a business journalist and probably a second-rater at that) but I won't hold that against them. The reporter did a creditable job with this story and the objective of presenting a balanced and still entertaining look at a somewhat controversial personality was accomplished in craftsmanlike fashion. So I basically agree with you, although it's hard for me to really know what a layman sees when he or she reads an article like that. In particular, I think people tend to miss the element of entertainment, or mistake it for something else.

My interest, however, is not in the personality nor in swallowing her philosophy whole. I have a somewhat more than passing familiarity with mainstream cognitive psychology and it appears to me that "The Work" contains some techniques that we would be wise to thoroughly investigate. It's not for me to do that kind of work -- I am no scientist -- but it would be a shame if we were to say that because Katie runs the risk of heading up a cult we should refuse to seriously discuss the possibility that there is something of value there. Draft a hypothesis and design some experiments and then let's talk about science. Many techniques employed by mainsteam therapists have bee subjected to little or no validation per scientifid method. I'd personally like to see this investigated before we spend a nickel on something like thinking back to when we were children and giving ourselves a big hug, which I think fairly charactizes the favored approach of one of my former therapsits who charged $150 an hour for it.

But, hey, 150 people die every year from Tylenol overdoses. A commodity doesn't have to be proven utterly harmless in every conceivable circumstance, nor applicable in every situation, for it to be of great use to a large number of people (the FDA notwithstanding). I've said earlier and I repeat: If I were susceptible to cults, I'd stay away from this woman and, even more so, her disciples.

In conclusion I will say that I don't know a thing about you, rrmoderator, so although I love to argue I would be at a serious disadvantage if this discussion were to disintegrate into personal criticisms, labeling, erection of paper tigers or anything but a discussion of the issues. Hopefully, that won't happen. Meanwhile, I'm still interested in references to the researches you mentioned earlier.

Best,

V

Verbalizin:

Suffice to summarize that Katie is not a licensed professional using cognitive therapy.

She is more of a hit and miss amateur without the proper training playing with people's minds and emotions.

For $150.00 an hour you would get a trained and board certified clinical psychologist or psychiatrist.

Why bother with Katie?

And there is always a family member or friend to talk with for free.

Hello rrmoderator... I hope the weekend was a good one for you. I just read your response to my posts from Friday, and wanted to comment on a couple things...

First, you stated the following...

Quote
rrmoderator
But when people pay for professional help or guidance it is always best to go to someone qualified with credentials.

First, because they have the specific education typically required for licensing or certification and the related professional experience.

Second, because they are typically accountable to a licensing board and professional review regarding complaints.

Why do you say 'it is always best to go to someone qualified...'? How can anyone know what is ALWAYS best for each and every person? I don't mean to sound like a broken record and repeat my point from previous posts in this regard, but making generalizations like that is simply showing the 'one size fits all' mentality that you so strongly oppose when taking about LGATs, yet you seem to think the mentality can be used to defend your position. I again will state it's all relative, and such statements as yours cannot be used to disclaim a self help system that may help SOME individuals.

Secondly, you stated...

Quote
rrmoderator
If Byron expects people that attend her "therapy-like setting" to sign a release form limiting her liability that would be a big "red flag."

The thing that caught my eye here is that you say 'if Byron expects...' ...but she doesn't, does she? And since she doesn't, then why talk about a red flag that doesn't exist?

The real issue I am trying to talk about with these posts is not Katie Byron or any other self help teacher or guru, but the mentality on this side of the fence, where we can fail to shed the light on ourselves and how the sweeping generalizations are made to all LGATs, making us as guilty as any guru/system in saying it's all for one and one for all... life is just not that simple in my opinion.

Peace,
Madshus

Quote
Madshus

Quote
rrmoderator
If Byron expects people that attend her "therapy-like setting" to sign a release form limiting her liability that would be a big "red flag."

The thing that caught my eye here is that you say 'if Byron expects...' ...but she doesn't, does she? And since she doesn't, then why talk about a red flag that doesn't exist?

That's a good point. I honestly don't remember being asked to sign a release at either Katie's public talk OR the faciliated workshop I attended. However, this was in 2003, so maybe this release thing is something new?

Looks to me like there's a reasonable chance all could agree that Byron Katie has more potential than some to turn into a cult leader, but that at this point no one can really say that "The Work" and its devotees constitute a cult, Katie is a cult leader, or anyone has been seriously harmed by any of it, not including people who might have been healed if they had gone to some other source for help (bear in mind the typical Katiedid probably has the money and time to have tried lots of other stuff first, I'm guessing.)

Fair enough? If there is some person who's been stripped of life savings, robbed of possessions, raped, beaten, forced to watch Blazing Saddles repeatedly or otherwise abused, I am as eager to hear about it as the next. I have no interest whatsoever in defending Bryon Katie. To the contrary, I came to this forum seeking critiques, and I found them and I"m grateful for that.

But while she may (or may not) be a proto-cult leader, I have a problem with convicting people based on what they might do. I would like to see more cause for alarm before calling 911.

I'll repeat that I think beneath the gooey mysticism there are some hard-nosed, highly useful tools in "The Work." You wouldn't normally expect to find transcendent spiritualism and practical therapeutic techniques coming from the same person, but it's not impossible and, in this case, it seems to have occurred.

Just one man's opinion (although someone whose opinion I respect),

V

Here's an example of why I think BK's teachings are nutty. She says, "When you do The Work, you see who you are by seeing who you think other people are. Eventually you come to see that everything outside you is a reflection of your own thinking. You are the storyteller, the projector of all stories, and the world is the projected image of your thoughts."

While this is partly true, on some level, in some cases, it is by no means a black or white proposition. The LGAT that exploited me existed only in my mind? No, that was real, even though it [i:7e484360ee]was[/i:7e484360ee] outside myself. There really are things apart from ME in this world.

This ME ME ME approach to the world is a twisted kind of narcissism.

I agree that there is some truth in what she says, but not to the (absolute) degree she says. I also don't see that she's onto anything that's new, so why is "the work" capitalized?

Whatever she is, something seems "off" to me, and after my LGAT experience, I am erring on the side of caution. The reframe-everything kind of thinking she teaches = the LGAT I was involved with. Just a big mindgame. That is a big red flag, for me.

If I were you, I'd use a different example. Say a large person is standing on your foot. Say also that this person is wearing golf shoes and you are sporting your usual stylin' flip flops. To what degree is your level of discomfort merely a factor of your thoughts about this situation? Not a lot, is my contention, and I think Byron Katie would probably tell the SOB to get the fork off her foot and possibly give him a little shove besides and then later not feel even a little bad about how she had interpreted reality.

Point is, there have got to be limits to the extent to which external reality and our reactions to it are governed by our thoughts about reality. (I can imagine a masochist enjoying the golf shoe treatment, but for this thought experiment let's leave that out.)

Your example involving LGATs is, in my opinion, a good example of what Katie is talking about. Of course, the LGAT existed independently of your thoughts about it. But your thoughts about the LGAT governed your actions. It was your desire to please the facilitator, to go along with the group, to get whatever goodies they were offering that caused you to get involved with it and stay involved with it for however long you did.

And it's your interpretation of that event today that now causes you to resent and fear and dislike LGATs. Another person undergoing the identical experience might regard it as an interesting education in something they decided they didn't want to pursue. In fact, I ran into at least one guy at the Landmark thing I went to who took just that approach. My response, on the other hand, was to feel somewhat frightened and angry at the blatant attempts to manipulate me and to react with aggressive criticism.

I want to emphasize that I don't think you're wrong in how you react to LGATs. I absolutely share many of your feelings, at least as far as I understand them. But I also think if you closely examine your attitudes toward the LGATs you will learn considerable about yourself. This is the premise of Katiediddling and it's a valid one.

You're right that this is not a new idea. It goes back thousands of years, at least. But there is something seriously useful in that goofy judge your neighbor, write it down, ask four questions, turn it around business. I'm guessing it's the turnaround part. It helps us to really consider whether we are guilty of the sins we are accusing others of, for one thing. And it helps us to take responsibility for fixing the situation ourselves.

I'll give you an example. I am recently divorced and I have spent considerable time regretting and resenting the loss of my children, my home, my possessions, my life savings, many of my circle of friends and various other things. In the process of doing this inquiry, I generated the wish that "She should give me back my children, my house, my life savings, my possessions and my friends." One of the turnarounds was, "I should give me back my children, my house, etc."

As I wrote that sentence it became apparent to me that it would be far more useful for me to start looking for a house I could buy and turn into a new home rather to indulge in pointless resentment. I would better off to stop blaming the family law system and my ex for my lack of time with my kids and start doing everything I can to be a better father during the occasions I do see them (I'm trying already, of course, but this ratchets up the ambition and makes it clear that I'm going to have to make it happen.) Same goes for my life savings, possessions, friends and so on.

I suspect that Katie and her work are useful primarily if not only for coddled, neurotic types like me whose problems are, it is obvious to everyone else, alive nowhere but inside our own skulls. If you are a more seriously traumatized survivor of war, sexual abuse, torture or having to listen to loud hip-hop music, I'd look elsewhere. That's not an indictment, necessarily. The fact that Lipitor doesn't cure cancer doesn't mean we refuse to prescribe it for people with high cholesterol. Every tool for its job.

V