Re: Human Awareness Institute - Issues?
Posted by:
Bert Clanton
()
Date: August 31, 2009 07:51AM
Here I'll be quoting a recent posting by rrmoderator, and interpolating my comments:
"The key factors that distinguish coercive persuasion from other training and socialization schemes are:
1. The reliance on intense interpersonal and psychological attack to destabilize an individual's sense of self to promote compliance "
Attack of any kind is simply and completely foreign to HAI's modus operandi. In my viewpoint there's plenty of stuff worth attacking in contemporary American culture as it applies to bodily shame and inappropriate sexual guilt; but what HAI does instead is simply to present experiential exercises that introduce participants to the possibility of new "neuronal pathways" that avoid that bad stuff. But any participant can opt out of any exercise at any time, with no pressure to reconsider. I myself have on rare occasions opted out of an exercise or two, with no pressure to reconsider--simply because I had done that Level before, and they weren't exercises that I enjoyed. In fact, none of the nearby interns or facilitators seemed to even notice.
2. The use of an organized peer group
There *is* no organized peer group among HAI participants, assistants, or interns. However, it is probably a fact that some *participants* may exert psychological pressure upon other *participants* to participate in a particular exercise, or to attend the next workshop level. If and when this occurs, it is not organized by HAI facilitators, interns, or assistants, and in fact is contrary to HAI's policies and recommendations. With respect to "organized" HAI participants, I repeat my previous remark: Have you ever tried to herd cats? Especially if they're spread out thinly over several continents?
3. Applying interpersonal pressure to promote conformity
While this may occur among participants themselves outside of workshops, it is not organized by HAI facilitators, interns, or assistants, and if made known to facilitators at the workshops where it occurs, wouldn't be tolerated by them.
4. The manipulation of the totality of the person's social environment to stabilize behavior once modified "
HAI simply doesn't have the means to do any such thing, even if it wanted to. And it doesn't want to. Try manipulating somebody's social environment if the prospective manipulators and the people to be manipulated are geographically highly dispersed and are typically highly involved in their own lives entirely separate from HAI.
"Robert Lifton labeled the extraordinarily high degree of social control characteristic of organizations that operate reform programs as their totalistic quality (Lifton 1961). This concept refers to the mobilization of the entirety of the person's social, and often physical, environment in support of the manipulative effort. Lifton identified eight themes or properties of reform environments that contribute to their totalistic quality:
1. Control of communication
No desire to do this, no policy of trying to do it, and no means to do it.
2. Emotional and behavioral manipulation
Its quite true that the workshops present exercises that can (at least from my perspective) open people up to the possibility of new, more felicitous attitudes and behaviors. But there are absolutely no coercive or manipulative techniques used.
3. Demands for absolute conformity to behavior prescriptions derived from the ideology
Totally absent, and totally contrary to HAI's way of doing things. While it's true that most participants, at least at higher levels, do share certain attitudes and ways of thinking, I believe that most of us came into HAI with most of those same beliefs and attitudes already in place. If anyone has ever had his or her way of looking at the world or his or her moral attitudes radically changed by a HAI workshop, I have yet to meet him or her.
4. Obsessive demands for confession
There's no demand at all for anything that could reasonably be called "confession". However, in "Large Group Shares", many people do voluntarily get up in front of the room and talk about their life-situations, their feelings, or their experience of the workshop. But this is purely by their choice--no one demands it of them.
5. Agreement that the ideology is faultless
No participant is ever asked, however gently, to agree to anything whatsoever. However, there *is* a lot of agreement among advanced HAI participants about the basic attitudes and beliefs characteristic of HAI. But this agreement is not something sought by or insisted upon by HAI as an organization. It very often pre-exists in the people who become HAI participants. Other people may be so uncomfortable with this consensus that they break off their contact with HAI. I completely support them in that decision.
6. Manipulation of language in which cliches substitute for analytic thought
HAI folks do have their own kind of verbal "shorthand". But no more so than other fields of specialized endeavor. And HAI shares much of its jargon with other benign, "spiritually oriented" groups.
7. Reinterpretation of human experience and emotion in terms of doctrine
If you're saying that HAI has a particular way of looking at bodies and at sexual activity and sexual morality, you're right. We do have an unconventional orientation toward those particular facets of American culture. But we don't believe that this orientation is the complete and total truth of human experience. Many of us are active in a variety of other ways to improve the human condition.
8. Classification of those not sharing the ideology as inferior and not worthy of respect
Simply: no way.
"The key factors that distinguish coercive persuasion from other training and socialization schemes are:
1. The reliance on intense interpersonal and psychological attack to destabilize an individual's sense of self to promote compliance "
Attack of any kind is simply and completely foreign to HAI's modus operandi. In my viewpoint there's plenty of stuff worth attacking in contemporary American culture as it applies to bodily shame and inappropriate sexual guilt; but what HAI does instead is simply to present experiential exercises that introduce participants to the possibility of new "neuronal pathways" that avoid that bad stuff. But any participant can opt out of any exercise at any time, with no pressure to reconsider. I myself have on rare occasions opted out of an exercise or two, with no pressure to reconsider--simply because I had done that Level before, and they weren't exercises that I enjoyed. In fact, none of the nearby interns or facilitators seemed to even notice.
2. The use of an organized peer group
There *is* no organized peer group among HAI participants, assistants, or interns. However, it is probably a fact that some *participants* may exert psychological pressure upon other *participants* to participate in a particular exercise, or to attend the next workshop level. If and when this occurs, it is not organized by HAI facilitators, interns, or assistants, and in fact is contrary to HAI's policies and recommendations. With respect to "organized" HAI participants, I repeat my previous remark: Have you ever tried to herd cats? Especially if they're spread out thinly over several continents?
3. Applying interpersonal pressure to promote conformity
While this may occur among participants themselves outside of workshops, it is not organized by HAI facilitators, interns, or assistants, and if made known to facilitators at the workshops where it occurs, wouldn't be tolerated by them.
4. The manipulation of the totality of the person's social environment to stabilize behavior once modified "
HAI simply doesn't have the means to do any such thing, even if it wanted to. And it doesn't want to. Try manipulating somebody's social environment if the prospective manipulators and the people to be manipulated are geographically highly dispersed and are typically highly involved in their own lives entirely separate from HAI.
"Robert Lifton labeled the extraordinarily high degree of social control characteristic of organizations that operate reform programs as their totalistic quality (Lifton 1961). This concept refers to the mobilization of the entirety of the person's social, and often physical, environment in support of the manipulative effort. Lifton identified eight themes or properties of reform environments that contribute to their totalistic quality:
1. Control of communication
No desire to do this, no policy of trying to do it, and no means to do it.
2. Emotional and behavioral manipulation
Its quite true that the workshops present exercises that can (at least from my perspective) open people up to the possibility of new, more felicitous attitudes and behaviors. But there are absolutely no coercive or manipulative techniques used.
3. Demands for absolute conformity to behavior prescriptions derived from the ideology
Totally absent, and totally contrary to HAI's way of doing things. While it's true that most participants, at least at higher levels, do share certain attitudes and ways of thinking, I believe that most of us came into HAI with most of those same beliefs and attitudes already in place. If anyone has ever had his or her way of looking at the world or his or her moral attitudes radically changed by a HAI workshop, I have yet to meet him or her.
4. Obsessive demands for confession
There's no demand at all for anything that could reasonably be called "confession". However, in "Large Group Shares", many people do voluntarily get up in front of the room and talk about their life-situations, their feelings, or their experience of the workshop. But this is purely by their choice--no one demands it of them.
5. Agreement that the ideology is faultless
No participant is ever asked, however gently, to agree to anything whatsoever. However, there *is* a lot of agreement among advanced HAI participants about the basic attitudes and beliefs characteristic of HAI. But this agreement is not something sought by or insisted upon by HAI as an organization. It very often pre-exists in the people who become HAI participants. Other people may be so uncomfortable with this consensus that they break off their contact with HAI. I completely support them in that decision.
6. Manipulation of language in which cliches substitute for analytic thought
HAI folks do have their own kind of verbal "shorthand". But no more so than other fields of specialized endeavor. And HAI shares much of its jargon with other benign, "spiritually oriented" groups.
7. Reinterpretation of human experience and emotion in terms of doctrine
If you're saying that HAI has a particular way of looking at bodies and at sexual activity and sexual morality, you're right. We do have an unconventional orientation toward those particular facets of American culture. But we don't believe that this orientation is the complete and total truth of human experience. Many of us are active in a variety of other ways to improve the human condition.
8. Classification of those not sharing the ideology as inferior and not worthy of respect
Simply: no way.
Re: Human Awareness Institute - Issues?
Posted by:
rrmoderator
()
Date: August 31, 2009 09:08AM
Bert Clanton;
Your attempt here at apologies is based upon your personal experience. And as you have already acknowledged repeatedly that you arenot a neutral observer, but rather someone deeply invested and personally committed to the HAI.
Your opinion expressed above reflects that reality.
See [forum.culteducation.com]
Anyone reading this thread and considering HAI should take the time to read the many pages on the other thread before attending any of its programs.
This thread contains serious complaints about HAI and others that have been involved see the organization and its programs quite differently than you do.
HAI is essentially an LGAT, and LGATs or "mass marathon trainings" have a long history of problems, which seem to be structurally inherent.
See [www.culteducation.com]
Here are some of those serious liabilities, which should be carefully considered.
1. They lack adequate participant-selection criteria.
2. They lack reliable norms, supervision, and adequate training for leaders.
3. They lack clearly defined responsibility.
4. They sometimes foster pseudoauthenticity and pseudoreality.
5. They sometimes foster inappropriate patterns of relationships.
6. They sometimes ignore the necessity and utility of ego defenses.
7. They sometimes teach the covert value of total exposure instead of valuing personal differences.
8. They sometimes foster impulsive personality styles and behavioral strategies.
9. They sometimes devalue critical thinking in favor of "experiencing" without self-analysis or reflection.
10. They sometimes ignore stated goals, misrepresent their actual techniques, and obfuscate their real agenda.
11. They sometimes focus too much on structural self-awareness techniques and misplace the goal of democratic education; as a result participants may learn more about themselves and less about group process.
12. They pay inadequate attention to decisions regarding time limitations. This may lead to increased pressure on some participants to unconsciously "fabricate" a cure.
13. They fail to adequately consider the "psychonoxious" or deleterious effects of group participation (or] adverse countertransference reactions.
The groups can be potentially dangerous when:
1. Leaders had rigid, unbending beliefs about what participants should experience and believe, how they should behave in the group. and when they should change.
2. Leaders had no sense of differential diagnosis and assessment skills, valued cathartic emotional breakthroughs as the ultimate therapeutic experience, and sadistically pressed to create or force a breakthrough in every participant.
3. Leaders had an evangelical system of belief that was the one single pathway to salvation.
4. Leaders were true believers and sealed their doctrine off from discomforting data or disquieting results and tended to discount a poor result by, "blaming the victim."
There are licensed marriage and family therapists, sex therapists and other competent helping professionals that are board certified and properly trained to handle personal issues. There are also support groups facilitated by trained and licensed professionals through local social service agencies and continuing education available through community colleges and universities.
It's safer to go with such help where there is meaningful accountability and professional standards, rather than LGATs that have no such accountability and typically have the liabilities and problems listed above.
Your attempt here at apologies is based upon your personal experience. And as you have already acknowledged repeatedly that you arenot a neutral observer, but rather someone deeply invested and personally committed to the HAI.
Your opinion expressed above reflects that reality.
See [forum.culteducation.com]
Anyone reading this thread and considering HAI should take the time to read the many pages on the other thread before attending any of its programs.
This thread contains serious complaints about HAI and others that have been involved see the organization and its programs quite differently than you do.
HAI is essentially an LGAT, and LGATs or "mass marathon trainings" have a long history of problems, which seem to be structurally inherent.
See [www.culteducation.com]
Here are some of those serious liabilities, which should be carefully considered.
1. They lack adequate participant-selection criteria.
2. They lack reliable norms, supervision, and adequate training for leaders.
3. They lack clearly defined responsibility.
4. They sometimes foster pseudoauthenticity and pseudoreality.
5. They sometimes foster inappropriate patterns of relationships.
6. They sometimes ignore the necessity and utility of ego defenses.
7. They sometimes teach the covert value of total exposure instead of valuing personal differences.
8. They sometimes foster impulsive personality styles and behavioral strategies.
9. They sometimes devalue critical thinking in favor of "experiencing" without self-analysis or reflection.
10. They sometimes ignore stated goals, misrepresent their actual techniques, and obfuscate their real agenda.
11. They sometimes focus too much on structural self-awareness techniques and misplace the goal of democratic education; as a result participants may learn more about themselves and less about group process.
12. They pay inadequate attention to decisions regarding time limitations. This may lead to increased pressure on some participants to unconsciously "fabricate" a cure.
13. They fail to adequately consider the "psychonoxious" or deleterious effects of group participation (or] adverse countertransference reactions.
The groups can be potentially dangerous when:
1. Leaders had rigid, unbending beliefs about what participants should experience and believe, how they should behave in the group. and when they should change.
2. Leaders had no sense of differential diagnosis and assessment skills, valued cathartic emotional breakthroughs as the ultimate therapeutic experience, and sadistically pressed to create or force a breakthrough in every participant.
3. Leaders had an evangelical system of belief that was the one single pathway to salvation.
4. Leaders were true believers and sealed their doctrine off from discomforting data or disquieting results and tended to discount a poor result by, "blaming the victim."
There are licensed marriage and family therapists, sex therapists and other competent helping professionals that are board certified and properly trained to handle personal issues. There are also support groups facilitated by trained and licensed professionals through local social service agencies and continuing education available through community colleges and universities.
It's safer to go with such help where there is meaningful accountability and professional standards, rather than LGATs that have no such accountability and typically have the liabilities and problems listed above.
Re: Human Awareness Institute - Issues?
Posted by:
Bert Clanton
()
Date: August 31, 2009 11:07AM
rrmoderator wrote:
"Your attempt here at apologies is based upon your personal experience"
Absolutely. Twenty-plus years of it. All the levels twice as a participant: once as a new participant, and the other with a sweetheart; a couple of levels again recently as a participant; and about sixty as an intern. Are you really implying that my personal experience of HAI unfits me to express an opinion about HAI, while your theoretical suppositions about HAI qualify you to evaluate HAI? If so, I have a different view.
. "And as you have already acknowledged repeatedly that you arenot a neutral observer, but rather someone deeply invested and personally committed to the HAI."
I definitely am not neutral. I sincerely believe that HAI is very helpful to many participants, has no appreciable effect at all on some participants, and may very well be damaging to a very few participants. In that, I believe that HAI is similar to many other social groups--such as clubs, churches, and other widely accepted organizations. With respect to this Forum, what I'm committed to is the notion that my point of view is an essential component of any fair-minded description of HAI.
"Your opinion expressed above reflects that reality."
My opinion reflects a point of view developed over twenty years of actual experience, not a fixed pre-conception that any Large Group Awareness Training is inherently damaging to participants merely because it *is* an LGAT. (Which of course HAI is.) You are confronting me as though your own point of view here is neutral and objective. By my standards of neutrality and objectivity, it s not.
See [forum.culteducation.com]
I did.
"Anyone reading this thread and considering HAI should take the time to read the many pages on the other thread before attending any of its programs."
I heartily agree. There they will find pro-HAI postings as well as anti-HAI postings. I would only ask that the reader assume, at least temporarily, that *both* kinds are written by people who are telling the truth as they see it.
"This thread contains serious complaints about HAI and others that have been involved see the organization and its programs quite differently than you do."
True. I don't insist that the safeguards that HAI has installed always function perfectly. I don't insist that people with unsavory agendas never get through the safeguards. I don't insist that no intern or assistant ever abused the phenomenon of transference to their own advantage. I do insist that when you report such events to the HAI facilitators or to the HAI office, and investigation establishes that what you say is true, there will be consequences for the perpetrators. I have seen this happen.
"HAI is essentially an LGAT, and LGATs or "mass marathon trainings" have a long history of problems, which seem to be structurally inherent."
HAI is indeed an LGAT, but there s nothing "marathon" about it. And again, you simply seem to be assuming something that I deny: that because HAI is an LGAT, it shares in all the damaging qualities that certain studies of LGATs attribute to certain LGATs. As for the "structural inherency" of such qualities: my first-hand knowledge of HAI, including its imperfections, leads me to doubt such "inherency" as applied to HAI.
"See [www.culteducation.com];
I shall.
"Here are some of those serious liabilities, which should be carefully considered."
I agree that they should be carefully considered, as regards how HAI does or doesn't exemplify them; but I believe that a far-minded person will consider the viewpoints of pro-HAI people as well as anti-HAI people when making such a judgment. Here's my take:
1. They lack adequate participant-selection criteria.
Please specify what you'd view as adequate criteria.
2. They lack reliable norms, supervision, and adequate training for leaders.
In my view, this is simply incorrect as regards norms of technique and behavior. Interns and assistants are not "leaders" or "counselors"--if they act as such, they're screwing up, and should be reported. Facilitators are the leaders, and undergo approximately two years of training before they actually become facilitators. And not everyone that starts that training graduates to become a facilitator. One of my very favorite HAI interns trained for quite a while to be a faciitator, but didn't "graduate". She's still active in leading other kinds of HAI presentations.
3. They lack clearly defined responsibility.
Absolutely untrue!
4. They sometimes foster pseudoauthenticity and pseudoreality.
Please define "pseudoauthenticity" and "pseudoreality".
5. They sometimes foster inappropriate patterns of relationships.
If this means relationships among participants outside of workshops, I believe that reasonable people of good will can legitimately disagree about which patterns of intimate relationships are inappropriate. If you're referring specifically to intimate relationships between participants on the one hand, and assistants, interns, or facilitators on the other, initiated by taking advantage of transference: we work very hard to discourage and prevent such relationships, and in a very few instances, we fail. But there are mechanisms in place to deal with such situations when they occur.
6. They sometimes ignore the necessity and utility of ego defenses.
I'm not aware of any activities or policies that attempt to demolish ego-defenses.
7. They sometimes teach the covert value of total exposure instead of valuing personal differences.
Not sure what this means. But I can truthfully state that any personal exposure that takes place is not in any way pressured, required, or coerced.
8. They sometimes foster impulsive personality styles and behavioral strategies.
Please specify "impulsive personality styles and behavioral strategies" i.
9. They sometimes devalue critical thinking in favor of "experiencing" without self-analysis or reflection.
It's quite true that HAI operates predominantly by means of experiential exercises rather than self-analysis. Works for me.
10. They sometimes ignore stated goals, misrepresent their actual techniques, and obfuscate their real agenda.
Simply not true of HAI. However, there is the "secrecy" problem. I support the "secrecy" policy for two reasons: it protects participants from unwanted publicity, and it insures that the impact of the workshops won't be lessened by foreknowledge of content.
11. They sometimes focus too much on structural self-awareness techniques and misplace the goal of democratic education; as a result participants may learn more about themselves and less about group process.
Frankly, there's so much psychojargon here that I'm not sure exactly what's being said. Please enlighten me.
12. They pay inadequate attention to decisions regarding time limitations. This may lead to increased pressure on some participants to unconsciously "fabricate" a cure.
The time of a workshop is pretty rigidly determined: 9pm to midnight on Friday; 9am to about 9pm on Saturday with time off for lunch and dinner, followed by Entertainment from about 9pm to about 11pm, followed by dancing until midnight; Sunday: about 9am to 6pm with time off for lunch, followed by dinner at 6pm, followed by departure. And nobody expects a "cure".
13. They fail to adequately consider the "psychonoxious" or deleterious effects of group participation (or] adverse countertransference reactions.
Please explain.
The groups can be potentially dangerous when:
1. Leaders had rigid, unbending beliefs about what participants should experience and believe, how they should behave in the group. and when they should change.
Not true of HAI leaders.
2. Leaders had no sense of differential diagnosis and assessment skills, valued cathartic emotional breakthroughs as the ultimate therapeutic experience, and sadistically pressed to create or force a breakthrough in every participant.
No way. You take what makes sense to you, and reject the rest.
3. Leaders had an evangelical system of belief that was the one single pathway to salvation.
No way. As I've said here before: there are people who definitely will not be benefitted by the HAI workshops. See my previous posting, "REASONS NOT TO ATTEND HAI WORKSHOPS". But there *is* a HAI "ideology"--which is actually more an ambiance than an ideology. I believe that most of us HAIniks pretty much share that ideology before we ever get to HAI.
4. Leaders were true believers and sealed their doctrine off from discomforting data or disquieting results and tended to discount a poor result by, "blaming the victim."
HAI is a kind of "cafeteria" thing: you choose what makes sense to you, and reject the rest. Blame is a sentiment pretty alien to HAI.
"There are licensed marriage and family therapists, sex therapists and other competent helping professionals that are board certified and properly trained to handle personal issues."
Quite true. In fact I found out about HAI by being introduced to it by the surrogate sex partner that I was working with while in sex therapy. The therapist completely concurred in her recommendation. Also, survivors of rape and other kinds of sexual abuse are often referred to HAI by their therapists.
" There are also support groups facilitated by trained and licensed professionals through local social service agencies and continuing education available through community colleges and universities."
Very true. If you feel that they'd be more appropriate for you than an experiential workshop like HAI, by all means seek them out!
"It's safer to go with such help where there is meaningful accountability and professional standards, rather than LGATs that have no such accountability and typically have the liabilities and problems listed above."
Again, if you feel that this statement probably applies accurately to HAI, by all means avoid HAI.
"Your attempt here at apologies is based upon your personal experience"
Absolutely. Twenty-plus years of it. All the levels twice as a participant: once as a new participant, and the other with a sweetheart; a couple of levels again recently as a participant; and about sixty as an intern. Are you really implying that my personal experience of HAI unfits me to express an opinion about HAI, while your theoretical suppositions about HAI qualify you to evaluate HAI? If so, I have a different view.
. "And as you have already acknowledged repeatedly that you arenot a neutral observer, but rather someone deeply invested and personally committed to the HAI."
I definitely am not neutral. I sincerely believe that HAI is very helpful to many participants, has no appreciable effect at all on some participants, and may very well be damaging to a very few participants. In that, I believe that HAI is similar to many other social groups--such as clubs, churches, and other widely accepted organizations. With respect to this Forum, what I'm committed to is the notion that my point of view is an essential component of any fair-minded description of HAI.
"Your opinion expressed above reflects that reality."
My opinion reflects a point of view developed over twenty years of actual experience, not a fixed pre-conception that any Large Group Awareness Training is inherently damaging to participants merely because it *is* an LGAT. (Which of course HAI is.) You are confronting me as though your own point of view here is neutral and objective. By my standards of neutrality and objectivity, it s not.
See [forum.culteducation.com]
I did.
"Anyone reading this thread and considering HAI should take the time to read the many pages on the other thread before attending any of its programs."
I heartily agree. There they will find pro-HAI postings as well as anti-HAI postings. I would only ask that the reader assume, at least temporarily, that *both* kinds are written by people who are telling the truth as they see it.
"This thread contains serious complaints about HAI and others that have been involved see the organization and its programs quite differently than you do."
True. I don't insist that the safeguards that HAI has installed always function perfectly. I don't insist that people with unsavory agendas never get through the safeguards. I don't insist that no intern or assistant ever abused the phenomenon of transference to their own advantage. I do insist that when you report such events to the HAI facilitators or to the HAI office, and investigation establishes that what you say is true, there will be consequences for the perpetrators. I have seen this happen.
"HAI is essentially an LGAT, and LGATs or "mass marathon trainings" have a long history of problems, which seem to be structurally inherent."
HAI is indeed an LGAT, but there s nothing "marathon" about it. And again, you simply seem to be assuming something that I deny: that because HAI is an LGAT, it shares in all the damaging qualities that certain studies of LGATs attribute to certain LGATs. As for the "structural inherency" of such qualities: my first-hand knowledge of HAI, including its imperfections, leads me to doubt such "inherency" as applied to HAI.
"See [www.culteducation.com];
I shall.
"Here are some of those serious liabilities, which should be carefully considered."
I agree that they should be carefully considered, as regards how HAI does or doesn't exemplify them; but I believe that a far-minded person will consider the viewpoints of pro-HAI people as well as anti-HAI people when making such a judgment. Here's my take:
1. They lack adequate participant-selection criteria.
Please specify what you'd view as adequate criteria.
2. They lack reliable norms, supervision, and adequate training for leaders.
In my view, this is simply incorrect as regards norms of technique and behavior. Interns and assistants are not "leaders" or "counselors"--if they act as such, they're screwing up, and should be reported. Facilitators are the leaders, and undergo approximately two years of training before they actually become facilitators. And not everyone that starts that training graduates to become a facilitator. One of my very favorite HAI interns trained for quite a while to be a faciitator, but didn't "graduate". She's still active in leading other kinds of HAI presentations.
3. They lack clearly defined responsibility.
Absolutely untrue!
4. They sometimes foster pseudoauthenticity and pseudoreality.
Please define "pseudoauthenticity" and "pseudoreality".
5. They sometimes foster inappropriate patterns of relationships.
If this means relationships among participants outside of workshops, I believe that reasonable people of good will can legitimately disagree about which patterns of intimate relationships are inappropriate. If you're referring specifically to intimate relationships between participants on the one hand, and assistants, interns, or facilitators on the other, initiated by taking advantage of transference: we work very hard to discourage and prevent such relationships, and in a very few instances, we fail. But there are mechanisms in place to deal with such situations when they occur.
6. They sometimes ignore the necessity and utility of ego defenses.
I'm not aware of any activities or policies that attempt to demolish ego-defenses.
7. They sometimes teach the covert value of total exposure instead of valuing personal differences.
Not sure what this means. But I can truthfully state that any personal exposure that takes place is not in any way pressured, required, or coerced.
8. They sometimes foster impulsive personality styles and behavioral strategies.
Please specify "impulsive personality styles and behavioral strategies" i.
9. They sometimes devalue critical thinking in favor of "experiencing" without self-analysis or reflection.
It's quite true that HAI operates predominantly by means of experiential exercises rather than self-analysis. Works for me.
10. They sometimes ignore stated goals, misrepresent their actual techniques, and obfuscate their real agenda.
Simply not true of HAI. However, there is the "secrecy" problem. I support the "secrecy" policy for two reasons: it protects participants from unwanted publicity, and it insures that the impact of the workshops won't be lessened by foreknowledge of content.
11. They sometimes focus too much on structural self-awareness techniques and misplace the goal of democratic education; as a result participants may learn more about themselves and less about group process.
Frankly, there's so much psychojargon here that I'm not sure exactly what's being said. Please enlighten me.
12. They pay inadequate attention to decisions regarding time limitations. This may lead to increased pressure on some participants to unconsciously "fabricate" a cure.
The time of a workshop is pretty rigidly determined: 9pm to midnight on Friday; 9am to about 9pm on Saturday with time off for lunch and dinner, followed by Entertainment from about 9pm to about 11pm, followed by dancing until midnight; Sunday: about 9am to 6pm with time off for lunch, followed by dinner at 6pm, followed by departure. And nobody expects a "cure".
13. They fail to adequately consider the "psychonoxious" or deleterious effects of group participation (or] adverse countertransference reactions.
Please explain.
The groups can be potentially dangerous when:
1. Leaders had rigid, unbending beliefs about what participants should experience and believe, how they should behave in the group. and when they should change.
Not true of HAI leaders.
2. Leaders had no sense of differential diagnosis and assessment skills, valued cathartic emotional breakthroughs as the ultimate therapeutic experience, and sadistically pressed to create or force a breakthrough in every participant.
No way. You take what makes sense to you, and reject the rest.
3. Leaders had an evangelical system of belief that was the one single pathway to salvation.
No way. As I've said here before: there are people who definitely will not be benefitted by the HAI workshops. See my previous posting, "REASONS NOT TO ATTEND HAI WORKSHOPS". But there *is* a HAI "ideology"--which is actually more an ambiance than an ideology. I believe that most of us HAIniks pretty much share that ideology before we ever get to HAI.
4. Leaders were true believers and sealed their doctrine off from discomforting data or disquieting results and tended to discount a poor result by, "blaming the victim."
HAI is a kind of "cafeteria" thing: you choose what makes sense to you, and reject the rest. Blame is a sentiment pretty alien to HAI.
"There are licensed marriage and family therapists, sex therapists and other competent helping professionals that are board certified and properly trained to handle personal issues."
Quite true. In fact I found out about HAI by being introduced to it by the surrogate sex partner that I was working with while in sex therapy. The therapist completely concurred in her recommendation. Also, survivors of rape and other kinds of sexual abuse are often referred to HAI by their therapists.
" There are also support groups facilitated by trained and licensed professionals through local social service agencies and continuing education available through community colleges and universities."
Very true. If you feel that they'd be more appropriate for you than an experiential workshop like HAI, by all means seek them out!
"It's safer to go with such help where there is meaningful accountability and professional standards, rather than LGATs that have no such accountability and typically have the liabilities and problems listed above."
Again, if you feel that this statement probably applies accurately to HAI, by all means avoid HAI.
Re: Human Awareness Institute - Issues?
Posted by:
rrmoderator
()
Date: August 31, 2009 11:17PM
Bert Clanton:
The liabilities and your response is very revealing.
Thanks.
It's good to get someone intimately involved in an LGAT to disclose information about the inner workings of the group through a public message board so that people can better understand the organization before becoming initially involved.
For example, your repeated acknowledgment that HAI is an LGAT or what has otherwise been called "mass marathon training."
Now regarding the inherent liabilities of LGATs as listed.
Please understand that despite your denials, HAI has no clearly defined responsibilities, i.e. to a licensing board, state regulatory agency, board of behavioral health. HAI instead is only internally responsible to police itself per my understanding based upon your statements and others that have come here for the purpose of defending HAI.
You pretty much sum things up regarding HAI and the stated liabilities when you said, "Frankly, there's so much psychojargon here that I'm not sure exactly what's being said. Please enlighten me."
Exactly. Neither you nor HAI are qualified to act as in the area of psychotherapy, sex therapy, as professional counselors, or mental health professionals.
"two years of training "?
What educational requirements, that is degree in counseling and/or psychology, and licensing requirements are HAI interns or leaders required to meet?
How are they specifically qualified by education and licensing?
Your response to the 13 liabilities listed above seems to indicate that you have no such formal training or education that would qualify you in any way to staff group therapy sessions or provide professional counseling.
This again illustrates what's wrong with HAI and why it is potentially unsafe.
Labeling what can be easily be seen as unprofessional/amateur led psychotherapy, sex therapy or group therapy as an "experiential workshop," "experiential exercises" and/or a "'cafeteria' thing," appears to be little more than an effort designed to avoid licensing requirements and subsequent formal accountability and legal liability.
Thank you for pointing out that some participants have been "referred to HAI by their therapists."
If those "therapists" are licensed professionals they may be legally liable, if any personal injury results through such a referral. And also such a referral may be grounds for filing an official complaint with that therapist's professional licensing board and/or a the equivalent of a state board of behavioral health.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/01/2009 01:15AM by rrmoderator.
The liabilities and your response is very revealing.
Thanks.
It's good to get someone intimately involved in an LGAT to disclose information about the inner workings of the group through a public message board so that people can better understand the organization before becoming initially involved.
For example, your repeated acknowledgment that HAI is an LGAT or what has otherwise been called "mass marathon training."
Now regarding the inherent liabilities of LGATs as listed.
Please understand that despite your denials, HAI has no clearly defined responsibilities, i.e. to a licensing board, state regulatory agency, board of behavioral health. HAI instead is only internally responsible to police itself per my understanding based upon your statements and others that have come here for the purpose of defending HAI.
You pretty much sum things up regarding HAI and the stated liabilities when you said, "Frankly, there's so much psychojargon here that I'm not sure exactly what's being said. Please enlighten me."
Exactly. Neither you nor HAI are qualified to act as in the area of psychotherapy, sex therapy, as professional counselors, or mental health professionals.
"two years of training "?
What educational requirements, that is degree in counseling and/or psychology, and licensing requirements are HAI interns or leaders required to meet?
How are they specifically qualified by education and licensing?
Your response to the 13 liabilities listed above seems to indicate that you have no such formal training or education that would qualify you in any way to staff group therapy sessions or provide professional counseling.
This again illustrates what's wrong with HAI and why it is potentially unsafe.
Labeling what can be easily be seen as unprofessional/amateur led psychotherapy, sex therapy or group therapy as an "experiential workshop," "experiential exercises" and/or a "'cafeteria' thing," appears to be little more than an effort designed to avoid licensing requirements and subsequent formal accountability and legal liability.
Thank you for pointing out that some participants have been "referred to HAI by their therapists."
If those "therapists" are licensed professionals they may be legally liable, if any personal injury results through such a referral. And also such a referral may be grounds for filing an official complaint with that therapist's professional licensing board and/or a the equivalent of a state board of behavioral health.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/01/2009 01:15AM by rrmoderator.
Re: Human Awareness Institute - Issues?
Posted by:
DayDreamer
()
Date: August 31, 2009 11:29PM
In the workshops I attended, there was ALWAYS the common theme that you are "at choice" but you are encouraged to make the same choice the others do, which is the choice that the facilitators want you to make (to do whatever it is they are spouting at the time).
Don't try to say that the facilitators don't put pressure on participants to do things. They DO. It's the very nature of the workshops... to get the participants to do what the facilitators say they should be doing at the time. It's the way the workshops are DESIGNED.
Don't try to say that the facilitators don't put pressure on participants to do things. They DO. It's the very nature of the workshops... to get the participants to do what the facilitators say they should be doing at the time. It's the way the workshops are DESIGNED.
Re: Human Awareness Institute - Issues?
Posted by:
rrmoderator
()
Date: September 01, 2009 12:01AM
Bert Clanton:
Now let's look at the way you responded to the criteria listed for coercive persuasion and thought reform.
Much like the members of well-known "cults" you at times felt that a simple denial was a meaningful response.
But though denial is a powerful emotion, simply saying "no way" isn't a meaningful response to a point.
Nevertheless many of your responses as a 20-year insider at HAI were quite helpful.
Of course there is an organized peer group, as you you have previously and repeatedly acknowledged HAI is an LGAT, which by its nature an organized peer group.
The "totality of the person's social environment" is manipulated by an LGAT during its "workshops" and planned programs. The requirement of secrecy can be seen as manipulation, i.e. the LGAT knows what's in store for the participant, but he or she does not.
Communication is also controlled within an LGAT by the structure of the weekend workshop, relative isolation and limited association with others during the LGAT.
You have tacitly acknowledged that interperonal pressure "may occur," but attempt to exonerate HAI from any responsibility. However, given the previous points regarding communication, group control and mandated secrecy, this claim seems dubious.
You acknowledge that "Its quite true that the workshops present exercises that can...open people up to the possibility of new, more felicitous attitudes and behaviors." But then you attempt to deny that his is emotional and behavioral manipulation. A more obvious explanation is that the exercises are specifically designed to "open people up," which means they are manipulative.
You acknowledge that "it's true that most participants, at least at higher levels, do share certain attitudes and ways of thinking..." but then attempt to deny that this is a result of the "conformity" or mindset that the group training promotes. It is a more obvious conclusion that the conformity you acknowledge as an outcome is evidence that HAI promotes a mindset through its training.
LGATs inherently manipulate the participant's environment within the group experience, which takes place during an LGAT weekend, retreat, etc.
You admit that HAI has "'confession'" through what is called "Large Group Shares..." And you also admit, that numerous people model and repeat this behavior within the context of HAI workshops. This indicates a pattern of group confession encouraged through the LGAT.
You readily admit that "HAI folks do have their own kind of verbal 'shorthand.'" This is what Lifton calls "loaded language," which often replaces critical thinking and/or analytical thought.
You admit, "We do have an unconventional orientation," which seems to be an admission that HAI members ("we") interpret experiences with the same mindset consistent with their LGAT training.
You ultimately offer a compelling example of what HAI can do to someone after 20 years of involvement.
Now let's look at the way you responded to the criteria listed for coercive persuasion and thought reform.
Much like the members of well-known "cults" you at times felt that a simple denial was a meaningful response.
But though denial is a powerful emotion, simply saying "no way" isn't a meaningful response to a point.
Nevertheless many of your responses as a 20-year insider at HAI were quite helpful.
Of course there is an organized peer group, as you you have previously and repeatedly acknowledged HAI is an LGAT, which by its nature an organized peer group.
The "totality of the person's social environment" is manipulated by an LGAT during its "workshops" and planned programs. The requirement of secrecy can be seen as manipulation, i.e. the LGAT knows what's in store for the participant, but he or she does not.
Communication is also controlled within an LGAT by the structure of the weekend workshop, relative isolation and limited association with others during the LGAT.
You have tacitly acknowledged that interperonal pressure "may occur," but attempt to exonerate HAI from any responsibility. However, given the previous points regarding communication, group control and mandated secrecy, this claim seems dubious.
You acknowledge that "Its quite true that the workshops present exercises that can...open people up to the possibility of new, more felicitous attitudes and behaviors." But then you attempt to deny that his is emotional and behavioral manipulation. A more obvious explanation is that the exercises are specifically designed to "open people up," which means they are manipulative.
You acknowledge that "it's true that most participants, at least at higher levels, do share certain attitudes and ways of thinking..." but then attempt to deny that this is a result of the "conformity" or mindset that the group training promotes. It is a more obvious conclusion that the conformity you acknowledge as an outcome is evidence that HAI promotes a mindset through its training.
LGATs inherently manipulate the participant's environment within the group experience, which takes place during an LGAT weekend, retreat, etc.
You admit that HAI has "'confession'" through what is called "Large Group Shares..." And you also admit, that numerous people model and repeat this behavior within the context of HAI workshops. This indicates a pattern of group confession encouraged through the LGAT.
You readily admit that "HAI folks do have their own kind of verbal 'shorthand.'" This is what Lifton calls "loaded language," which often replaces critical thinking and/or analytical thought.
You admit, "We do have an unconventional orientation," which seems to be an admission that HAI members ("we") interpret experiences with the same mindset consistent with their LGAT training.
You ultimately offer a compelling example of what HAI can do to someone after 20 years of involvement.
Re: Human Awareness Institute - Issues?
Posted by:
Bert Clanton
()
Date: September 01, 2009 01:08AM
rrmoderator wrote:
"The liabilities and your response is very revealing.
Thanks."
You're very welcome.
"It's good to get someone intimately involved in an LGAT to disclose information about the inner workings of the group through a public message so that people can better understand the organization before becoming initially involved.
For example, your repeated acknowledgment that HAI is an LGAT or what has otherwise been called 'mass marathon training.'"
How could I in good conscience deny that HAI is a Large Group Awareness Training? It simply *is* one. But to me, the important question is, is HAI an LGAT which exhibits the dangerous qualities cited, or is it not? In my view it is not. And to describe HAI workshops as "mass marathon training" is simply wildly inaccurate.
I may be wrong, but I think that what has happened is as follows:
Certain groups offer "trainings" in a certain format, which has been labeled "Large Group Awareness Training" (LGAT). HAI is definitely one of those groups. What HAI does it does in a particular structural format characteristic of LGATs: presentation of information, experiential exercises, and sharing by participants of their thoughts, feelings, and experiences, both in small groups of 2 to 4 people and in front of the room.
Many LGATs have abused this format, in that their manner of presentation is abusive, coercive, exclusivist, etc. Many leave out the "sharing" part, thus preventing the possibility of feedback.
Since HAI is truly an LGAT in its format, it is properly labeled as such; but all the abusive qualities that many LGATs exhibit are then imputed to HAI--inaccurately, I believe. I believe that this happens a lot in this Forum.
But there are people on this Forum who report specific occurrences at HAI workshops that have been damaging to them. That's exactly why I posted an offering recently which listed several reasons why I think that certain people *will* have unpleasant experiences at HAI workshops. I invite you to re-read that posting, and take it to heart.
"Now regarding the inherent liabilities of LGATs as listed.
Please understand that despite your denials, HAI has no clearly defined responsibilities, i.e. to a licensing board, state regulatory agency, board of behavioral health."
That is true. Anyone who attends a HAI workshop must depend on the integrity of HAI and its facilitators and its interns and assistants to protect their welfare. And not a single one of these people is a saint. But in my experience, with extremely few exceptions, these people are persons of integrity, taught to be aware of the vulnerabilities of participants, and highly motivated not to take advantage of those vulnerabilities. If as a prospective new Level 1 participant, you feel that this is not adequate protection for you, please avoid HAI workshops.
" HAI instead is only internally responsible to police itself per my understanding based upon your statements and others that have come here for the purpose of defending HAI."
Except that HAI must obey all applicable federal and state laws, and that some of HAI's facilitators, interns, and assistants are required by their professions to report all violations of those laws, this is true. My contention is that HAI does a pretty good job of such policing, but probably not a perfect one. If you want to hold HAI to a higher standard than this, I'd advise you to avoid HAI workshops.
"You pretty much sum things up regarding HAI and the stated liabilities when you said, 'Frankly, there's so much psychojargon here that I'm not sure exactly what's being said. Please enlighten me."'
I meant that objection to apply not generally to all the qualities cited, but only to the one adjacent to which my remark occurred.
"Exactly. Neither you nor HAI are qualified to act as in the area of psychotherapy, sex therapy, as professional counselors, or mental health professionals."
Interns and assistants are repeatedly reminded that they are *not* competent to counsel participants. Some facilitators, in my view, have professional experience in counseling, and some do not. Be forewarned. Examine the qualifications of the facilitators as cited on the HAI website [www.hai.org] , and if you feel that these qualifications are inadequate, avoid HAI workshops.
"two years of training "?
As facilitators. Some have applicable professional training and practices other than their training by HAI as facilitators. Others do not. Again: evaluate this fact according to your own standards. If you feel that this is a deal-breaker, avoid HAI workshops.
"What educational requirements, that is degree in counseling and/or psychology, and licensing requirements are HAI interns or leaders required to meet?"
With regard to facilitators, I can't answer this question out of my own knowledge. With regard to interns and assistants, there are no such requirements, since we are forbidden to *do* counseling or psychotherapy.
"How are they specifically qualified by education and licensing?"
To the best of my knowledge and belief, HAI has no specific standards for education and licensing of facilitators. Apply your own standards; and if the qualifications of the facilitators as cited on the HAI website don't meet your standards, avoid HAI workshops.
Since we interns and assistants are repeatedly and emphatically told that we are *not* to offer counseling to participants, such training is not required of us. We are, however, trained in "active listening". Does any intern or assistant ever violate this rule? I can't honestly say that it never happens. Have you ever gotten unsolicited and unwelcome advice from a friend or relative? I have.
"Your response to the 13 liabilities listed above seems to indicate that you have no such formal training or education that would qualify you in any way to staff group therapy sessions or provide professional counseling. "
You're quite right. I have absolutely no formal training or education that would qualify me in any way to staff group therapy sessions or provide professional counseling. And that's an important reason why I *don't* staff group therapy sessions or provide professional counseling. And if I wanted to staff group therapy sessions, I couldn't do it at HAI, since HAI doesn't offer group therapy. Many years ago, I was in group therapy for a while, and so I really know what is group therapy and what it isn't.
"This again illustrates what's wrong with HAI and why it is potentially unsafe.
Labeling what can be easily be seen as unprofessional/amateur led psychotherapy, sex therapy or group therapy as an "experiential workshop," "experiential exercises" and/or a "'cafeteria' thing," appears to be little more than an effort designed to avoid licensing requirements and subsequent formal accountability and legal liability. "
I have at various times in my pre-HAI past been in individual psychotherapy, group therapy, and sex therapy with recognized qualified credentialed therapists, so I have some idea of what is involved in each of these endeavors. I insist, out of my own experience, that what HAI does is not psychotherapy, not group therapy, and not sex therapy.
"Thank you for pointing out that some participants have been "referred to HAI by their therapists."
If those "therapists" are licensed professionals they may be legally liable, if any personal injury results through such a referral. And also such a referral may be grounds for filing an official complaint with that therapist's professional licensing board and/or a the equivalent of a state board of behavioral health."
Those therapists were not "therapists". They were therapists. I totally agree that they should be liable for the results of actual abuses by HAI. But I think that its worthy of note that in HAI's 41 years of existence, there have been no major scandals regarding HAI or its effects on participants, and to the best of my knowledge, no investigative journalism exposing abuses by HAI--much unlike some other LGATs that I could name.
Again, please re-read my posting about reasons *not* to attend HAI workshops, take those reasons to heart, and decide for yourself whether HAI is something you want to try. If your answer is "No", I completely support you in your decision.
"The liabilities and your response is very revealing.
Thanks."
You're very welcome.
"It's good to get someone intimately involved in an LGAT to disclose information about the inner workings of the group through a public message so that people can better understand the organization before becoming initially involved.
For example, your repeated acknowledgment that HAI is an LGAT or what has otherwise been called 'mass marathon training.'"
How could I in good conscience deny that HAI is a Large Group Awareness Training? It simply *is* one. But to me, the important question is, is HAI an LGAT which exhibits the dangerous qualities cited, or is it not? In my view it is not. And to describe HAI workshops as "mass marathon training" is simply wildly inaccurate.
I may be wrong, but I think that what has happened is as follows:
Certain groups offer "trainings" in a certain format, which has been labeled "Large Group Awareness Training" (LGAT). HAI is definitely one of those groups. What HAI does it does in a particular structural format characteristic of LGATs: presentation of information, experiential exercises, and sharing by participants of their thoughts, feelings, and experiences, both in small groups of 2 to 4 people and in front of the room.
Many LGATs have abused this format, in that their manner of presentation is abusive, coercive, exclusivist, etc. Many leave out the "sharing" part, thus preventing the possibility of feedback.
Since HAI is truly an LGAT in its format, it is properly labeled as such; but all the abusive qualities that many LGATs exhibit are then imputed to HAI--inaccurately, I believe. I believe that this happens a lot in this Forum.
But there are people on this Forum who report specific occurrences at HAI workshops that have been damaging to them. That's exactly why I posted an offering recently which listed several reasons why I think that certain people *will* have unpleasant experiences at HAI workshops. I invite you to re-read that posting, and take it to heart.
"Now regarding the inherent liabilities of LGATs as listed.
Please understand that despite your denials, HAI has no clearly defined responsibilities, i.e. to a licensing board, state regulatory agency, board of behavioral health."
That is true. Anyone who attends a HAI workshop must depend on the integrity of HAI and its facilitators and its interns and assistants to protect their welfare. And not a single one of these people is a saint. But in my experience, with extremely few exceptions, these people are persons of integrity, taught to be aware of the vulnerabilities of participants, and highly motivated not to take advantage of those vulnerabilities. If as a prospective new Level 1 participant, you feel that this is not adequate protection for you, please avoid HAI workshops.
" HAI instead is only internally responsible to police itself per my understanding based upon your statements and others that have come here for the purpose of defending HAI."
Except that HAI must obey all applicable federal and state laws, and that some of HAI's facilitators, interns, and assistants are required by their professions to report all violations of those laws, this is true. My contention is that HAI does a pretty good job of such policing, but probably not a perfect one. If you want to hold HAI to a higher standard than this, I'd advise you to avoid HAI workshops.
"You pretty much sum things up regarding HAI and the stated liabilities when you said, 'Frankly, there's so much psychojargon here that I'm not sure exactly what's being said. Please enlighten me."'
I meant that objection to apply not generally to all the qualities cited, but only to the one adjacent to which my remark occurred.
"Exactly. Neither you nor HAI are qualified to act as in the area of psychotherapy, sex therapy, as professional counselors, or mental health professionals."
Interns and assistants are repeatedly reminded that they are *not* competent to counsel participants. Some facilitators, in my view, have professional experience in counseling, and some do not. Be forewarned. Examine the qualifications of the facilitators as cited on the HAI website [www.hai.org] , and if you feel that these qualifications are inadequate, avoid HAI workshops.
"two years of training "?
As facilitators. Some have applicable professional training and practices other than their training by HAI as facilitators. Others do not. Again: evaluate this fact according to your own standards. If you feel that this is a deal-breaker, avoid HAI workshops.
"What educational requirements, that is degree in counseling and/or psychology, and licensing requirements are HAI interns or leaders required to meet?"
With regard to facilitators, I can't answer this question out of my own knowledge. With regard to interns and assistants, there are no such requirements, since we are forbidden to *do* counseling or psychotherapy.
"How are they specifically qualified by education and licensing?"
To the best of my knowledge and belief, HAI has no specific standards for education and licensing of facilitators. Apply your own standards; and if the qualifications of the facilitators as cited on the HAI website don't meet your standards, avoid HAI workshops.
Since we interns and assistants are repeatedly and emphatically told that we are *not* to offer counseling to participants, such training is not required of us. We are, however, trained in "active listening". Does any intern or assistant ever violate this rule? I can't honestly say that it never happens. Have you ever gotten unsolicited and unwelcome advice from a friend or relative? I have.
"Your response to the 13 liabilities listed above seems to indicate that you have no such formal training or education that would qualify you in any way to staff group therapy sessions or provide professional counseling. "
You're quite right. I have absolutely no formal training or education that would qualify me in any way to staff group therapy sessions or provide professional counseling. And that's an important reason why I *don't* staff group therapy sessions or provide professional counseling. And if I wanted to staff group therapy sessions, I couldn't do it at HAI, since HAI doesn't offer group therapy. Many years ago, I was in group therapy for a while, and so I really know what is group therapy and what it isn't.
"This again illustrates what's wrong with HAI and why it is potentially unsafe.
Labeling what can be easily be seen as unprofessional/amateur led psychotherapy, sex therapy or group therapy as an "experiential workshop," "experiential exercises" and/or a "'cafeteria' thing," appears to be little more than an effort designed to avoid licensing requirements and subsequent formal accountability and legal liability. "
I have at various times in my pre-HAI past been in individual psychotherapy, group therapy, and sex therapy with recognized qualified credentialed therapists, so I have some idea of what is involved in each of these endeavors. I insist, out of my own experience, that what HAI does is not psychotherapy, not group therapy, and not sex therapy.
"Thank you for pointing out that some participants have been "referred to HAI by their therapists."
If those "therapists" are licensed professionals they may be legally liable, if any personal injury results through such a referral. And also such a referral may be grounds for filing an official complaint with that therapist's professional licensing board and/or a the equivalent of a state board of behavioral health."
Those therapists were not "therapists". They were therapists. I totally agree that they should be liable for the results of actual abuses by HAI. But I think that its worthy of note that in HAI's 41 years of existence, there have been no major scandals regarding HAI or its effects on participants, and to the best of my knowledge, no investigative journalism exposing abuses by HAI--much unlike some other LGATs that I could name.
Again, please re-read my posting about reasons *not* to attend HAI workshops, take those reasons to heart, and decide for yourself whether HAI is something you want to try. If your answer is "No", I completely support you in your decision.
Re: Human Awareness Institute - Issues?
Posted by:
rrmoderator
()
Date: September 01, 2009 02:09AM
Bert Clanton:
Despite your denials HAI is most definitely in the category of "mass marathon training."
See [www.culteducation.com]
"Mass marathon training is usually based on the belief that it is a universal truth that all human beings will have problems in life until they develop deep cathartic psychological insight, experience completely their every feeling, and live only in the present moment (see Brewer, 1975; Bry, 1976; Rhinehart, 1976). According to this ideology all defenses are bad and must be destroyed. They shape their group exercises in order to uncover and intensify the participants' underlying conflicts and deficits. Everyone must be exposed to these exercises; there are no exceptions. When all defenses are destroyed, they claim there is literally no limit to what each individual can accomplish."
You have repeatedly offered explanations of HAI that included such catharsis, cited such exercises, which repeatedly focused on feelings. Everyone that attends HAI goes through such an organized and planned training process.
Mass marthon training describes the gathering of a group or "mass" of people together for the purpose of days or a "marathon" of "training."
LGAT and "mass marathon training" are essentially interchangeable labels to describe groups like HAI, Landmark Education, Lifespring, etc.
No doubt that each LGAT and its supporters feel that their training is benign and therefore shares nothing in common with potentially unsafe or destructive LGATs.
We see that typical defense over and over again, offered by many LGAT supporters at this message board.
As you readily admit, "Many LGATs have abused this format," but then you claim "but all the abusive qualities that many LGATs exhibit are then imputed to HAI--inaccurately, I believe."
No doubt. You are a "true believer" and you believe in your LGAT, just like all the other LGAT supporters that post at this message board, attempting to deflect criticism of their group.
Regarding any meaningful education or professional licensing within HAI for its leaders and interns, you readily admit "there are no such requirements...HAI has no specific standards for education and licensing of facilitators."
You also admit that after 20 years with HAI you have "absolutely no formal training or education that would qualify me in any way to staff group therapy sessions or provide professional counseling."
You claim that you "are *not* to offer counseling to participants," but then say you are "trained in 'active listening.'"
"Active listening" appears to be a euphemism for counseling, which is used in order to avoid licensing and accountability requirements.
Here is where we can agree.
1. "Anyone who attends a HAI workshop must depend on the integrity of HAI and its facilitators and its interns and assistants to protect their welfare."
Agreed.
And as anyone can see from your posts on this thread (a) there is no meaningful educational or professional training requirements for HAI facilitators, interns and facilitators and (b) they have no meaningful accountability to anyone outside of HAI. Other than the general laws that govern society within the US.
2. "If you feel that this is a deal-breaker, avoid HAI workshops."
Agreed.
Based upon your responses and others commenting about HAI, it seems to me that anyone exercising reasonable caution and considering the information here objectively should "avoid HAI workshops."
Thankfully there are much safer alternatives as previously pointed out.
You offer as an ultimate apology that there has been "no major scandals regarding HAI or its effects on participants, and to the best of [your] knowledge, no investigative journalism exposing abuses by HAI."
Having seen how stories break about various LGATs over the years this is no comfort.
No one knew much about "Turning Point" or "The Mankind Project" until terrible tragedies took place.
See [www.culteducation.com]
And also see [www.culteducation.com]
If an LGAT has flown "under the radar" for years and avoided a public scandal, this doesn't change its inherent problems or ameliorate accountability issues.
The most salient issues remain, which is how is HAI run and what meaningful safeguards protect its participants.
You have not posted anything here to dissuade anyone, that objectively reads through the criticism of HAI at this message board, from concluding that HAI is potentially unsafe and that it has no meaningful safeguards.
But thanks for taking the time to participate and offering up your 20-year experience, no one could say that you don't know anything about what goes on at HAI because you have not "experienced" its training.
Rick A. Ross
The Cult Education Institute
www.culteducation.com
rickross@culteducation.com
Despite your denials HAI is most definitely in the category of "mass marathon training."
See [www.culteducation.com]
"Mass marathon training is usually based on the belief that it is a universal truth that all human beings will have problems in life until they develop deep cathartic psychological insight, experience completely their every feeling, and live only in the present moment (see Brewer, 1975; Bry, 1976; Rhinehart, 1976). According to this ideology all defenses are bad and must be destroyed. They shape their group exercises in order to uncover and intensify the participants' underlying conflicts and deficits. Everyone must be exposed to these exercises; there are no exceptions. When all defenses are destroyed, they claim there is literally no limit to what each individual can accomplish."
You have repeatedly offered explanations of HAI that included such catharsis, cited such exercises, which repeatedly focused on feelings. Everyone that attends HAI goes through such an organized and planned training process.
Mass marthon training describes the gathering of a group or "mass" of people together for the purpose of days or a "marathon" of "training."
LGAT and "mass marathon training" are essentially interchangeable labels to describe groups like HAI, Landmark Education, Lifespring, etc.
No doubt that each LGAT and its supporters feel that their training is benign and therefore shares nothing in common with potentially unsafe or destructive LGATs.
We see that typical defense over and over again, offered by many LGAT supporters at this message board.
As you readily admit, "Many LGATs have abused this format," but then you claim "but all the abusive qualities that many LGATs exhibit are then imputed to HAI--inaccurately, I believe."
No doubt. You are a "true believer" and you believe in your LGAT, just like all the other LGAT supporters that post at this message board, attempting to deflect criticism of their group.
Regarding any meaningful education or professional licensing within HAI for its leaders and interns, you readily admit "there are no such requirements...HAI has no specific standards for education and licensing of facilitators."
You also admit that after 20 years with HAI you have "absolutely no formal training or education that would qualify me in any way to staff group therapy sessions or provide professional counseling."
You claim that you "are *not* to offer counseling to participants," but then say you are "trained in 'active listening.'"
"Active listening" appears to be a euphemism for counseling, which is used in order to avoid licensing and accountability requirements.
Here is where we can agree.
1. "Anyone who attends a HAI workshop must depend on the integrity of HAI and its facilitators and its interns and assistants to protect their welfare."
Agreed.
And as anyone can see from your posts on this thread (a) there is no meaningful educational or professional training requirements for HAI facilitators, interns and facilitators and (b) they have no meaningful accountability to anyone outside of HAI. Other than the general laws that govern society within the US.
2. "If you feel that this is a deal-breaker, avoid HAI workshops."
Agreed.
Based upon your responses and others commenting about HAI, it seems to me that anyone exercising reasonable caution and considering the information here objectively should "avoid HAI workshops."
Thankfully there are much safer alternatives as previously pointed out.
You offer as an ultimate apology that there has been "no major scandals regarding HAI or its effects on participants, and to the best of [your] knowledge, no investigative journalism exposing abuses by HAI."
Having seen how stories break about various LGATs over the years this is no comfort.
No one knew much about "Turning Point" or "The Mankind Project" until terrible tragedies took place.
See [www.culteducation.com]
And also see [www.culteducation.com]
If an LGAT has flown "under the radar" for years and avoided a public scandal, this doesn't change its inherent problems or ameliorate accountability issues.
The most salient issues remain, which is how is HAI run and what meaningful safeguards protect its participants.
You have not posted anything here to dissuade anyone, that objectively reads through the criticism of HAI at this message board, from concluding that HAI is potentially unsafe and that it has no meaningful safeguards.
But thanks for taking the time to participate and offering up your 20-year experience, no one could say that you don't know anything about what goes on at HAI because you have not "experienced" its training.
Rick A. Ross
The Cult Education Institute
www.culteducation.com
rickross@culteducation.com
Re: Human Awareness Institute - Issues?
Posted by:
Bert Clanton
()
Date: September 01, 2009 02:12AM
rrmoderator wrote"
"Now let's look at the way you responded to the criteria listed for coercive persuasion and thought reform.
Much like the members of well-known "cults" you at times felt that a simple denial was a meaningful response."
Yup. If you say that HAI does X, and my experience is that HAI doesn't do X, I think that "But HAI doesn't do X" is about all I know how to say on the matter. It's difficult for me to prove a negative.
"But though denial is a powerful emotion, simply saying "no way" isn't a meaningful response to a point."
What more can I say, if an allegation simply seems excruciatingly distortive of what I have personally experienced?
"Nevertheless many of your responses as a 20-year insider at HAI were quite helpful.
Of course there is an organized peer group, as you you have previously and repeatedly acknowledged HAI is an LGAT, which by its nature an organized peer group."
HAI is an organization, and it has individual members. The Board of Directors is an organized group. The facilitators are salaried employees of the corporation, and in that respect I suppose you could say that they're part of HAI as an organization. Interns and assistants are volunteers who assist, for free, at workshops and in "overhead"-type endeavors related to the operation of the corporation and the workshops. But I don't think that to apply the term "organized peer group" to the interns or assistants makes much sense. We're a peer group, if by that you can mean a set of individuals to collaborate occasionally in carrying out certain agreed-upon tasks. But "organized" we ain't.
"The "totality of the person's social environment" is manipulated by an LGAT during its "workshops" and planned programs. The requirement of secrecy can be seen as manipulation, i.e. the LGAT knows what's in store for the participant, but he or she does not."
To use the word "manipulated" in describing how the conduct of a HAI workshop relates to the totality of a participant's workshop environment seems to me prejudicial. But I think that it would be fair to say that the environment that you find at a HAI workshop is "designed" to demonstrate and reinforce two important tenets of HAI "ideology". (And yes, HAI does have an ideology.) These two tenets are: 1) your body is not something to be ashamed of, and 2) sex is OK as long as you are biologically, emotionally, and relationally responsible about it. (My wording, not HAI's). If either of these beliefs is offensive to you, steer well clear of HAI workshops.
As for "secrecy", which I prefer to describe as "confidentiality":
We agree not to do two separate things: tell anyone not at the workshop who was at the workshop, and tell anyone not at the workshop what particular exercises took place at the workshop. The reason for the first is that some people could be subject to bad things out in the "real world" if it became publically known that they attended a "sexuality" workshop. The reason for the second is that it simply *is* the case that the impact of the workshop is likely to be lessened for you if you know beforehand what is going to happen. I can vouch for the truth of this supposition: I took est back in 1975, I found out beforehand much of what was going to happen, and the impact of the training *was* diluted for me. (In that particular instance, I'm glad.)
So I support the confidentiality agreements, knowing full well that they'll be cause for suspicion of HAI's motives among some intelligent openminded people.
"Communication is also controlled within an LGAT by the structure of the weekend workshop, relative isolation and limited association with others during the LGAT."
There are two pay telephones on the site of the Northern California HAI workshops. Any participant is perfectly free to use either of these phones at any time. The phone numbers are perfectly available beforehand, and participants are free both to make and to receive calls at any time. Its true that the NorCal workshops take place in a beautiful rural forest setting: you can call that "isolated" if you like, but I prefer to call it "carefree". You can leave the workshop at any time, and get assistence from an intern to help you pack and load your car: all we ask is that you talk to a facilitator first, which you are perfectly free not to do; and to indicate whether or not you want to receive HAI's mailings, which you won't continue to receive if you say "No". As for "limited association with others": no more so than if you were at church or at a move.
"You have tacitly acknowledged that interperonal pressure "may occur," but attempt to exonerate HAI from any responsibility. However, given the previous points regarding communication, group control and mandated secrecy, this claim seems dubious."
I have to send this off now, since I have a lunch appointment. But I'll finish it when I get back.
Bert
"Now let's look at the way you responded to the criteria listed for coercive persuasion and thought reform.
Much like the members of well-known "cults" you at times felt that a simple denial was a meaningful response."
Yup. If you say that HAI does X, and my experience is that HAI doesn't do X, I think that "But HAI doesn't do X" is about all I know how to say on the matter. It's difficult for me to prove a negative.
"But though denial is a powerful emotion, simply saying "no way" isn't a meaningful response to a point."
What more can I say, if an allegation simply seems excruciatingly distortive of what I have personally experienced?
"Nevertheless many of your responses as a 20-year insider at HAI were quite helpful.
Of course there is an organized peer group, as you you have previously and repeatedly acknowledged HAI is an LGAT, which by its nature an organized peer group."
HAI is an organization, and it has individual members. The Board of Directors is an organized group. The facilitators are salaried employees of the corporation, and in that respect I suppose you could say that they're part of HAI as an organization. Interns and assistants are volunteers who assist, for free, at workshops and in "overhead"-type endeavors related to the operation of the corporation and the workshops. But I don't think that to apply the term "organized peer group" to the interns or assistants makes much sense. We're a peer group, if by that you can mean a set of individuals to collaborate occasionally in carrying out certain agreed-upon tasks. But "organized" we ain't.
"The "totality of the person's social environment" is manipulated by an LGAT during its "workshops" and planned programs. The requirement of secrecy can be seen as manipulation, i.e. the LGAT knows what's in store for the participant, but he or she does not."
To use the word "manipulated" in describing how the conduct of a HAI workshop relates to the totality of a participant's workshop environment seems to me prejudicial. But I think that it would be fair to say that the environment that you find at a HAI workshop is "designed" to demonstrate and reinforce two important tenets of HAI "ideology". (And yes, HAI does have an ideology.) These two tenets are: 1) your body is not something to be ashamed of, and 2) sex is OK as long as you are biologically, emotionally, and relationally responsible about it. (My wording, not HAI's). If either of these beliefs is offensive to you, steer well clear of HAI workshops.
As for "secrecy", which I prefer to describe as "confidentiality":
We agree not to do two separate things: tell anyone not at the workshop who was at the workshop, and tell anyone not at the workshop what particular exercises took place at the workshop. The reason for the first is that some people could be subject to bad things out in the "real world" if it became publically known that they attended a "sexuality" workshop. The reason for the second is that it simply *is* the case that the impact of the workshop is likely to be lessened for you if you know beforehand what is going to happen. I can vouch for the truth of this supposition: I took est back in 1975, I found out beforehand much of what was going to happen, and the impact of the training *was* diluted for me. (In that particular instance, I'm glad.)
So I support the confidentiality agreements, knowing full well that they'll be cause for suspicion of HAI's motives among some intelligent openminded people.
"Communication is also controlled within an LGAT by the structure of the weekend workshop, relative isolation and limited association with others during the LGAT."
There are two pay telephones on the site of the Northern California HAI workshops. Any participant is perfectly free to use either of these phones at any time. The phone numbers are perfectly available beforehand, and participants are free both to make and to receive calls at any time. Its true that the NorCal workshops take place in a beautiful rural forest setting: you can call that "isolated" if you like, but I prefer to call it "carefree". You can leave the workshop at any time, and get assistence from an intern to help you pack and load your car: all we ask is that you talk to a facilitator first, which you are perfectly free not to do; and to indicate whether or not you want to receive HAI's mailings, which you won't continue to receive if you say "No". As for "limited association with others": no more so than if you were at church or at a move.
"You have tacitly acknowledged that interperonal pressure "may occur," but attempt to exonerate HAI from any responsibility. However, given the previous points regarding communication, group control and mandated secrecy, this claim seems dubious."
I have to send this off now, since I have a lunch appointment. But I'll finish it when I get back.
Bert
Re: Human Awareness Institute - Issues?
Posted by:
rrmoderator
()
Date: September 01, 2009 03:40AM
Bert:
You are supporting the points of fact once again.
HAI is a "peer group" or as you admit "an orgainzation" with a "Board of Directors is an organized group. The facilitators are salaried employees of the corporation, and in that respect I suppose you could say that they're part of HAI as an organization. Interns and assistants are volunteers who assist, for free, at workshops..."
You question the use of the word "manipulated," when describing the HAI workshop process.
But then you admit, "fair to say that the environment that you find at a HAI workshop is "designed" to demonstrate and reinforce two important tenets of HAI "ideology". (And yes, HAI does have an ideology.)"
That's manipulation.
You then admit that there is "'secrecy', which I prefer to describe as 'confidentiality...'" But you then explain that "the impact of the workshop is likely to be lessened for you if you know beforehand what is going to happen."
That's manipulation.
You explain that there are only "two pay telephones on the site of the Northern California HAI workshops," which takes place in an "forest setting."
And "You can leave the workshop at any time," but that this requires "assistance from an intern to help you pack and load your car: all we ask is that you talk to a facilitator first>"
That's isolation and manipulation within a fairly tightly controlled environment.
Thank you for further demonstrating how the workshop parallels the previously posted points regarding coercive persuasion.
Again, its meaningful to have someone responding that has so much direct experience.
You are supporting the points of fact once again.
HAI is a "peer group" or as you admit "an orgainzation" with a "Board of Directors is an organized group. The facilitators are salaried employees of the corporation, and in that respect I suppose you could say that they're part of HAI as an organization. Interns and assistants are volunteers who assist, for free, at workshops..."
You question the use of the word "manipulated," when describing the HAI workshop process.
But then you admit, "fair to say that the environment that you find at a HAI workshop is "designed" to demonstrate and reinforce two important tenets of HAI "ideology". (And yes, HAI does have an ideology.)"
That's manipulation.
You then admit that there is "'secrecy', which I prefer to describe as 'confidentiality...'" But you then explain that "the impact of the workshop is likely to be lessened for you if you know beforehand what is going to happen."
That's manipulation.
You explain that there are only "two pay telephones on the site of the Northern California HAI workshops," which takes place in an "forest setting."
And "You can leave the workshop at any time," but that this requires "assistance from an intern to help you pack and load your car: all we ask is that you talk to a facilitator first>"
That's isolation and manipulation within a fairly tightly controlled environment.
Thank you for further demonstrating how the workshop parallels the previously posted points regarding coercive persuasion.
Again, its meaningful to have someone responding that has so much direct experience.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.