Відео

Again with the responsibility collapse? Response - ability. You cannot control what happens to you, you can control how you respond. That is the sum total of the responsibility distinction. It's Victor Frankl. It's not "it's your fault", not "there are no criminals". It is your response is 100% in your control.

It feels like Landmark is fading fast.

SCARF status certainty autonomy relatedness fairness - I got it from a book called Your brain at work.

L Ron Hubbard was definitely a narcissicist and it's suggested that he might have had frontal lobe epilepsy. This was another great discussion! Thanks, Dale and Ann. Even for us lowly graduates, there's a lot about Landmark that messed us up - and it sticks.

wonderful, thank you,..I really learned from this and resonated with so much of it!

The ICF compliance system ONLY 'regulates' infringement of the use of its brand, or fee disputes. It has zero capability to discipline coaches for boundaries breaches such as sexual and emotional abuse (common in my experience). Prior to the ascendancy of this organization, corporate coaches were required to carry professional liability insurance. I think this practice has fallen by the wayside owing to the illusory idea that the ICF is regulating the field. Were I seeking a coach for organizational work (or life coaching for that matter) I would look for someone who had academic credentials in fields relevant to people and organization development and, ideally, some experience in leadership roles in actual businesses. An ICF-certified coach could be a former waiter, English teacher, DJ, or long term Landmark participant. I have seen all of this.

Coaching in organizations 'emerged' in the 1930's and was the purview of consulting psychologists. There are over 100 research studies dating back to that period. The male partner of the Kimsey House's was delivering 'est' programs in Japan w/ Werner Erhard dating back to 1975. James Flaherty who founded New Ventures West was an 'est' facilitator. Newfield Network, as you said, was founded by parties who had extensive engagement with Erhard. I know many parties who participated in Newfield Network coach training and who described a program VERY similar to 'est'. Participants, some of whom were sent to the program by their organizations, were required to publicly 'confess' their darkest secrets. I have heard descriptions of meltdowns and seizures occuring in these programs.

I think you're right on Ann, at least in my case, young plus from a challenging family system equals more vulnerable to adopting an LGAT as their replacement family.

I think you're right on Ann, at least in my case, young plus from a challenging family system equals more vulnerable to adopting an LGAT as their replacement family.

Back in the day, there was a concept called "Power Source - Power Feeder". The power source's role was to make the Power Feeder, right - always, no matter what.

Such a rich conversation. I recognized myself here, especially since I started in the NY center at 17 years old in 1977, grew up in a chaotic family, and also assisted in logistics on the weekends while I attended college. I did the training, started assisting 2 days later, and didn't stop for about 17 years. It was in Anne Peterson's Wisdom course at 40, that I figured out I used est/Landmark as surrogate parents as I sorely lacked the training I needed to function in so many ways as an adult. I'm grateful for that training, yet it certainly came couched in the "ickies." I love the golden age of healing from cults and narcissists. I became a mental health therapist with that aim in mind, and these conversations lately are helping my own healing I forgot I needed to do as I face this cognitive dissonance. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

John Hanley was the founder

The lifespring founder was leading Mind Dynamics and Leadership Dynamics with Werner, they both branched out at about the same time.

People can get habituated to the influx of adrenalin (and dopamine -- but let's not ascribe everything to dopamine, it's a player, but only one of many in terms of LGATs and the brain/human system). A really great example of this is the movie The Hurt Locker, about a man who defuses bombs in Iraq but can't deal with day to day life because he's so habituated to the excitement. There's a great scene where he's in the frozen food section of a grocery store in the US and he can't figure out what to do (so he reups to do another tour of service).

Would Anne please provide a link to Chris's talk she mentioned near the end about "being cause"? I find looking at the distinctions in a "healthy" way, like Anne & Dale discussed agreements here, is extremely helpful in keeping the "good stuff" without the culty parts. Thx!

I've concluded that for most participants, there is no life after Landmark, only trying to 'fix' Landmark. The ICF (International Coaching Federation) mentioned at 1:14:00> is an iteration of est/Landmark. It was 'founded' by one of Erhard's generals and a fellow est graduate. Its competency model was, with one exception, created by a panel of est/Landmark members, who neglected to employ standard research methodology. "X" or "Y" coaching method is 'good; because we, 'successful coaches,' say it is. Maxims like the client/coachee is "happy, joyous and free" and possessed of the tools necessary to personal transformation are not based on any measurable reality. While the ICF postures itself as an organization that "teaches nothing," its coach mentors collect sizable fees for training the gullible in pseudoscience. Additionally, many/most? ICF accredited coach training programs utilize stressor techniques like long hours and public confessionals. As for ethical protections, the ICF has convinced people who should know better that the coaching field must self-regulate, which translates into "must be regulated by the ICF". The sphere of ICF compliance (performed by untrained individuals with major conflicts of interest) encompasses mis-use of the brand or fee disputes. Working with an ICF certified coach does not does not afford the coachee redress for many forms of professional misconduct Participating in an ICF-accredited coach training program confer no protection from the psychological damage a meaningful percentage of participants experience in est/Landmark programs.

From a South Park episode, seemed relevant: ua-cam.com/video/ifHjG4JKIOk/v-deo.htmlsi=E4tHcBev9iqHaTPp

From ChatGPT: **Expert**: Contract Law Specialist **Objective**: Provide an overview of contracts of adhesion and contracts with unbalanced terms **Assumptions**: You are seeking an understanding of the nature, enforceability, and implications of such contracts in a legal context Contracts of adhesion and contracts with unbalanced terms are common in legal and business settings. Here is an overview: ### Contracts of Adhesion **Definition**: Contracts of adhesion, also known as "take-it-or-leave-it" contracts, are standardized agreements drafted by one party (usually a business with stronger bargaining power) and presented to the other party (usually a consumer or weaker party) on a non-negotiable basis. **Characteristics**: - **Pre-drafted terms**: These contracts have pre-drafted terms, which the weaker party cannot modify. - **Non-negotiable**: The terms are offered on a "take-it-or-leave-it" basis. - **Imbalance of power**: There is a significant imbalance in bargaining power between the parties. **Examples**: - Software licensing agreements - Insurance policies - Employment contracts - Lease agreements **Legal Implications**: - **Enforceability**: Generally, contracts of adhesion are enforceable unless they are found to be unconscionable or contain unfair terms. - **Unconscionability**: Courts may invalidate terms that are excessively one-sided or oppressive. - **Consumer protection**: Many jurisdictions have laws to protect consumers from unfair terms in adhesion contracts. ### Unbalanced Contracts **Definition**: Unbalanced contracts, also known as unconscionable contracts, are agreements where the terms heavily favor one party over the other, often to an unreasonable or unethical extent. **Characteristics**: - **Disproportionate terms**: One party benefits significantly more than the other. - **Exploitation**: Often involves exploiting the weaker party's lack of bargaining power, knowledge, or understanding. - **Lack of mutuality**: One party may have all the rights while the other bears all the obligations. **Examples**: - Predatory lending agreements - Certain franchise agreements - Some employment contracts **Legal Implications**: - **Judicial scrutiny**: Courts scrutinize these contracts for fairness and equity. - **Unconscionability doctrine**: Courts may refuse to enforce unconscionable contracts or specific terms within them. - **Remedies**: Possible remedies include voiding the contract, modifying the unfair terms, or awarding damages to the disadvantaged party. ### Key Considerations - **Doctrine of Unconscionability**: This legal doctrine protects parties from unfair or oppressive contracts. Courts examine both procedural unconscionability (unfairness in the contract formation process) and substantive unconscionability (unfairness in the actual terms). - **Consumer Protection Laws**: Many jurisdictions have specific laws designed to protect consumers from unfair contractual terms, especially in adhesion contracts. - **Fairness and Equity**: Courts strive to ensure that contracts are fair and equitable, balancing the interests of both parties. ### Conclusion Contracts of adhesion and unbalanced contracts are prevalent in various sectors. While generally enforceable, they are subject to legal scrutiny to protect parties from unfair or oppressive terms. Understanding these concepts is crucial for both drafting and entering into agreements. > For further reading, consider looking up "doctrine of unconscionability site:cornell.edu" and "consumer protection laws contracts site:justia.com" on Google.

Such a GREAT conversation!! I love that you guys are breaking down the programs!

Indoctrination starts when you get enroled for the Introduction and continues after that. Great discussion! Thanks, Dale and Anne.

Firstly, ALMOST everything you say is true. I spent around 3 years heavily active in Landmark. I find it one of the single most important and beneficial things that I've done in my life. AND all the negatives you point out are true. The Story Exercise and the Vicious Circle explanation are two different things. Vicious Circle is how your being causes you to continually do the same things. In the story exercise, you write down on paper the story you tell yourself about EVERYTHING that happened in your life to lead you to whatever issue you are struggling with, (scary, ugly, shameful, vulnerable-confessing your heart out.) (ie My Dad spanked me and now I'm...), and you do that for ALL that you can remember so there is nothing left for you to "confess". Then in the exercise you read your story to your "pair" (partner) over and over and over again (think 15-30 minutes), until the point where telling about that time you got caught with your pants down doesn't even shame you anymore. Then your pair recites their story to you, over and over. After you're done, not only does what you wrote not have any power over you, put you tear it up and throw it away. I am a strong headed, strong willed person. I went into Landmark to see what there was to benefit ME. So I did Landmark "wrong". I did the Forum, Advanced, and Introduction Leaders Program. I assisted, mostly as a Production Supervisor, for something like 400 hours. Almost from the beginning I felt Landmark's demand on my time and actions, and I would not allow them to control those. I "chocolate. vanilla" chose everything I did and participated in. I played full out and full heartedly for the world's transformation POWERFULLY, BY CHOICE. And when I needed to prioritize me, I did. So I played the game my way, with my own autonomy. BUT I played it with world transformation as my stand. I guess what I'm saying is that, in my case, I co-created with Landmark. They didn't control me. They laid out a game that I played that I powerfully chose to submit to because I align with the world "getting" a better life for themselves. I knew straight off I would not be candidated as an Introduction Leader because there was NO WAY I was going to commit to the requirements. So I gave my Introduction to the Landmark Forum guests away to others to help them get candidated, and assisted in encouraging my teams guests to sign up so they could be candidated. AND, that being said, even though I LOVE Landmark and it helped me so much I cannot imagine how I'd be without having done it, I don't recommend it unless you can be stubborn and strong willed and do it your way, like I did. Because THEY WILL try to get you to spend a ridiculous amount of time assisting "volunteering" for free (with the excuse that you're transforming the world). They will try to get you to feel guilty if you say No. They will call you for years to request you assist at whatever event. They will try to get you to call everyone you know to get them to sign up for the program. The higher you go up, the harsher and more demanding they will be with you. Whenever you go against what they want they will say that you are "out of integrity". And unless you are a STRONG personality, you can't go through that and keep your strength and autonomy. For years, every once in a while, I would powerfully CHOOSE to assist. Then I'd duck out. Then I'd choose again. I ignored the phone if I didn't want to commit. Sure, I got yelled at, but I understood that I was a soldier with the goal of world transformation, so who cares? I didn't take any yelling personally, I just focused on the goal of everyone in the room getting whatever there was for me to get, because what I got meant the world to me! Family hurts healed. Estranged relationships restored. Closer connections with loved ones. Freedom to be honest about my life (integrity). But for me, getting a conviction about how valuable time is and the impact of being late, being and honoring your word, clear communication, your words create your world, have been incredibly useful to me. But I CHOSE to play in Landmark's game, Landmark DIDN'T play ME!

This is Brian. So when Anne is sharing about the ILP and leading it and agreements; I want to note in 1990s participation was at it largest in Australia and the US. The rigor of the processes was at times very well done. However what has happened over the last 20 years is the internet, so meeting those measures got harder and harder because when you share with people they research the company. In the 90s you couldn't do that. There is countless warnings in the internet, comments. However until recently, there has never been public discourse from people who were on the inside, and people bringing all these incidents that felt specific to your area were actually happening everywhere. Just saying. Of course labdmark doesn't get responsible for that, they just blame the people who work for them and the commitment of the leaders is questioned.

There is a massive difference between coersion and training people to elevate their relationship with their word. Absent of creating and honoring agreements how in the world would one ever grow a business or get a promotion or grow professionally. I mean, most people would likely never be successful without elevating their relationship with their promises/word

Early thoughts here, but it sounds like "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." And the online stuff is interesting - not turning your camera off would fit Lifton's Millieu control. I was gullible and open for the Forum and Advanced course, but after volunteering at the Forum, I was clearly not "coachable". Critical thinking breaks down the wall of gullibility. Another great conversation - thanks Dale and Riley!

This episode was phenomenal again, Riley and Dale. It helped me understand that not only the context and structure of LGATs like Landmark is hurtful, but also the content. It is as hilarious as it is sad and worrisome that soo much of the content is the same or a ripoff of Scientology, Landmark/EST and so on. There are many upcoming Landmark Light organisations and video series like these help people pull off a goodbye rather sooner than later. Thank you from someone Riley's age.

Love the stuff about manifestation and turning the plane around. The research on this is that people who believe they can manifest a) often see more opportunities (so that's kind of cool) and b) have selective memory. The one time the plane turns around is highlighted as meaningful while the many other instances of life getting in the way are conveniently forgotten. Or they are contextualized as not being intentional enough or having "out integrity."

It's so painful (at least to me) the way Landmark perverts the term coaching. True coaching (in the professional definition from the accrediting body of professional coaching, the International Coach Federation) does not tell people what to do or how to do it. An actual professional coach never bullies anyone into anything, nor do they have an agenda.

Love Dale's hat! The number of people doing the programs is way down.

Your conversation here is informative but your comments regarding the Hunger Project bothered me. The card you signed was a way to take an individual stand for ending hunger, what Werner's motives were I can't say...but the organization has a 100% percent rating through Charity Navigator

1:00:05 Can you guys please repeat what is the name of the guy on Spotify? Amazing episode

“bums on seats”!! i was told over and over .🙄

omg already playing my song also. as part of my waking up to all of the Landmark and werner reality , the reality of being trained at 19 for 10 yrs pretty much and what that has done to a developing brain and how that set up my life for 30 yrs is the hardest part of all this to accept. and understand. thats where my current work lies. i know a lot about developmental neurobiology but she is an expert so confirmation! not easy but thankyou❤️

I struggle I don’t understand the patriarchy thing. Maybe I don’t hear it in my circle or maybe Australians don’t really think/talk about

This is so great! I love this interview!

Great conversation. I'm re-learning a lot of the terms and now, how they've changed. I wonder sometimes about being "authentic" which always has this apologetic tone to it. Sometimes I think being authentic can be realising that the person is, in fact, an asshole. I got "complete" with a former employer who framed me to fire me, because he didn't like me. Took him off guard, but really - he was a narcissitic asshole. Looking forward to more talks. Thanks Ann and Dale!

I have found Harry to be a kind man - I have seen some exceptions - note: the company was sold to the employees - when I was in NY and wanted to go back to college at age 21 i was told "why do you want your college, after being on staff you can teach college". I followed that advice - 26 years later I will be in college here in Minneapolis where I am from too.

over communicating; this is powerful because it is also an integrity issue to not communicate, so if you don't it feels deeply like i am lying or hiding something. This really had a negative impact on my dating life especially.

@41:34 "A World That Works For Everyone, With No One Left Out." It seemed to me that the "...No One Left Out," part depended on people smiling and clapping and declaring that it worked for them, even when they were dying on the inside. It seemed to require "toxic positivity." As examples; mentioned just a minute before that, was the guy marrying the woman he hated. Or taking a job one hates, or having to "settle," in any number of areas, and these things happen, but then we were told that we couln't be resigned, but must pretend as if we relish it. To behave as if it was working for us, required a great deal of pretense, and ZERO authenticity. To me, that's a very low bar, for "A World That Works For Everybody..."

I’m absolutely LOVED this conversation!! I think this question regarding is my privilege or value worth the suffering of another is a question whose time has come. AND like it or not we will all again and again being given the opportunity to choose. I personally am with Ann … others suffering and abuse even ONE is worth my value. We can learn to seek safely!!

So good … bringing back so many memories. Important note … we need to keep talking about weaponized empathy. Hard to believe but more and more understanding that our empathy was used for others financial gain.

I'm a lawyer - great job on the fruit of the poisonous tree! I agree that my transformation was not worth one second of the pain or price that someone paid for me to get that.

Thanks Dale and Ann. I can already tell this is going to be a great interview!

I am so sad 😢to hear it’s like this. It wasn’t this high pressure when I led IFLP in the late 90s … AND I have no doubt what you’re saying is true. They are so off base from what it was all supposed to be about. 😢

this was great riley. love your passion. i been out 30 yrs and yes so much of the after effects you speak of, as i started at 19 and best part of ten years in, i also have experienced and relate to. the effect on some relationships i am only just starting to unpack. its hard… it was a very different time and yet the indoctrination ran so deep. maybe i need to speak….thanks for the encouragement. and you certainly do make a difference. i celebrate your courage 💪❤

My Sister and her Husband were deep into Landmark, and they were subjected to the task of getting me to enroll,which was NEVER EVER going to happen,and it was sheer misery to see them trying everything under the sun they could throw at me at over time losing any hope of ever enrolling me and the Anger they had towards me was horrific Then when the had to face the fact that I was never going to be enrolled and passing me off to person after person after person phoning me being unable to accept my un-enrollability and good Gawd how these people can fail to understand one simple word: "NO" is just incomprehensible. Misery for my poor Sister and Brother in Law It's unbelievable how many phone calls I got from people on their tree that could not understand "do not call me back" and "NO" but there was always another phone call from a different person that I hadn't told "don't call me" yet

Such a great chat Dale and Riley!! Lots of love to Nanna! ❤

I want to know the ending of the story with Nana

37:41 omg I totally forgot we sat next to participants while they are on they phone 🤯

33:10 Nooo not poor nana!

The guy who got me into Landmark was in the ILP and did a home session at my place. At the end they were all talking about "why was she so reluctant to enrol?" which raised my eyebrow. I thought it was about "choice", but it was in fact about coercion. Great interview! Thanks Riley and Dale!