rrmoderator wrote:

"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."

I won't argue semantics with you, except to say that "designed" connotes to me the idea that workshop features are structured as they are to present a particular point of view, which I fully admit; whereas "manipulate" connotes to me the idea that workshop features are deliberately calculated not only to present a particular point of view, but to present it in a way that is underhanded, calculated to deceive, calculated to insinuate that point of view in such a way to circumvent normal skepticism and normal ego-defenses. I agree that HAI workshops are designed to present a particular unconventional point of view. I deny only that its methods of presentation are underhanded, calculated to deceive, or calculated to present that point of view in such a way as to bypass normal ego-defenses.

"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."

We have again a disagreement over semantics. I've stated my reasons for supporting the confidentiality agreement regarding the content of exercises. So here those reasons are, now a matter of record on a public forum. I invite fair-minded people who might be considering attending a HAI workshop to study my reasons and to decide for yourself whether my reasons make sense to you. If they don't, then don't attend a HAI workshop!

"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>"

Wrong. If there is no barrier at all to communicating with the outside world whenever you choose to, and no barrier at all to having anyone in the outside world communicate with you, and the possibility of leaving the workshop and that "forest setting" at any time without explanation or opposition, then in my understanding of normal English usage, you're not being "isolated".

The assistance of an intern if you should choose to leave is not *required*. It is simply offered, and you are perfectly free to decline the help, if you so choose.. And talking with a facilitator before you leave is also not *required* It is simply *suggested* and not *required* at all as a prerequisite to leaving.

"That's isolation and manipulation within a fairly tightly controlled environment."

You and I certainly speak different dialects of the English language.

"Thank you for further demonstrating how the workshop parallels the previously posted points regarding coercive persuasion."

One word concerning which our dialects certainly differ radically is the word "coercive".

"Again, its meaningful to have someone responding that has so much direct experience."

Thanks,
Bert

Bert:

You are digging yourself into a deeper hole now.

"...workshop features are structured as they are to present a particular point of view, which I fully admit; whereas 'manipulate' connotes to me the idea that workshop features are deliberately calculated not only to present a particular point of view, but to present it in a way that is underhanded, calculated to deceive..."

"Underhanded, calculated and to deceive"?

That would be the calculated and underhanded secrecy, what you prefer to call "confidentiality."

"I invite fair-minded people...to decide for yourself"?

How can anyone decide about something that is kept secret and thereby unknown? No one can make a fully informed and "fair-minded" decision without knowing all the facts.

Regarding what you have chosen to call "different dialects of the English language." This is actually more of a demonstration of what Lifton calls "Doctrine over Person." This is the "reinterpretation of human experience and emotion in terms of doctrine" as Ofshe explains as his seventh criteria to determine coercive persuasion.

See [www.culteducation.com]

Also see [www.culteducation.com]

In this instance you have subordinated what would objectively be seen as isolation and manipulation to the doctrinal view as dictated by HAI minset.

You have offered very compelling examples of how HAI affects critical thinking and molds a mindset.

Bert,

Clearly there is coercion and manipulation in the workshop setting. The music, soft voice overlay, the script the facilitators follow, gentle human touch; all are designed to create an environment to lower resistance to make acceptable what one would not “normally” choose in other forms of human interaction or therapy. In some instances, these can be tremendous opportunities for growth. However, they can cause people to make regrettable and sometimes harmful decisions. In my experience as an intern, along with the substantial personal growth I did get, I made a few regrettable decisions that required counseling sessions outside the workshop. I did not come from a background of emotional or psychological problems and generally have always been skeptical of “authority” on any level. Given my experience of many participants who labeled themselves “survivors” and others who clearly were dealing with emotional and psychological issues, how could it not be reasonably understood that some of these participants would, “in the moment”, make decisions that were not in their best interest?

To quote an earlier posting of mine:

“Finally, someone hits the nail on the head. At what point do the workshops influence the individual to make decisions that would not be consensual outside the workshop? Is there enough coercion or peer pressure to cross the line from consent to sexual assault, even when the individual gives consent in the moment?

Apparently, people do get hurt at HAI and I have asked myself the following questions. How many casualties are acceptable for the benefits I and others got from the workshops? I would say none. How can I feel good about my experience when I know it could be at the expense of someone else? I do not. How is this “Creating a World Where Everyone Wins”? It clearly does not.

To discount only a few, particularly those who have been abused, discounts the value of a human being. Do I really want to be a part of that? My answer is no.”

As an intern who really cared about people, notably for the first time in my life, I have come to the conclusion that the ideals professed by HAI fall flat before the nature of the organization and some of its methods. People do get hurt.

To whom it may concern:

You should be very careful sending any personal messaging to Bert Clanton as he is a 20-year devoted participant and intern at HAI.

Anything disclosed to him could potentially be shared with HAI.

Don't disclose anything you would not want anyone to know.

Bert comes across as little more than an apologist and the last post he made pretty much confirms that.

When people avoid public discussion in preference to private messaging at this board, in my experience that means they are here to subvert the thread.

If Bert does anything through private messaging that upsets anyone please let me know.

I have been breathlessly following the terrific exchanges between Bert Clanton and rrmoderator. This is a terrific look into the HAI organization and I am grateful for the honest back-and-back.

Thank you for your clear and honest postings, Bert Clanton! It is rare that a proud member of an LGAT steps forward with such sincere positivity.

I would suggest, as someone who wishes you no harm, that your answers be more direct and fleshed out than so curt with rrmoderator. I don't think rrmoderator is trying to trip you up or trick you. Be honest with us and be as long-winded as possible. You are making the HAI more intriguing and interesting than I had ever thought.

Look forward for more clarifications of the Human Awareness Institute and more information on what it is they do/think/promote.

P.S., "semantics" be damned. I think the RRI is in fairly plain language about what they consider a questionable org. Use your own "semantics" if you wish, but please keep actively posting. Terrific stuff.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/01/2009 09:15AM by Sparky.

I've changed my mind. I will continue to post here after all. But please PM me if you like, folks.

Sparky wrote:

"I have been breathlessly following the terrific exchanges between Bert Clanton and rrmoderator. This is a terrific look into the HAI organization and I am grateful for the honest back-and-back.

Thank you for your clear and honest postings, Bert Clanton! It is rare that a proud member of an LGAT steps forward with such sincere positivity. "

Thanks. I appreciate you open mind.

"I would suggest, as someone who wishes you no harm, that your answers be more direct and fleshed out than so curt with rrmoderator. I don't think rrmoderator is trying to trip you up or trick you. Be honest with us and be as long-winded as possible. You are making the HAI more intriguing and interesting than I had ever thought."

I too don't think that rrmoderator is trying to trip me up or trick me. At worst, he just seems to me to be completely unable to entertain the possibility that I am of sound mind and good intent. He seems totally dedicated to the idea that because HAI is an LGAT, it inevitably employs all the abusive practices of the worst LGATs; and my protestations to the contrary fall on completely deaf ears, seemingly bordering a completely closed mind. The central burden of my postings here has been to promote the idea that "it ain't necessarily so" that HAI is an evil twin of est or Scientology.

Your suggestion here confuses me a little, however, since I have thought that the length of my passages have been pretty much the same as that of the passages to which I've responded. I'll take a look at that in future.

"Look forward for more clarifications of the Human Awareness Institute and more information on what it is they do/think/promote.

P.S., "semantics" be damned. I think the RRI is in fairly plain language about what they consider a questionable org. Use your own "semantics" if you wish, but please keep actively posting. Terrific stuff."

Thanks. I'll use my jargon and rrmoderator can use his. His language is plain indeed, however prejudicial it may seem to this apologist.

Best regards,
Bert

As an intern, I thought what I was doing was altruistic and noble. What I have come to believe is that I was just a pawn in an organization whose sole purpose is the perpetuation of workshops.

My experience is that there are predominantly two types of people who are active in HAI; those who are there for purely personal social/sexual interests and those who use HAI as therapy (or some combination thereof). With the mix of these two groups, I do not think HAI can adaquately protect participants from predatory sexual activities by interns, assistants, or participants. Nor do I believe HAI can adaquately protect participants from negative psychological/emotional trauma.

Simply reporting transgressions to Facilitators, Janet, or the IAC does not take care of the problem. The problem is inherent to the nature of HAI (as an LGAT) and its content.

No matter how much personal growth I got from participation in HAI, I can not justify or rationalize any continued support for the organization. If neither HAI or I can protect participants from sexual predatory practices or psychological/emotional trauma, who would I be serving?

Sparky:

Looks like Bert has run out of gas.

His last post was little more than a frustrated rant.

When people resort to rants and hiding behind private messaging they are usually running on empty.

But Bert did open up and dump some good information through his posts about HAI.

BTW--this thread comes up within the first page of search results today through Google searching "Human Awareness Institute."

Well, Bert was fun and informative while he lasted. I must say the thread lit up with some real excitment and intellectual thrills during Bert's and rrmoderators back-and-forths.

I am happy to see that Googling at this time makes a HAI search hit RRI on page one.

...however, probably not so happy for Human Awareness Institute....