I have never been to Landmark, but I’m betting it’s similar.
By the way, that Rick Ross site has a whole slew of articles on the Landmark Forum, most of which cast the group in a questionable light. They’re here: http://www.rickross.com/groups/landmark.html
Well, if I understand the terminology right, this seems like running a racket to me. My friends stopped talking to me, and it’s because I felt awkward?. I didn’t feel awkward–I’m used to people having all sorts of beliefs I don’t share. I wasn’t the one who ceased contact. They are the ones who made the decisions.
This is something I don’t get. What is the use of a worldview which makes it more difficult for you to communicate with people?
So, basically my friends stopped hanging out with me because they were busy judging me? You’re not doing a good job of selling Landmark here.
I was in a similar organization (no, I really can’t identify it) for about six months. It sounds very similar to Landmark (especially the jargon, and the very specific meaning of the term “bullshit”, being very similar). A lot of people in my former organization were also in Landmark.
The organization did help me a lot at first, and there are some lasting benefits even five years later. But in addition to many of Landmark’s ideas, it included a lot of “junk dogma” that I just couldn’t accept. And there was way too strong an emphasis, I thought, on recruiting more members as the primary mission of the group. You’d be asked at every meeting how many you were going to recruit this cycle, and how many you have recruited… and if they don’t like your answers you get “processed” for your lack of commitment and your selfish failure to share the benefits of the group with other people.
Does Landmark also pressure their members to recruit more members, and is failing to get more members in also a racket?
A group whose only purpose is to grow itself, I think, is more like a cancer than an organism. When I left, I told them that. I also told them that I wasn’t going to try to fix the group, as some suggested, because the group did not want to be fixed and it would waste a lot of my time. I was concerned that I’d get a lot of calls from people pressuring me to recommit. That didn’t happen. Similar to other experiences described here, it was as if I’d ceased to exist. My relationship with one friend, who had brought me into the group, became very strained and I think that’s a real shame.
Nobody else would try to contact me. One important exception: a guy from the group called me shortly after my grandfather passed away. It was close to the beginning of a new cycle, so I thought he was trying to talk to me about committing again, so I never called him back. Found out later on he was only wanting to offer his sympathies about my grandfather… so I’ve never quite forgiven myself for not returning his call.
On the whole, glad that I did it, sorry that it cost me a friend or two, but also glad that I got out when I think I’d gotten everything the group had to offer.
This sounds an awful lot like the Lifespring Leadership program.
And don’t let them tell you you’re not allowed to identify them. Call them out on THEIR bullshit. Splatter them across the public eye for all the world to see. If they’re really the good thing they say they are, they should have nothing to hide; if not, they’re a cult, plain and simple.
It’s not the whole story about AA, either. The way AA works is, you’re powerless over alcohol when you begin the program. That’s why, and how, you begin; that’s the first step. The next 11 steps are about regaining that power. If you stayed powerless, you’d keep drinking. The program is the means by which you become stronger than alcohol.
That actually sounds like a racket, if I interpret the term correctly. “AA can’t work because they say you’re powerless over alcohol, and with that attitude, you can’t stop drinking. So I’m going to keep drinking and skip the going to AA.” Believe me, the program would not work for so many people if it taught that alcohol is the master.
I didn’t say it worked for everyone. I’m just saying that if it doesn’t work for you, it is not because it told you to give up power. You’re supposed to work with the higher power, and learn to resist the power of alcohol.
So what are these dog and pony shows supposed to do for you? Is the end goal to get more done at work, or be more confident in social situations, or get laid more or what?
I have to clarify that the term bullshit is mine. They’re not quite that blunt, and there’s no swearing by the facilitators or workers, they’re very, very adamant about that when you assist. I got a talking-to for a whispered, “shit!” when a stack of papers slid off my table in the back of the room when I was assisting. So the term is not used, but the attitude is there. If you have a problem, it’s because of something you’re doing, not because of what other people are doing. Any attempt to deflect blame elsewhere, assuming someone doesn’t have a gun to you right now as we speak, is your own…stuff…getting in your way. Some examples of “stuff” are your stories and your rackets.
Yes, and as I said, this is my biggest problem with the organizational structure. I don’t like that they don’t spend advertising money, and instead expect me to do it for them. You’re absolutely right. And while they never call you out in front of others, there’s a blanket proclamation that anyone who hasn’t told someone else about Landmark or brought someone to an introduction is still operating in fear, letting their fear of other people not liking them prevent them from offering this wonderful gift to them. I hate, hate, hate it, and I didn’t play the game.
On the other hand, they’re very clear that people should not be tricked into coming. The introduction night should not be pitched as a “graduation”, you shouldn’t invite someone out to dinner and “stop by this place real quick”, etc. Obviously, this pisses people off and they won’t be so ready to join up! But people are tempted to try such things because they are, indeed, afraid to simply say, “Hey, there’s this thing that helped me and maybe it’ll help you, wanna check it out?”
They do give a hard sell, no doubt about it.
I did invite three people to a pitch, because I really honestly thought it might help them out, and they were interested in it before I took it. And I warned them beforehand that there was going to be a hard sell. All three did sign up, but you don’t get a toaster or anything for getting people in.
Rilchiam, thanks for the AA clarifications. It still doesn’t sound anything like Landmark philosophy, but it’s always nice to learn more.
T_SQUARE, the claim is that *anything *you want to change in *any *area of your life can be changed. Most commonly, it’s money, love, career, and personal relationships. See the studies linked above for more concrete examples and statistics.
And I also feel the need to point out that I am not a Landmark official. There are other training seminars where people learn so much more about the system and about how to explain it to people. I just took the one, beginner level class called the Forum, and assisted at another couple Forums and one Communications seminar. I haven’t taken even the second class, the Advanced Forum, much less the Leadership or Facilitator stuff. I am NOT representing Landmark, nor do I have the training or knowledge to do so. Everything here is the world according to ME and MY limited experience with the group, as the OP asked for.
The end goal is to break you down, make you feel empowered (whether you actually are or not), and ultimately generate more business for the seminars by recruiting others.
As far as I can tell from the research there is no evidence that 12-step programs work better than no treatment at all. This is proven by AA’s own research.
As for Landmark Forum, it’s not the basically harmless message gathered from mulitiple philosophies and techniques for having a better life that is the problem. It’s the means by which that message is hammered into the student.
I’ve done the Landmark Forum within the last year. I barely made it through the class, which utilizes 15 hour days, with about an hour and a half of breaks total (during which you’re expected to do “homework”). All class rooms are windowless and feel “airless” possibly due to the fact that there’s less than an inch between you and your nearest neighbors.
Additionally, WAY too much of those 15 hour days is taken up with a very hard sales pitch that gets REALLY annoying when you’d rather be having a snack or taking a nap. I mean, it’s annoying anyway. But if you’re there to use your time to better yourself, you tend to get REALLY aggravated with this.
People were kicked out of my class for questioning the instructor…he belittled them, shouted at them, and called them names before tehy were asked to leave. It may sound like you get to “share” but you’d darn well better be sharing within the boundaries of the group’s newly learned language and acceptable topics or you will be thrown out without a refund.
Landmark Education is also the only non-profit company in this country that has VOLUNTEERS. That’s right…people volunteer to stand around and monitor attendees while the speaker and the rest of the company rakes in the dough.
And while it may indeed be a cheap alternative when comparied to scientology, it’s not cheap by most people’s standards…$400 for the forum, $800 (I think) for the advanced course and others that you will be hounded to sign up for for upwards of $1000. Not to mention the cost in time, friends, and other things you could be doing.
If they’d publish a book, I’d buy it. The common sense hints about how to have a more successful life can come in handy. If I had to sit through another 45+ hour weekend to have the stuff pounded into my head, I’d stick fork in my eye.
For some information on the effectiveness of AA. I believe AA’s own study found between 3% and 5% of the people who entered their “program” actually stayed for more than a year. This is, of course not an indication that that 3-5% were actually SOBER…just that they continued to attend meetings. They called it a “success rate” nonetheless.
I believe he (she?) meant for-profit, and I call bullshit either way. Plenty of both profits and not-for-profits have volunteers. Landmark is unusual in how *many *of their workers are volunteers - nearly all of them. Only a few people actually make money from it. A center might have three well-attended seminars on a weekend with around 50 people working behind the scenes and on stage and 5 of them will actually be getting paid. Sign of a brainwashed cult or of an enthusiastic and satisfied graduate? You tell me.
I went to a graduation ceremony for an SO. It creeped me right out. I’m sure this is because I have rackets and issues and such.
There was a big speech, and then we broke into mini-forums, and we talked about our issues. The forum leader made a big deal out of how he was a volunteer. I confess my impression was that most of these people are grist for the top of the pyramid, where the multiplier must be huge. I have run training sessions and conventions, not even on this scale, and the revenue can be big- I am trying to imagine if 95% of the employees were instead volunteers.
But it seemed to help her, so I can’t think of it as evil, it just made her weird for a while. She was very dissapointed that I did not follow suit, and we eventually broke up (probably not solely because of this). I thought of her rather like I think of the people who buy kitchen tools from the TV, and I thought of the trainers the way I think of the marketers of said gadgets. They reached an understanding, and one party made some money.
I know nothing about Landmark, but do call BS on for-profit companies having volunteers. That is just asking for a wage & hour lawsuit. Maybe Landmark plans on arguing that getting to attend the seminar for free is compensation for the “volunteer’s” time. I would be surprised if that held up. Essentially the only legitimate way for a for-profit company to have an unpaid worker is to have an internship that provides course credit through an academic institution.