I have several friends who have had wonderful experiences with Landmark Forums. I have seen increased happiness and it is a wonderful thing. This website thinks that Landmark is a cult. I don’t have a solid opinion. Mostly I am struck by the similarity between how Landmark and Everytown seem to effect most people. I’m willing to bet that I would feel the same way about Landmark as I did about Everytown.
Apparently Landmark has tried to sue people who link to the video above. Very interesting.
No, not a cult, but full of people who desperatly want to be in one and leaders more than willing to fill the bill.
Best way I can describe it and its ilk
My thoughts are that (bear in mind that I am happily wasted on absinthe) that both use cult-like techniques- break someone down in an enclosed, controlled environment and then reform them in your particular image- but that Landmark fits the bill as a full on cult for fitting all the descriptors I would personally need to define one e.g. money and a pyramid scheme (and/or necessitating violence, death, etc. as is the case for other cults).
Every Christian summer/winter camp I have been to also uses in the least very similar techniques, FYI.
In my opinion, it would all be less of an issue if there was a trained psychologist/psychologist on staff or something similar….if they were trained to be less abusive, also less publically abusive. This goes for Landmark as well as Everytown. I’m not convinced that is possible.
Please take my response with a grain of salt (it is also past 4 am here)
My biggest objection to Everytown was that they didn’t have a psychologist on staff. I think the “breaking down” process is remarkably effective at causing people to come out the other side stronger.
I think that the break down process really didn’t happen for me.
I think ’cause I went into it so young with so few (but still some) “issues,” it wasn’t as bad for me.
I mean I realized that I wasn’t talking to my dad and it was only hurting me and not him… but I also didn’t go in at the same place that a lot of my classmates did.
LOL i broke myself down in late 2003 so I guess I was advanced by the time I got there.
I’m curious. I didn’t see any “breaking down” process involved in your lj entry on everytown, but I see plenty in the French documentary, and what I see there is pretty much what I’ve heard in direct interviews of people who’ve done both Forum and EST.
What “breaking down” process did you see in everytown?
At Everytown they do their best to get people to “admit” to things they have done that are racist, sexist, homophobic, etc and then look around at the people around you who have been hurt by similar actions. It wasn’t anywhere near as focused as the French documentary, but it is also geared at teenagers. They also do exercises where people silently “admit” to things that have happened to them, things like abuse, sexual assault, being neglected, being afraid of parents, etc. By the end of these exercises a noticeable chunk of the group is crying, some nearly hysterically.
I am using “breaking down” to mean making someone vulnerable. Breaking down someone’s protective barrier between themself and the world. I specifically stated that doing this can cause someone to come out the other side stronger, but I think that it is dangerous if done without sufficient support. If you don’t have enough support then you feel terrible and bad about yourself and… ok. That’s it. You get to feel terrible and bad about yourself. Good luck with life!
That’s a dangerous act in my opinion. I don’t want to trust strangers when I walk down that kind of road. I look for people to accompany who have proven themselves already. 🙂
Ok, I hear that.
I usually think of “breaking down” as being a more specifically harsh, intentionally self eroding process which typically involves multiple levels of coercion and/or deception. Forum is very long days, early morning to late evening. One meal. Limited, distant bathroom breaks with “guards” at the door to discourage you from peeing outside regular times.
I didn’t hear anything like that being done intentionally for anytown. It might have happened for you unintentionally, but it didn’t sound like a deliberate part of the program.
I also think of “breaking down” as deliberately challenging one’s sense of self. I think it’s possible to create cathartic experiences which include emotional break downs without necessarily “breaking down” a person’s sense of self or their self worth. Forum intentionally focuses on breaking down both of those, much like “boot camp”‘s do.
I agree that when you crack people open, there needs to be room and support for putting them back together. Anything else is irresponsible. And I question the responsibility of Forum’s approach to this. My understanding of anytown is that for most of the participants, there was suitable processing and recovery time for the emotional break downs. I also hear that for what came up for you, there really wasn’t suitable processing or support. And my understanding is that their intent was for you to be support for the kids, rather than going through your own process. I’ve seen something similar happen to tantra assistants and it’s awkward for everyone. I don’t know how to fix that. The best I can see is to screen staff more thoroughly. But would you really have understood if they’d declined to let you staff the event?
Ok, I can see how we are using the term similarly, but with a lot of difference in intensity and depth. Everytown did not restrict bathroom usage, had frequent meals and snacks (that’s part of how they sell the conference to kids cause the food was actually pretty good), and there was only occasionally deception. Everytown was HUGE on coercion and the days started at 7am and went till 11pm. We were in a pretty outdoor setting though. 🙂
Everytown tried to focus on creating a group identity above and beyond your self, individual identity. There was an exercise at the end devoted to strengthening individuality (the affirmations) but mostly people were supposed to stop thinking about themselves and focus on the community and how their actions affect other people. If you had only a small amount of abuse/trauma/’bad stuff’ in your background there was plenty of support. There was also (obviously) more support for the kids than for the adults.
Well, they did decline having me back. 🙂 It was hard. I had a sad couple of days. But I understand why they did it. It makes sense to me.
I actually think that doing something like that with a very small group of trusted people with lots of support could be valuable to me but the large group with no support cause I’m a ‘grown up’ yeah… that didn’t work for me. I get why it is structured the way it is, but that doesn’t change where I am/was with my stuff.
I know. And I get that.
HAI level 6 was about community and identity within community, but it wasn’t anything like everytown.
Where did you see coercion in everytown?
In the part I never told you about. 😀 oops
In the training we were told that if a kid wanted to leave an exercise because it was too intense we were to stop them at the door and try to talk them into staying. We weren’t allowed to physically keep them there, but we should do our best to persuade them to stay so they could have the “full experience.” There were other similar things about bullying people to talk when they didn’t want to.
Ok, I hear you.
I get the concept behind trying to encourage people to stay with the exercise. I don’t think that necessarily qualifies as coercion, but I’ll happily admit that there’s a fine, and highly subjective line there between “coercion” and “support”. Even subtle differences in the way those actions are framed can make a radical difference in how they are interpreted.
Large Group Awareness Training.
A set of fairly standard tools and techniques that are used to train people. My experience of USMC Bootcamp in retrospect is a wonderful example of this type of training.
They do, or at least did at the time I was associated with them, perform a fairly intense screening for folks that are likely to be negatively affected by their techniques. The techniques are “breaking” techniques in many ways in the first portion of the Landmark Forum. They then, while people are “opened up” introduce them to new ways of thinking. They present these new ways of thinking as either a type of truth, or more functional than peoples default.
The people who are running the event, typically called a Forum Leader, are highly trained…in leading Landmark Events. It takes years to get to that level, and a fairly precise mastery of several social and oratory skills, not to mention the philosophies of the Landmark Education LLC.
There is some shady stuff that was done by the originator of of EST, which was the name of the early Landmark programs (it has changed names a few times, though mostly iterations of EST and Landmark) . At this point, much of it is speculation and rumor, though you can track some of it back through various web sites and the like, I personally believe that he has received money from Landmark Education LLC long after they claimed he had no ties to the current company.
Some of the classic ways in which Landmark isn’t a cult. There is no charismatic leader. Though all the forum leaders I’ve met are very charismatic, they are not godhood figures of the organization. There is no attempt to separate people from their family and friends. (mass marketing technique number one: have people sell to the ones they love). There is no request for funds to be provided without compensation. Hell, they do better than most churches do in that regard, as they don’t take “donation” plates and pass them around, but that’s a personal belief of mine.
I’m not sure what aspect of Shalyndra perception of Landmark leads to the idea that there is a pyramid scheme. All money is paid to the company for seminars (once a week, 10 weeks on average) or courses (one to three weekends, 2-4 days in a weekend). No money is paid to participants for getting others to take seminars or courses, though there is a great deal of pressure for attendee’s to “enroll” others in the Landmark Education Forum (The Forum is the initial course, and in my opinion the roughest one for most folks)
At the end of the day, I’m really glad that both my wife and I have done many of the seminars and courses at Landmark Education. I’m also very glad that we both, before we met each other, walked away from it, and in the words of Landmark “completed it” (got closure, got done, finished with it). They gave us some great “tools” for dealing with life and people, they taught us some different ways of using words that help deal with the places where English doesn’t quite work for relationships and life.
If you want, or anyone else does, I’m happy to share my experience and opinions on the whole deal, some good, some bad…I like to think I have a somewhat neutral view on the whole thing, though that’s probably just my ego talking. 🙂
It is a pyramid scheme in terms of recruitment and hierarchy, just not money.
I’m glad it worked so well for you. 🙂 My perception of Landmark is similar to my perception of Everytown in that I believe it has positive effects for most people… but not for me. I’m too broken to begin with yet I make it through the screening process because I’ve adapted to most things in life. 🙂
Amusingly–I don’t actually have a problem with cults necessarily. I think that the structure of cults can be really positive for some people.
Hm. Self centered can be good or bad. Why do you have negative associations with it in this context?
Pretty much what he said
Like I said, if I could go back in time knowing what I know, would I do it again? Yes.
I know a lot of folks who were in EST back in the day — late 70’s early 80’s — who walked around looking like they were on really good prozac, talk to them 3 or 4 years later and just the mention of est wiped the smiles right off their faces. none of them had one good thing to say about the organization — although they all admitted it had been helpful in some ways. Having known them made me tentative about doing any of the grandchildren (and there are a few of them although landmark is the largest)
You will experience a TON of pressure to pay a lot of money for more and more classes, with hints that you are somehow not really committed to your wellness if you don’t sign up for that next 2 week reteat. You will experience a TON of peer pressure to spend HOURS enrolling your friends, family, and complete strangers — those who enroll the most are considered better more enlightened people — and while they don’t try to separate you from your family (no, they want you to enroll them), a point starts to come where, just like in a ultra religious organization of any type, you’ll notice that the folks IN it tend to sort of think less of anyone not in it who refuses to join it because clearly they’re folks who are ‘stuck’
Dad however was pleased with the results
Anytime a Landmark, or any of the other grandchildren/est spin-offs, folks tell me they don’t get paid to enroll, I answer, “your right, they don’t pay you money. Instead the heap on you love and acceptance and honor which only intensifies with every increase in your numbers. That shit is better than crack. Why would they have to pay you money when your getting from them what you really need?”
I did my landmark forum in May and will do the 2nd course in August….
I totally went in thinking it was a cult. I can own that.
It’s been really good for me but I will agree that they are a bit pushy in trying to get us to get more people in the education.
The one thing I’ve found is that instead of typical cult procedure, they do a lot of work on re-connecting with important people in ones life.
If you want the info I can give it to you, but I don’t like being pushy.
🙂 Oh I have a number of people who have attempted to recruit me. I don’t think it is a flavor of kool aid that is good for me. 🙂
I’m totally for that… What works for some doesn’t work for all..
I think it’s funny that I can trace how I got into the program through an ex of yours… he got my friend who got me….
See we’re always connected you and i…
😀 And it has done really awesome things for that ex. I’m glad he went. 🙂
I think you’re right. Or at least, right for just now.
There are numerous workshops which have better prep and more consistently positive results that might work better for you if you were looking for a workshop format self improvement experience.
(if what you want is a pissing competition) I was in it when I already had a ph.d in cultural anthropology from a department ranked in the top 5 in my area, had won an NSF grant, etc.
My experience is those who were deep in it, which I’m guessing you are, will bite kick scratch and jump up and down swearing thats not what’s going on. Sort of the same way a girl in love will break off friendships with very old trusted friends rather than admit her boyfriend who she is madly in love with is something of a jerk.
Talk to a bunch of folks who walked away, some who were very advanced in it, or even any of the vast number of spin offs, and the majority agree with me. Talk to those still in it, essentially their sense of self worth is too tied up in it to see it.
You realize the Forum is the grandchild of EST? I love the story abut how the founder of EST and the L.Ron Hubburd were buddies and made a bet as to who could be more successful and creating a new cult. I’m not sure if the story is true but ….
I’m not saying don’t do it. If I could back in time knowing what I know, knowing who I was, would I do it again? Yes. Unqualified.
However, I’ve also seen it break highly functional people in ways they never returned from. They ended up no happier and a lot less functional.
I did the Landmark Forum in 1999, right after I kicked my first husband out for being a drunk and a horrible roommate!
I got a lot out of it and I’m glad I did it. I’m also glad that they didn’t persuade me to continue forking over money for more courses or coercing my friends to do it too.
There were more than a few things about the course that brought my hackles up, but the thing that I noticed most in retrospect is that in becoming “more fully myself” I alienated the people I cared about around me and became more self centered than I have ever been in my life. Thankfully I’ve come away from that now.
I’m loving the way all of us had experiences that were essentially the same
AND WHY does my browser insist on my posting anonymously every time… I’m getting annoyed at my browser
Selfish people are boring. If someone can’t at least pretend to care about me there’s no reason for me to interact with them. So in doing the Landmark Forum I became a person that I wouldn’t want to be friends with, and my relationships became very shallow.
However, I think selfishness is fantastic for career building. I made a lot of great networking connections during that time.
But what really matters to me, and what mattered to me before Landmark are my relationships with people, which is a skill perfectly tailored to this next step in my life, this step that I’ve wanted to take my whole life.
Fair enough
I went to the “intro” (couple of hour long) session a few months ago
and decided it wasn’t for me.
On a tangential note, once last winter I was driving back from snowboarding in Tahoe with my son, who’s 11. Well, “Don’t Fear The Reaper” came up on the mix CD I was playing, and I happened to mention to him the name of the group that sang this song. So he looks at me quizzically and says, completely off the cuff, “So they dance around in robes at the airport with blue colored oyster shells on their head singing this song and asking people for money?”
I was laughing so hard we almost hit the guardrail.
Re: I went to the “intro” (couple of hour long) session a few months ago
Yay! That’s awesome.
I am finding this connent thread fascinating. A few months ago, my therapist suggested Landmark might be really good for me. I looked into it, but was dubious. I hadn’t heard any of these sorts of comments, as I hadn’t even heard of it before or since. Don’t think I’m likely to do it, especially after hearing about the “breaking you down” aspect – I’ve had enough of that in my life in the past, thankyouverymuch.
Well, they TRY to break you down. What boggled them about me was I never broke, I just restructured. Usually its folks who are NOT willing to see their own fault in any situation who tend to break. Me, I always assume its my fault, can take even the fiercest feedback and not only take it but hear it.
This they weren’t used to. So I never cracked.
However, I had one friend who was a self made multimillionaire , who was a ton of fun, and one of the most tenacious bastards on the planet — hence his success in business. We had to do this one exercise where we rated everyone on our trust for them, and EVERYONE gave him a high rating except me. My comment was, I know that I stand between Tony and something he wants I’m a dead woman. No matter how much fun he is, or how charming and tactful, I know better than to trust him.
They broke Tony. Everything about him that made him successful in life they broke, and all that was left was a guy who didn’t like himself much. And when he ended up checking himself in, none of the workshop folks were there for him. I know this cause I called him daily.
I don’t think your the type whose going to walk out of there broken. I’ve seen a few go down and the impersonality’s are similar. You’re not that. You would probably do well there.
Krissy, I have no idea how she would do. She may be right in her analysis. But you, I think you might enjoy it.
DAMN BROWSER< did it again!!!!
Hmmm, good point, never thought about it that way, but its true to my experience. Here’s some agreement for you 🙂
Ah man… when you agree with her out loud it swells her ego… 😉 Then she gets even more cocky. 😀
She’s so right
LOL
I held myself back from making crowing comments about my big brains (read penis)
Personally, I LOVE the expression of landmark folks when they try to enroll me now.
If I make that comment in response to them saying they don’t get paid. They look at me like I just turned into a big monster and bared my teeth, and then they slowly back away.
In reality however. You know how in therapy for depression they put you on happy drugs but then you need to work on your issues in therapy sessions (individual or group)? For the forum and their ilk, the love drug is as stated above, then you do the workshops.
Those who have FULLY graduated in my opinion, are those who can do the happy without needing the drugs anymore.
I’d heard the bet story, but about Heinlein and Hubbard rather than Erhard. It’s unlikely about Erhard, because Hubbard was obviously his inspiration, refered to est as “Scientology up to 1954”, and basically drummed him out of business, with tactics both legal and not.
See I think this is why I didn’t crack/break… they said i was doing something wrong… and i didn’t fight it… I rolled with what they said… The more you fight the more you break I think…
One of our leaders has a saying I love:
If one person tells you your a horse, its a little odd
if two people tell you your a horse, its something to consider
if three people tell you your a horse, its time to buy horse shoes,
and anyone who by the 3rd time they hear the same comment refuses to accept it, must be suffering from a heavy case of denial
And returning to the academia issue, you must be one heck of researcher, if your idea of research is to throw out all the data that doesn’t support the outcomes you want.
Rebecca darling–play nice in my journal. You’ve made your points, now stop going on about it. 🙂
“At the end of the day I’m left with, okay, maybe Landmark isn’t perfect, but overall we do a good job giving people what they’re looking for in this kind of education. And where we aren’t, we’re working on improving. Overall I’ve found it’s more useful to most people than most kinds of therapy. And, I’m really proud of the people who have been in my courses and what they’ve accomplished in their lives. (That is something I will fight kick and jump about, they are like my kids!)”
This is mostly my impression of it from the outside. It isn’t perfect, but for the people who want what this opportunity provides it does a good job. I’m ok with that as nothing is perfect.
I’m not speaking from personal experience with Landmark but extrapolating from my perception of the similarities with Everytown.
What I mean by “breaking someone down” is exposing the areas where a person is not fully confident in themselves. This can be for a variety of reasons. You express that some people might need to be broken down but I can tell you that some of us really don’t need any more exposure to this environment. Severe abuse (like the kind I experienced) tends to fuck with your head so that you feel the same sort of guilt/obligation/responsibility for bad things that happen *to* you as other people feel for things they *do*. It has taken years (and a pretty ridiculous amount of therapy) for me to get to a point where I can function well and not feel bad about those “cracks” in my personality. But even though I do pretty well the vast majority of the time and on a day-to-day functional level I am “over” my past it isn’t that hard to bring it up for me.
My perception of the Landmark experience is that the Forum actively tries to cause people to feel vulnerable early on by looking at things that are hard for them. This is not necessarily a bad thing and it is in my opinion a great thing for some people. I don’t need more exposure to that sort of vulnerability and in conversations I’ve had with people neither do other serious abuse victims. That isn’t a problem with Landmark per se, just an acknowledgment that something can be psychologically healthy for some people while being dodgy for others and extremely unhealthy for others all at the same time.
That’s my impression of Landmark. And I agree- some people might go into Landmark and treat it as a cult and themselves as members of said cult and expect it to solve everything, others might cull parts that work for them and leave the rest, and others might find the program healthy. Still others might feel icky from it.
Mental health, and healing therein, is not one size fits most by any means!
I appreciate your offer. I doubt I will take you up on it. 🙂
I saw a link to this cartoon which may be apropos. Or offensive. Or both.
heh. That is pretty funny.
heh.
Only true when you get one of those idiots who confuses a classroom with a bully pulpit. I can’t stand ideologues in the classroom and I don’t care which side of the fence they’re not straddling.
At this point I don’t get to spend 30 minutes of undivided attention on anything so it doesn’t matter if I wanted to take you up on it. 😀
The “break you down” part, which you take issue with, is actually illustrated extremely well in the French documentary that was linked in the original post. Specifically, Alain Roth (head of the French division of Landmark) is filmed by a reporter who brought in a hidden camera as he does precisely that with a couple of participants.
The first, a woman who has apparently sabotaged her daughter’s romantic life by telling her how awful men are (and possibly other things, we get only a little of that part) is repeatedly told how it’s her fault, what awful things she has done, how she does it out of hatred, how it’s a lie that she has behaved that way and yet claims to love her daughter, how her guilt is a convenient way to make herself feel better without having to fix it, how she should commit suicide — no, she shouldn’t, because that would be the easy way out. It’s very, very harsh and goes on for many minutes. This is all on film, not merely referred to, and it’s done by the head of Landmark France, not by a poorly-trained first-timer. Again, it’s in the documentary link in the original post, so you can see for yourself if you like.
When we say “break somebody down”, we don’t mean physically — we’re referring to semi-public guilting and shaming of that kind. Perhaps it doesn’t happen often, or in the US. It seems to be pretty common in the French chapter of Landmark, to hear several graduates of their classes tell it (again, in the documentary).
The documentary also spends a lot of time on the extremely heavy-handed Landmark sales strategy, though I feel they do it more disservice than it specifically deserves. I’d have more sympathy if I hadn’t seen Alain Roth’s response to precisely that criticism, though. A response like, “it’s a business, we sell hard, it works well for us” would be reasonable, honorable and accurate. The response “harassment is just your subjective experience, you should instead see it as people who are very committed to helping you” is smarmy, does nothing to dispel my unease about their “friends and family” hard-sell, and suggests that if you’re not interested in being a high-pressure salesman then you don’t care. Ordinarily I would follow that with a comment like, “… but I don’t need to make fun of that, it’s ridiculous on the face of it.”
However, your response to much of this was to invite my wife to come join in despite her claiming questionable psychological health and having difficulty in a similar program, so I’ll treat that as a potential point of disagreement between us.
shiny swords
;-P
Actually you *do* know about Alain’s reponse to that criticism if you’ve seen that film. It shows him responding to exactly that question the next morning, not long after the segment I described. I’ll cheerfully agree that it didn’t attempt to be fair and balanced, and much of their criticism is obviously trumped up. However, I’m going to go out on a limb and say that the filmed bits, if old and not balanced, still look real.
I did not invite your wife to come join a darn thing. Far from it. Re-read the posts.
Okay.
From one post:
I don’t think you’re too broken. […] It could help with some sticky areas […] I would like you to know you aren’t ‘too broken’ for it. I don’t know about Everytown but I do strongly believe that Landmark is a good deal.
This looks a lot to me like dismissing her self-appraisal, combined with persuasion. Neither is awful. Both are, y’know, a sales pitch.
Different post:
from what I know of you, you’d probably take something like the Landmark Forum and just use it in tandem with what you’ve learned in therapy
You do, though, say that’s just an impression based on limited information, so yay for no pressure? Or at least, a disclaimer?
If you ever want a personal introduction […] exercise designed to give you a real sense of how the weekend works),[…] no big deal, I love leading ’em. […] designed such that you walk away from the conversation with something valuable for your life[…]. That’s why I think they’re fun — no matter what, people go home with something. 🙂
I mostly said you were giving a sales pitch. The above is absolutely a sales pitch. Want me to call out that fact from your phrasing even more clearly?
So here’s my disclaimer, since that makes what you say okay: this is obviously cherry-picked to make my point and *not* the entirety of what you said. That last bit, the one I say is “absolutely a sales pitch”, is barely edited, though.
When I say that your sales pitch is, honestly, a tad creepy (her: yeah, I had a bad psychologically damaging experience in similar circumstances and what I heard about your conferences makes me not want to go; you: okay, let’s call that a “maybe”), that’s not based on the idea that you get money from it. In fact, as I say of Alain Roth, an honest interest in money and willingness to do a hard-sell for it would actually seem more wholesome to a dedicated capitalist like myself.
You’re volunteering, for free, significant amounts of your time and doing a sales pitch to strongly encourage people to sign up. You’re getting, you claim, nothing from it. So now I’m confused. So when I say “a tad creepy”, that confusion is what I refer to. Your explanation, that a hard-sell is just your way of caring, sounds *exactly* like a wide variety of people who really, REALLY don’t mean it. Maybe if you specifically avoided mimicking their vocabulary and methods?
her: yeah, I had a bad psychologically damaging experience in similar circumstances
I’m sorry, where did she say that? She said she had an opinion about one thing that looked like another, and had an opinion that she was too broken for either. That’s how I read it, anyway. You are obviously privy to much more information about Krissy, but I am much more privy to information about LE. If someone states their opinion, I have something informed to say about it’s accuracy.
Re: the sales pitch — Who doesn’t get something when someone else gets something valuable? Don’t I get something out of it if my friends have a good experience with my dentist (besides the Starbucks gift card)? Does that make my recommendation a sales pitch?
But maybe you’re right. Maybe I really don’t care about people. No, wait, I really, REALLY don’t care about people. (That must be why Krissy’s ex, my boyfriend, is so happy these days. Maybe when he did the Landmark Forum, I got such a good fix, that there’s been enough to go around for months…!)
Since I don’t know how to use any kind of vocabulary other than the one I currently possess, or how to recommend things or participate in a conversation about something beyond the “methods” of “them”, according to you, I guess I’m fucked in this conversation. I think that’s a bullshit way of shutting me up, personally.
Good thing Krissy wasn’t sick with an abscessed tooth asking about the merits of Dr Chin in Capitol Hill, because she’d be missing out on a seriously good dentist. And I’d be missing out on some free coffee… you didn’t think I’d just recommend him for nothing, did you?
her: yeah, I had a bad psychologically damaging experience in similar circumstances
I’m sorry, where did she say that?
On this one, you deserve a pass and I should have been clearer. Everytown was mentioned earlier, probably before you were reading, and I apologize for not explaining, or at least asking, earlier.
Everytown was something she personally attended at the recommendation that it was a life-changing experience and she’d absolutely get something valuable and wonderful out of it, while they were careful not to mention any specifics. Everytown then proceeded to have people not trained as psychologists go through potentially damaging exercises which can have problems even if done by trained therapists, and could be worse if used by people who don’t have real therapy training. She was held up to shame and ridicule in this carefully-chosen group of “future leaders” and it was for “everybody’s benefit”, possibly excepting her own. They had emotional exercises which were both traumatic and bonding, over an intensive multi-day retreat to encourage lots of immersion and minimal contact with the outside world.
Presumably I may be forgiven for seeing something of that in Landmark. Or not, but perhaps you can understand how I might see parallels.
Does that make my recommendation a sales pitch?
Nope. Your vocabulary and your arguing with her self-assessment to suggest she should participate in something you lead make it a sales pitch.
Your belief that I hate Tom and all human beings because I identify that in your phrasing disagrees with my own subjective evaluation, but you knew that when you wrote it.
Good thing Krissy wasn’t sick with an abscessed tooth asking about the merits of Dr Chin
If Krissy began with, “Several descriptions of Dr Chin sound a lot like <Dentist X>, who I had a bad experience with” and you said, “I don’t think you’re too averse to pain to deal with Dr Chin — why, stubbing your toe at the grocery store would be worse!”, I promise you that I would react similarly.
Or to put it simply, she didn’t ask about the merits of Landmark.
Your vocabulary and your arguing with her self-assessment to suggest she should participate in something you lead make it a sales pitch.
I didn’t argue with her self-assessments. I offered my own, with the caveat that they were mine, and with more insider information about Landmark.
Your belief that I hate Tom and all human beings because I identify that in your phrasing disagrees with my own subjective evaluation, but you knew that when you wrote it.
This makes no sense. I can’t find a way to make this sentence make sense, let alone the content (“hate Tom” etc. — when did I say anything about that?).
Or to put it simply, she didn’t ask about the merits of Landmark.
Actually, her entire original post raised exactly that question. Perhaps less than overtly, but all the same.
I didn’t argue with her self-assessments. I offered my own
Offering an opinion that disagrees with what was said is, y’know, arguing. Like I’m doing with you right now, by giving your assessment (“I didn’t argue”) and offering my conflicting assessment (“yes, you did.”), usually along with supporting reasons why — for instance, my explanation/definition of arguing in the first sentence of this paragraph.
(“hate Tom” etc. — when did I say anything about that?).
You: But maybe you’re right. Maybe I really don’t care about people. No, wait, I really, REALLY don’t care about people. (That must be why Krissy’s ex, my boyfriend, is so happy these days. Maybe when he did the Landmark Forum, I got such a good fix, that there’s been enough to go around for months…!)
Perhaps I misinterpreted. The above passage is the one I meant, though.
Actually, her entire original post raised exactly that question. Perhaps less than overtly, but all the same.
Her post, above, said: I have several friends who have had wonderful experiences with Landmark Forums. I have seen increased happiness and it is a wonderful thing. This website thinks that Landmark is a cult. I don’t have a solid opinion. Mostly I am struck by the similarity between how Landmark and Everytown seem to effect most people. I’m willing to bet that I would feel the same way about Landmark as I did about Everytown.
You might believe that this is a solicitation of advice. If so, you have roundly ignored our hostess repeatedly and emphatically saying that she is not asking for advice, and does not appreciate advice, unless she specifically makes it clear that she wants it on a given post.
Incidentally, the link on the word “Everytown” in that post would be what I was referring to as “psychologically damaging”. But it’s an extensive write-up, so skipping it is understandable. Still, if you want to know the specifics, that’s where you’d find them.
My participation in this conversation is bordering on a ridiculous waste of time. However…
Regarding Everytown — I’m not going to read the extensive write-up — I will say that from your description, it actually does not sound very similar to the Landmark Forum. There is no requirement to stand up in front of the room (I didn’t), certainly no intent to humiliate anyone, people are actually encouraged to reach out to friends/family at every available opportunity during the weekend, etc. So, take that as you will.
Offering an opinion that disagrees with what was said is, y’know, arguing.
It would be arguing if I said, “No, you’re wrong” or something similar. As I am doing now – no, you are wrong. I frequently qualified what I was saying to Krissy with, ‘this is what I can see from limited information.’ I at least once said, I’m not sure how it would go for you. I never once said, “This is what you should do” (which is how advice works, yes?) but did say “Here is an option if you are interested”.
The same goes for everything you wrote about offering advice. Again, I’ve not been reading very long, so this “roundly ignoring our hostess…saying she is not asking for advice” is news to me. But frankly if my posts are considered smarmy salesman advice (or sales? I can’t keep it straight), against which you have to defend her delicate psychological composition… then I’m not sure I’m interested in sticking around. That’s not a dynamic I enjoy being party to, Landmark entirely aside.
Generally, *she* defends her delicate psychological composition on this one, generally by telling people in advance that advice isn’t welcome, and then telling them again when they give it that it wasn’t welcome.
I’m merely mentioning it as a sort of “forum rule” for her journal, much as I would do with the moderator rules on a web forum or mailing list.
As far as “it’s not arguing if you add a disclaimer such as ‘this is just my opinion’…” Well, you can skim back through our exchange to see how well you reacted when I did that. I maintain that it’s still arguing if you add “in my opinion” afterward. You know, in my opinion.
Yeah, funny, I will tell people to go to hell if they are being personally insulting and asserting that I have done/said things that I have not. Imagine that.
You are belaboring this “argument” point ad nauseum. You’ve clearly dug your heels in and I’m finished trying to refute your opinion on the matter.
Incidentally, I have found that people who really do not want commentary or opinions on an issue actually turn off comments to that journal entry. Not encourage them (i.e. responding to most of them) to the tune of 50+ comments. If Krissy truly didn’t want commentary or opinions, then how do you explain this entire page of discourse?
Well, Krissy *hasn’t* responded to most of it. I’ve been doing that, at least numerically speaking. Your advice wasn’t to me, and I don’t personally have a problem with unsolicited advice in my direction, and I’m not giving Krissy advice. So I feel like I’m doing fine relative to that guideline.
I was happy to discuss the “argument” point because it’s something where I feel we have a firm grounding of common experience. I’m not going to argue the specifics of Landmark because I don’t know them. I’d argue the specifics of your behavior, but in the places where I’ve put forward some specific point and you’ve ignored it, I’m returning the favor rather than bringing it up again with no new information. That seems reasonable given that you may have limited time, attention or interest in many of these points. Certainly you have claimed so.
Yeah, funny, I will tell people to go to hell if they are being personally insulting and asserting that I have done/said things that I have not. Imagine that.
On this point, as with many, you’re replying to something other than what I said. That’s fine — this is as much a conversation as an argument — but I’m still happier pointing it out than not.
I have tried responding to this, but it seems at this point that this conversation is beyond reparable. I could point out the b.s. in what you’ve written, you could do it back to me, and we could go at it all week. Such is the problem with online arguments. Perhaps it’s better tabled.
Fair enough.
Krissy – I *have* to meet this husband of yours. I think I have a crush on him.
Isn’t he hot?!
He’ll be at the wedding!
I’m amused by the fact that to read this, the thread actually narrowed down
to
a
line
of
words
Very funny
One line of words. And replying isn’t any easier.
There is a conflation here of me not wanting to be put in a vulnerable position (should I say thank you for the snarky description of, “delicate psychological composition”?) and me not wanting advice. They are two separate issues and I’ll thank you to not put them together.
I don’t want advice from anyone unless I ask for it. It’s a personality quirk. I state it often and generally very clearly. You have apparently missed it. I would put in links, but you don’t seem to like to follow them. I don’t in general need to turn off comments because people who read my journal regularly are mainly composed of people who have a basic level of respect for me and my wishes. It is possible to comment on something without giving advice. In this situation advocating for Landmark by saying, “I feel it has been really beneficial to me,” would be sharing your experience. You didn’t do that. You argued with other peoples’ opinions (ironically, some of them have done Landmark and don’t have a great opinion but you are dismissing that wholesale claiming that they don’t know what Landmark is about) at length all the while saying that people were picking on you. Rebecca bordered on it and I know she can get a bit…overzealous so I told her to stop. Noah has never attacked *you* he has analyzed your points as you stated them. Yet you respond to him as if he is personally attacking you.
That whole thing about the dentist? That really looks like in your opinion I am currently suffering terribly and it is all my fault because I am not choosing to go to Landmark and be healed. Give me a break. I have annoying in-laws. I know what to do about the situation but I feel conflict so I haven’t talked myself into doing it yet. There isn’t some magical solution out there that Landmark is going to teach me. It also isn’t going to be able to (I bloody well hope) eliminate my basic moral code which is the reason I am vacillating. Overall I am very comfortable with where I am on the developmental path towards solving the situation. I suppose at this point it might be appropriate for me to say: but thanks for your concern.
Re: the conflation of two issues — given what I’ve read ( and it doesn’t back log *at all*), one easily read like the other. I am now duly informed.
As far as the rest of it – I think you’d be troubled to find an instance of where I dismissed an argument saying that person didn’t know what they were talking about regardless of direct experience. (Though there were instances where I disagreed and questioned the accuracy of antidotes.) Or where I said people were picking on me. But I did have a couple of glasses of wine in me last night, so if I have forgotten something, then by all means.
Noah actually did insult me personally by saying I was selling you something, that it was creepy, etc. That’s how he interpreted my posts. You have apparently interpreted things I’ve said as “you are so broken, you need this” (i.e. The dentist thing, which is not what I meant at all – we were discussing whether I was recommending something or selling it, and I was making my point with sarcasm, admittedly not always the best tool). Also, Landmark being a magical tool? I would never say that. I *would* say people tend to sort through issues much more quickly, which is why for *most* people, I find it more effective than therapy (when considered).
These interpretations are not accurate regarding the intent of my posts, and are actually personally insulting given the particular commitments by which I live my life. Landmark is something I believe in more than very much else, and I have spent more time and heartache than you can imagine figuring out how to talk about it so that people understand fully its value, but don’t feel personal pressure from me to do it. I am not interested in prosyletizing or in people participating if that is truly not right for them. Few people in my life have felt any pressure from me about it (and I have investigated), whether they participated or not. In the few instances it has come up, two specific times in the last 4ish years, it has been online and in relationship to someone who declared themselves of less-than-normal psychological health in the matter. Perhaps I should learn my lesson.
In this instance as in the previous, I am left with that I should not participate in the conversation if I am going to have to work so hard to censor myself. My friends are people who can take advice, or leave it. They may not be interested in Landmark, but they don’t critque the character of Landmark and thus my character for having a role in the company. They know that I care about people and what I do (Landmark, Immunology, fund raiser coordination) reflects that. I work far too hard to spend time tolerating anything else, particularly from people I call friends.
So, perhaps now is when I should say: sorry for caring.
If someone states their opinion, I have something informed to say about it’s accuracy.
You lost me here.
I think that I’m the authority when it comes to my opinions. Although you can certainly have one of your own.
Perhaps it’s better said: If someone states their opinion about Landmark, particularly someone who hasn’t actually participated (as is the context here), I have something to say about it’s accuracy.
That may be a grammatically incorrect way of saying it, but I think my point is clear.
At the risk of putting words into your mouth, perhaps you mean to say that if someone offers the claim of stating factual info about Landmark, you’ll be happy to offer your own opinion. Which seems fair.
I was actually trying to point out the foolishness of the presumed freudian in what you actually wrote, which came across to me as, “if you state an opinion about Landmark, I’ll tell you that you’re wrong”.
My opinion is simply my opinion. It can’t really be “wrong” in any objective sense.
Semantics, schemantics.
Wow. So when someone points out that you don’t get to decide if their opinion is right or wrong you say, “Semantics, Schemantics.” So when earlier in this thread you said, “I make sure my people have a good experience and don’t feel pressured or anything gunky… and if that happens, I have been known to call up the offending parties and hand them their ass. As a top leader, I can do that in a way that they will listen (and get value from what I say so they don’t do it again), which is great. :)”
So you know how to explain things in a way so that people will listen and get value from it yet you don’t believe in the specifics about how words should be used. Did you learn this in Landmark or was this a preexisting strategy.
At the beginning of this conversation I said that while I didn’t think Landmark was appropriate for me I didn’t have anything against it and I knew people who had gotten really good stuff from it. I’m really pulling back from that level of neutrality to having a more negative opinion. My opinion is changing because of your tone and attitude.
It actually makes me sad.
I can say something about whether or not the subject of one’s opinion (“that wall is blue”) is accurate if I know something about that subject (I’ve been looking at the wall).
Clearly that’s what I meant, not (as has been interpreted) that I have something to say about whether or not you are entitled to have an opinion about it. I don’t. You are entitled to your opinion. If you think the wall is blue and you haven’t seen it and I have in fact painted it red, well, power to ya.
I feel like it is worth pointing out that the people who have mainly been part of this thread are people who take language very seriously and most of them have studied rhetoric to at least some degree. They don’t have to be invested in the subject matter to deconstruct the argument and latch on to some point. Semantics matter a lot. Semantics allow two people to have a conversation about the same thing. Without semantics you can’t usefully have a conversation.
In the previous comment your example of the wall isn’t exactly parallel to what this argument thread is about. My opinion is that Landmark has enough in common with Everytown such that it is not a process I would benefit from given where I am in my life and point in processing.
You don’t know anything about Everytown and stated that you don’t want to even bother reading my write up about the experience. That’s ok, but it means that you can’t really tell me that I am wrong about Everytown being similar to Landmark anymore than I can tell someone all about Landmark. It isn’t the same thing as knowing what color the wall is. Given that the similarities I am discussing are largely subjective someone other than me might not agree with them, and yet I’m still not wrong.
It’s perfectly fine that you think my opinion would change if I were exposed to Landmark, but you can’t prove that without me spending hundreds of dollars and a full weekend of my life. Ok, in general a weekend isn’t that long but given that I have a baby who is only 55 days old… Three days is a long time!! (insert to indicate silliness of tone to that last bit.) I didn’t say in my earlier comments that I would absolutely never ever consider Landmark. I said I didn’t think it was appropriate for me now. I expressed dubiousity about it ever being right for me, but even that isn’t finite.
Then I get your next comment before I have even posted so I’ll just tack my response on to this one.
Yes, it was an ironic question thus the end stop instead of question mark. It was a reflection of my frustration with being told that Landmark would be so good for me despite me feeling it wouldn’t be. I, probably inappropriately, ascribed something that frustrated me in the argument to the topic in question as it was possible to make a (potentially erroneous) connection due to my perception that one of the goals of Landmark is to help people learn to communicate better.
And Shanna is squirming and needs attention so I have to stop. I think my grammar sucks in that last paragraph because I was distracted and not concentrating well. I hope it is comprehensible.
There’s been a bit of confusion above, so it’s worth mentioning: the French documentary is about five years old — 2003. Alain Roth, the fellow most obviously excoriated in the video, is no longer head of Landmark France because there is no longer a such thing as Landmark France. They’ve pulled out of that country.
Alain Roth, and a question
Alain Roth is still working for Landmark: See http://www.landmarkeducation.com/display_images.jsp?top=21&mid=166&siteObjectID=329
I wonder if he has really changed the way he runs seminars in the past five years, or if nicolle was wrong about that, as she was wrong about the documenatry being “remarkably old”. For what it’s worth, nicolle, Stonehenge is remarkably old; the pyramids are remarkably old; John McCain is ancient; but a documenary from 2003 can not by any stretch of logic be called remarkably old. Tell us, nicolle, was that a deliberate lie or has your wonderful education at Landmark and in academia left you that bad at fact checking?
Re: Alain Roth, and a question
Interesting. They still list him as working in France. Either that page is outdated, or the thing I read about Landmark pulling out of France was wrong.
In my opinion, this is not the right time for Krissy to take Forum. There may never be a right time, but even if there is, this isn’t it.
I base this on several things. First, her association between anytown and landmark, (which seem radically different to me). Second, the knowledge that… well, some knowledge of her process over the last few years. Third, even apart from current process, there’s a question of abuse and consent – one that fascinates me about cults and processes like Forum.
FTR, I do believe that Forum and Landmark use abusive techniques. However, the real question is whether the people involved are consenting to those techniques, and it appears to me as though they are – which makes for a good argument that the techniques aren’t abusive any more so than consensual bdsm is abusive, (which, in my mind, it is generally not).
What makes Landmark/Forum’s techniques abusive isn’t a question of consent – a lack of consent would make them illegal. Rather, it’s the fact that they use techniques which are currently considered inappropriate by learned professionals, and for good reasons. Personally, I recognize the techniques as powerful. Unfortunately, there don’t seem to be any ways to use that power responsibly. Forum/Landmark contents itself with using these powers in ways that are legal and constructive for Forum/Landmark. To me, that has questionable ethics and morality – or rather, it would have questionable ethics or morality if I were to take those actions.
Re: Alain Roth, and a question
There’s nothing relative about facts. If you haven’t worked that out then all your education had gone for nothing.
Let’s look at what you said about that video: “I don’t know what iteration of the forum it is from, but it looks like maybe early nineties? It’s not how the courses are run today, which I could tell from numerous points.”
So, you thought it was from the early 90s, when in fact it was from the early 2000s. That’s ten years, and in that time Landmark had made so many changes to their course, that you could not tell the difference. Now you expect us to believe that after no recognizable changes for ten years, in the succeeding five it has become completely different? That’s an exceptional claim and exceptional claims require exceptional proof. Do you have any to offer? In fact, can you offer evidence of any substantive changes in philosophy or methodology that Landmark had made in the last five years?
Re: Alain Roth, and a question
So, when you can’t produce evidence to back up your claims you resort to name calling. Is that something you learned from Landmark or did you pick it up studying for your PhD?
Re: Alain Roth, and a question
Fair enough. They’re harsh over there on organizations they consider cults. The Southern Baptists have the same problem there, or at least did once. I haven’t checked recently to see if France changed its mind at some point.
“As far as C is concerned – perhaps I should have said that I respect your decision and leave it at that. Otherwise… *throws up hands*”
I think that is how most people treat me. It’s overall my preference. 🙂
A little of column A…. a little of column B…
Re: Alain Roth, and a question
“Who said I can’t produce evidence?”
I do.
Because grown ups debate by providing evidence to back up their claims and not by calling each other “asshole”.
Because if you had evidence, you would present it, prove you are right and win the debate. Instead you continue to indulge in juvenile name calling. Of course, the alternative assumption is that you actually enjoy making a fool of yourself, but I’m prepared to believe it’s not deliberate.
This whole discussion is caught in a huge catch-22.
1. There are people in the world who have said lots of things about Landmark Education, some true and some not true.
2. The only people who can confirm or deny these statements are people who have attended courses from Landmark Education.
3. Anyone who has taken a course from Landmark Education is immediately dismissed (by the audience on this blog) as a non-reliable source who can’t be believed.
So the conversation can go nowhere but circles, and I won’t participate in it further than this post. However, as someone who has taken a course, and so won’t be believed anyway, I’m going to make a few comments. I’m going to try to make them as informational as I can.
People have been asking for “evidence”, I’m not sure what they want to have proven, but there have been studies of the results of Landmark Education’s courses. Several of them listed right on Landmark’s website at http://www.landmarkeducation.com/landmark_forum_independent_research.jsp You are obviously free to believe or dismiss those. When I first read them I did so with a heavy dose of cynicism too. A careful consumer always does that with marketing materials. This site seems to have a pretty balance article: http://www.skepdic.com/landmark.html. I won’t link to the negative ones, not because I’m avoiding them, but because you’ve already found them.
Personally, I’m glad I took the courses. I’m happier. Life is more fun. Life is easier to live. Life is happening right now, not some future I need to toil towards. I have a different perspective on life. I treat the people in my life better. I talk to my parents more often. I have deeper, more rewarding conversations with people. I talk to strangers I meet. I get help from people. I’m more effective at listening to people and communicating clearly.
I’m starting my 5th course. Someone who takes those same courses at today’s prices will spend up to $1,740 on 183 hours of actual in the classroom instruction. This doesn’t count the individual coaching, homework, or the other stuff that one does outside the course to practice and learn. That’s $9.51/hr. The first course one purchases is called the Forum, it comes with a free seminar. Together this is 60 hours of instruction for $9.17hr.
Until I chose to register for my most recent course, I hadn’t heard from anyone at Landmark in 10 months. This really is a company offering educational services. You can choose to take a course or not. No one is going to hound you to continue to take courses. Of course, the folks who lead the programs believe strongly that the programs are helpful to people (or why would they do it?) so one is likely to be told lots of good things about the next course when finishing a course. But they absolutely will respect your choice in the matter. We’ve heard from lots of people in this discussion that have taken some courses and stopped.
Ok, I’m done. Take a course, don’t take a course, believe me, don’t believe me, it doesn’t matter to me, I’m just telling you the way I see it.
Despite your attempt at a fait accompli I get to have the last word in my journal if I so choose. It’s pretty much the only space where I am guaranteed it. 🙂
Several of the people in this thread have attended Landmark: Rebecca and Taylor to be specific. ( and along with who is less keen on me using her real name.) And Nicolle and now you. So given that the other people who have participated have been me, Noah, Andrew, and a few random one-offs that means that there certainly has been input from Landmark aware people.
What I have said about Landmark is that it works really well for some people and that is great and I’m glad they get so much out of it but I don’t think it is for me. Noah has said that he doesn’t like the manner in which Landmark is marketed, which he doesn’t need to attend to know. Chris has probably said the most specifically about it without attending but he hasn’t said anything bad. Andrew… well… uhm, he’s Andrew. If you say, “The video looks like it was made fifteen years ago” but then it turns out the video was made five years ago he’s going to want to know what has changed so drastically in the last five years that didn’t change in the ten years previous. He’s being a shit, but he has a point. He hasn’t said anything else about Landmark.
The evidence being requested is: when did Landmark change it’s Forum so much in the past five years that Nicolle can say, “That video is not representative of what we do now.”
For what it’s worth, the two main people who talk specifically about Landmark “breaking down” someone are Rebecca and Taylor. Both of whom have done Landmark. In my opinion that makes them reliable sources. They both acknowledge that Landmark does this on purpose because doing so allows you to work through a bunch of old stuff.
Somewhere on this enormous thread I said that I don’t have a problem with the technique of breaking people down because usually people go through it and come out the other side stronger. It is a valuable technique. The most critical of it I was is in saying that I wish a psychologist was present for when someone had issues. Most people won’t though and I do know that.
I’m glad you have done Landmark. It has made you happier and that is really wonderful. I have not denigrated Landmark and I’m really annoyed that both you and Nicolle are acting like I have. I did state that Nicolle’s method of arguing is probably the most turn-off I have had towards Landmark and it’s true. I can believe something isn’t appropriate for me without thinking it is bad.
I actually don’t believe you have denigrated Landmark and if I have said something that made it sound that way, my apologies.
Thank you. I appreciate that.
I said I wasn’t going to reply, but I will because I did not mean to imply by anything that I said that Krissy was denigrating Landmark. Your post seemed to be basically a curiosity statement on the subject. In fact, I tried to write carefully so as to not express an opinion one way or another, but rather to just describe my experiences and provide some facts, granted I may not have achieved that goal.
I believe that the other folks here who have done Landmark were also trying to describe their experiences. Although there were varying degrees of fact, opinion, and speculation in some of those posts.
I will note that I experienced NOTHING that I would characterize as a breaking down process. I have also been in the military. I describe the process sort of like this: The Landmark Forum leader shines a flashlight onto an area of life. The participants take a look at that area of life and describe it. The forum leader says, yep, that’s what it looks like, and that might actually be the way it is, but what if we think about it like this? Try that on. Does considering it that way make life easier? If it does, great use it as a tool. If not, no big deal. Each of these areas are referred to as Distinctions. I have never seen anyone treated with anything less than the utmost dignity during a course.
Bottom line though, as Krissy notes, it works for some folks, and it doesn’t seem to work for others. The only way I know of for someone to find out if it might be right for them, is to attend an introduction and actually experience a little bit of the technology for yourself. If you feel at all pressured to sign up, get the person’s name, leave, and let me know who it was so I can go get that person’s attitude adjusted. There is a core philosophy that folks are free to choose, and that that choice will be respected.
I agree that that’s a really good article. Explains it well, hits the points of criticism, seems to do a decent job of stating them explicitly but without a strong slant.
Re: Alain Roth, and a question
Nicolle, if you don’t want people to be condescending to you then you need to stop acting in such a juvenile way. If you want people to stop calling you a liar then you need to start being honest.
Re: Alain Roth, and a question
For the record: what he is requesting is evidence to support your statement that Forum is drastically different *now* from the video and when it changed. He isn’t asking in a nice way, but that is what he is asking for.
Re: Alain Roth, and a question
I’m going to be a complete shit and point out that you have said repeatedly that this conversation isn’t worth your time, but you are still here.
So! Given that I would like to say that you are certainly well within your rights to say that truly proving how/when Landmark changed formatting before you were seriously involved is beyond what an offhand blog conversation deserves.
From where I am sitting, I don’t in any way need a huge long research report to prove when things changed, but I would be seriously interested in knowing what is different in Forum now from that video. It would require watching the video and disclosing at least a little information about Forum that you may or may not be willing to disclose, but that would be interesting to me.
btw: if you provided that information and proved Andrew wrong he would quite cheerfully acknowledge that he was wrong and you were right. He’s a shit, but he’s an honorable one.
Re: Alain Roth, and a question
Thank you very much for this. I appreciate the time and effort you put into it.
I am not trying to be rude, but you say in point 7 that the conversation would get “pretty wild.” My reading of this is that it would still be similar in tone if not in using swear words. This is the part that has been described as “breaking someone down.” For a good description of what I am basing my understanding on you can look at‘s post above: http://rightkindofme.livejournal.com/474174.html?thread=3484734#t3484734
but I think the important part is: “They do, or at least did at the time I was associated with them, perform a fairly intense screening for folks that are likely to be negatively affected by their techniques. The techniques are “breaking” techniques in many ways in the first portion of the Landmark Forum. They then, while people are “opened up” introduce them to new ways of thinking. They present these new ways of thinking as either a type of truth, or more functional than peoples default.”
I am not trying to be aggressive, but I am trying to understand if you believe that Landmark is more gentle now and no longer attempts to break through peoples’ issues in this manner. I am not asking this because I think they shouldn’t–it is a very effective technique. I am just trying to ascertain how it is different now other than the usage of swear words, which I obviously have no fucking problem with. 😉
Re: Alain Roth, and a question
Yup. Whatever else the video may have been, it was obviously overblown. Similarly, their “cult expert” lawyer guy later in the video is obviously being pretty over-the-top.
It’s one reason I tried to restrain my commentary on the video to the parts that were actually filmed in the Landmark classes (and to a lesser extent the interviews with participants) — the television folks were obviously being ridiculously skewed in their commentary.
Re: Alain Roth, and a question
Big parts of this actually sound like stuff that Noah and I do. He’s really good at calling me on my shit. 🙂 I very much see the value in such interactions and I’m glad you’ve found a way to get the feedback you want to get in a way that works for you. I have Noah. 🙂
Thank you for your answers and explanations. It helps to create my mental picture better.
Re: Alain Roth, and a question
No. When you said the video looked like it was from fifteen years ago you were either lying or really bad at fact checking. However, when you claimed that Landmark was changing so fast that anything from five years ago was “remarkably old” and that you have lots of evidence of this but you are too busy to provide it, that’s when it was obvious you were lying.
Re: Crush on Noah
Ha haha.
I wondered who you were. 🙂 He’s really neato. Welcome!
Re: Alain Roth, and a question
Please look up the difference between “evidence” and “assertion”. There is evidence that Alain Roth is still working for Landmark, as he is listed on their web site. There is evidence, on video, of how he conducts classes. There’s no evidence that he had changed this in any way in the past five years. Now, if you could present Landmark policy documents or training materials from different dates that show these changes, that would be evidence.
Re: Alain Roth, and a question
If the courses that you have experienced are different from the one shown in the video, this is not evidence that the the one shown in the video is older. All it shows is that some Landmark courses are different from other Landmark courses. You assert that the difference is the result of a change with time, but you do not present anything to support this. The difference could be a result of the instructor, management differences, legal differences between France and America and so on.
Looking at the video, you originally thought that courses had not been conducted like that for fifteen years, and it turned out that at least one was conducted like that five years ago. How can you be sure that one was not conducted like that five minutes ago?
Re: Alain Roth, and a question
Your personal experience might be convincing if it had not originally led you to the false conclusion that the video was from the early 90’s rather than the early 2000’s. After that you can’t expect us to give any credence to conclusions based on your personal experience, now can you? Especially since you didn’t bother to check your conclusion, something that would have taken about two minutes with Google.