As for HAI being an organization whose sole purpose is the perpetuation of workshops: if that were the case, its marketing efforts would not consist predominantly of word-of-mouth [...]

[...] I believe that there are three kinds of response that people have to HAI workshops. For a substantial majority of participants, enough benefit accrues that they praise the organization and like to pal around with other people who have been participants. I'm in that category. For some participants, very little benefit, or no benefit, occurs, and no particular unpleasant consequences occur--these people have in effect wasted their money. A few participants come out of the workshops with what could reasonably be called damage: their relationships or marriages end, or they are negatively affected by what goes on to such an extent that they are traumatized. Ideally, this third category would not exist. It would be ideal if HAI had some means of recognizing such a potentiality beforehand, so as to keep people out who are particularly vulnerable. But apologist that I am, I insist that we make every possible effort to avoid taking advantage of people's vulnerabilities. Are there ever predatory sexual activities by interns, assistants, or other participants? Unfortunately, the answer has to be "Yes". Is HAI aware of this fact? Yes. Do we take structural measures to prevent such predation? Yes. When a participant reports such activities, do we investigate? Yes. If a participant's complaint is substantiated, are there consequences for the perpetrator? Yes. Are all these methods generally effective? Observation leads me to believe that in the great majority of cases they are. Are they *perfectly* effective? Not in this universe. I have to admit that there's one category of predators such that such protective measures don't as far as I know apply: that's when the bad guy or gal is another participant. About all we can do there is to say, "Don't come back!" So I guess you'd have to resolve to protect yourself from predatory participants. You should take all that I've just said into consideration if you're trying to decide whether to attend your first HAI Level 1 workshop. You should also take into account what InPassing writes. Attending a HAI workshop will not be entirely without risk. It's up to you to decide whether the possible benefits outweigh the risk.

[...]

I agree that the risk that I just admitted may very well be a risk endemic to the structural nature of LGATs, and that HAI is an LGAT. Again, if you're a prospective new HAI Level 1 participant, you should take this into account. [...]



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/01/2009 11:18PM by rrmoderator.

Hi, all!

I changed my mind. I'm back with you.

Bert:

Thanks for admitting that you are here as an "apologist" with an agenda.

You also put yourself in the "category" of people that "praise the organization and like to pal around with other people who have been participants."

Seems like you are die-hard devotee of HAI so consumed you are submerged in a kind of HAI subculture.

This is not unlike die-hard devotees of Landmark, Sterling, NXIVM, Impact, etc. etc.

Please understand that all these groups rely upon marketing their programs largely by "word-of-mouth."

Your increasingly redundant and monotonous sing-song remarks, which at times read like an infomercial for HAI, have been edited out.

Frankly, this doesn't represent discussion and/or an exchange of ideas, but rather just an effort to subvert this thread.

You admit that there is "damage" done by HAI to the extent that "relationships or marriages end, or they are negatively affected by what goes on to such an extent that [participants] are traumatized."

You attempt to mitigate this by essentially blaming "people...who are particularly vulnerable."

You admit again that HAI has no outside accountability and is only engaged internally in self-policing. Then attempt to blame damage done ultimately on new participants rather than acknowledge the systemic root cause of the problems.

This is one of the danger signs of destructive LGATs.

"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.'"

Question: When the sales staff/interns sign you up at a participant's first HAI meeting, is the new participant expected to sign a waiver against action toward HAI for any reason such as waiving your rights? (mental trauma/breakdowns, marital destruction, etc.) come to mind.

LGATs require this and I am wondering if HAI does the same.

Sparky wrote:

"Question: When the sales staff/interns sign you up at a participant's first HAI meeting, is the new participant expected to sign a waiver against action toward HAI for any reason such as waiving your rights? (mental trauma/breakdowns, marital destruction, etc.) come to mind.

LGATs require this and I am wondering if HAI does the same."

I can only speak out of my personal experience about what happened in my own first experience. That happened prior to July of 1989, my first Level 1 HAI workshop.

I was first informed of the existence of HAI by the surrogate sexual partner with whom I was working in sex therapy. She had taken the workshops up through Level 3. (I think that there were only 4 levels at the time.) She believed that I would enjoy the Level 1 workshop and would derive benefit from it. The sex therapist under whose supervision she worked concurred. The surrogate then gave me a coupon with which I applied to attend the workshop. I was not asked to sign any waiver of rights. I was required, however, to obtain the permission of the therapist, which I did.

So I wasn't "recruited" by any sales staff or by any intern or any other official representative of HAI. Like the great majority of HAI "recruits", I was "recruited" by word-of-mouth recommendation by someone who had attended HAI workshops and was gratified by what they had experienced.

Thank you so much for your honest response, Bert Clanton.

I wonder if other HAI "graduates" (from the various levels) have similar experiences. Bert Clanton has done the level one (1) 20 years ago (correct me if I am wrong, Bert, I don't want to misrepresent you).

Has HAI made anyone sign a waiver to attend a seminar recently (i.e., since 20 years ago)?

Many times LGATs use legalese contracts to protect themselves. Bert Clanton says in his experience Human Awareness Institute does not (and I beleive him since he has been honest and forthcoming so far).

My question is for newer attendees to HAI. Have any of you been requested to sign paperwork (releases) prior to attending the seminars?

Bert, I don't doubt you, I just want to see if anything may have changed since you attended your first seminar.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/02/2009 09:02AM by Sparky.

Back in the days before my surrogate sex partner in sex therapy recommended HAI to me, I had been a participant in three other kinds of LGATs. I'd classify them into two categories: "hard" and "soft". The techniques and exercises used in "hard" LGATS are the ones that resemble those used in brainwashing: assault on identity, guilt, self-betrayal, breaking point, leniency, compulsion to confess, channeling of guilt, releasing of guilt, harmony, rebirth. The first LGAT that I was a particiant in was a major "hard" one. Fortunately for me, the training didn't "take": I felt afterward that it was slightly beneficial, but that it by no means delivered what it promised. Its impact for me was diluted by the fact that I was consumed with curiosity before the training, and managed to find out a lot about the content beforehand. All the rest of the LGATs that I was a participant in were "soft" ones, oriented toward relationships. The first one was pretty "far out" and "New Agey". The actual techniques and exercises were much like those of HAI: permissive but not in the least pushy. I met some very sweet people there, with one of whom I fell temporarily in love; but my technical and scientific educational background protected me from taking their ideology at all seriously. I enjoyed that one quite a bit, particularly the very nice people who participated and assisted; but I soon drifted away on ideological grounds. The second one, "gurued" by a professional psychologist, was oriented toward improving relationships in a much more conventional, mainstream way. At the time, I wasn't in a relationship, and figured that I didn't need what it offered; so I soon drifted away from that one too. Again, that one used none of the "hard", confrontational brainwashing techniques. The last one was HAI: very "soft", and fairly "sexy", which the others hadn't been. And the rest is history.

One thing that these experiences convinced me of, is that there is a lot of difference among LGATs. I consider the "hard" ones to be psychologically pretty dangerous if you really submerge yourself in them, as many people have done. Rightly or wrongly, I consider the "soft" ones, including HAI, to be pretty harmless and benign. Of the "soft" ones, I think that HAI is by far the most powerful one, and hence the one that has the most potentiality for causing psychological distress among a small group of people. There are certain people who for ideological or moral reasons *will not* be comfortable at HAI workshops. There are also a few people whose psychological state is such that they may come out of a HAI workshop in trouble, psychologically. There are also shaky marriages and relationships that won't survive exposure to HAI--though I doubt that some of them would have survived even without such exposure. But I'd really like to see a good empirical study comparing the outcomes of exposure to "soft", relationship-oriented LGATs with the outcomes of conventional psychotherapy and conventional relationship-counseling.

Bert

Bert Clanton:

You seem to be something of an LGAT junkie, going from one to another.

Not all LGATs are the same regarding how they may hurt people, some are worse than others.

But all LGATs pretty much share the same liabilities and potential safety issues.

You say, "...certain people who for ideological or moral reasons *will not* be comfortable at HAI workshops. There are also a few people whose psychological state is such that they may come out of a HAI workshop in trouble, psychologically. There are also shaky marriages and relationships that won't survive exposure to HAI--though I doubt that some of them would have survived even without such exposure."

Again, you are attempting to blame the victim, which is a typical tactic used by LGAT devotees. This is also cited as a danger sign.

See [www.culteducation.com]

As pointed out "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.'"

A more obvious explanation is that HAI caused people emotional and/or psychological distress and that some marriages and relationships broke up because of HAI training.

You say, "I'd really like to see a good empirical study comparing the outcomes of exposure to 'soft,' relationship-oriented LGATs with the outcomes of conventional psychotherapy and conventional relationship-counseling."

This is a very revealing statement. It exposes that HAI is seen as a substitute for psychotherapy and professional counseling.

However, as previously pointed out it is not. And despite your label that it is somehow a "soft LGAT" others posting on this message board seem to see it as a destructive LGAT.

But thanks for sharing, your posts have been helpful in exposing what's wrong with HAI.

By the way, HAI and other LGATs have never done a study to verify objectively measurable results, which has been peer reviewed and then published in a reputable journal.

Such a stud could potentially measure such things as a lowered divorce rate, reduced need for medication, higher grades in school, higher income, lessened need for professional counseling, over a period of time as a result of an LGAT.

LGATs like Landmark, Sterling, NXIVM, Impact, etc. seem financially able to fund such research, but apparently have chosen not to undertake such a project. There is no such published study that I am aware of produced by anyone regarding an LGAT.

rrmoderator wrote:

"Bert Clanton:

You seem to be something of an LGAT junkie, going from one to another."

I think that it would be fair to say that between 1987 and 1989, I was an LGAT junky. My experience with the "hard" LGAT was in 1975.

"Not all LGATs are the same regarding how they may hurt people, some are worse than others.

But all LGATs pretty much share the same liabilities and potential safety issues."

To a certain extent, I agree. But I would insist that as a class, "soft" LGATS share those liabilities to a much lesser degree than the "hard" ones. As I said: of the "soft" ones that I've experienced, HAI is by far the most powerful, hence more prone to those "liabilities and potential safety issues". That's a fact, which I don't deny. I don't assert that no one ever came out of HAI with severe psychological distress. I don't assert that no marriage or relationship ever ended as a result of attendance by one or both partners at a HAI workshop. I do believe that the number of such incidents is pretty small relative to the number of HAI participants.

[...]

"By the way, HAI and other LGATs have never done a study to verify objectively measurable results, which has been peer reviewed and then published in a reputable journal."

I wouldn't *want* HAI to carry out such a study, or even to sponsor it. In that event, some people would equate the study as equivalent to having the foxes count the hens in the henhouse. Such a study would only meet *my* standards of validity if it were carried out by some disinterested third party, neither pro-HAI nor con-HAI.

"Such a study could potentially measure such things as a lowered divorce rate, reduced need for medication, higher grades in school, higher income, lessened need for professional counseling, over a period of time as a result of an LGAT. "

Good! I'm totally for it!

"LGATs like Landmark, Sterling, NXIVM, Impact, etc. seem financially able to fund such research, but apparently have chosen not to undertake such a project. There is no such published study that I am aware of produced by anyone regarding an LGAT."

HAI is *not* financially able to fund such a study--and it wouldn't be a good idea for HAI to fund such a study even if it were able to, for the reason that I've just stated.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/03/2009 03:49AM by rrmoderator.

Bert Clanton:

When you posts are redundant they will either be edited or not approved.

No point going over and over things that have already been discussed and you have stated previously.

Of course a study done by an LGAT by itself internally would not be objective and I didn't mean that.

Let me clarify this.

No LGAT, that I aware of, has ever gone through the process of commissioning/funding a study to be done by an independent researcher, peer reviewed and then published by a reputable journal, which focused on objectively measurable results.

Landmark has done polling to rate customer satisfaction, opinions etc. which is subjective and does not match such a process.

HAI may have the money to fund such research.

This is something you actually don't know, per your previous comments.

You really don't know what goes on financially within HAI, unless you have seen audited financial records regarding the group.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/03/2009 04:58AM by rrmoderator.