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.