What actually happens in the Landmark Forum seminars?

They are in attendance at most of the class and get to sit and listen, but they do so from the back of the room, unobtrusively. Beforehand, they do things like make copies and collate handouts and set up chairs. During the seminar, they fill water pitchers, make sure there are pens and things for people who need them and hand out and collect stuff. It’s surprisingly highly choreographed, with a Course Supervisor (he’s like the House Manager) the Production Supervisor (much like the Stage Manager) and the rest of the Assistants who answer to them. So when you reach a point in the “script” where suddenly 300 people need a piece of paper and a pen, the Assistants know who needs to pass out what where to make it happen smoothly and without undue distraction or breaking the rhythm of the seminar.

You do get a lot of the information without paying for it, which is a great perk. They’re big on insisting that you set personal goals before your weekend of Assisting starts, and they check in to see how things are going and make sure, in their words, “that you get more out of Assisting than you put into it.” I definitely felt that was the case the several times I Assisted. It was fun, and I learned stuff, and I made and set some great goals that I’ve carried on in my real life.

Do you have a cite for that from AA? You know that AA is stricktly a non-profit volunteer organization, right? People attend one hour meetings and go their merry way. Besides there’s no comparison between AA and Landmark. Different animal.

The only way it would make sense to me that they’d have so many volunteers is if they offered free attendance or something like that. Otherwise they’d just hire a few people at minimum wage to hand out papers and pencils. Is it expensive?

There is no free attendance to attend a future seminar, if that’s what you’re asking. You see and hear most of the one you’re Assisting at, but you don’t participate like the attendees do.

The seminars vary in price. The Forum - which is three days, one evening and the tuition includes an optional 10 week, one-night-a-week seminar series - is right now $440 in the US. (It’s free for police officers and firemen, by the way.) The Advanced Course is $795 (but you get a large chunk off if you enroll for the Advanced within some time limit after your Forum). Communications are $425 and $675 - again, the second one is given a substantial discount if you sign up soon after the first one.

These aren’t the types of people who would bring suit though. They’re wide, glossed over eyes are too much in awe of the speaker. THey’re convinced that this Landmark is the answer to all the world’s woes and they truly believe that they are doing good by helping this process along for free. Many of these volunteers spend an unbelievable amount of time on this project…not only volunteering for hours and hours a week, but simultaneously taking classes, taking on other Landmark projects, and doing homework.

I’m having trouble finding the cite directly FROM AA. I believe their study was done around 1989. You can find the study referred to all over the place, such as here:

http://www.peele.net/faq/aarole.html

Where Stanton Peele mentions “In absolute numbers quite a few people have benefited from AA. However, in terms of percentages of those exposed to AA, the number helped by AA is small — about 5% remain in AA as long as a year, according to AA’s own surveys.”

And also this: “The two randomized studies in which AA treatment was assigned found AA to yield worse outcomes than other forms of treatment — or no treatment at all. (See Brandsma et al., The Outpatient Treatment of Alcoholism: A Review and Comparative Study, Baltimore: University Park Press, 1980; Ditman et al., “A controlled study on the use of court probation for drunk arrests,” American Journal of Psychiatry, 124:160-163, 1967.) But Walsh et al. (“A randomized trial of treatment options for alcohol-abusing workers,” The New England Journal of Medicine, 325:775-782, 1991) allowed alcoholics limited choices, and those who chose AA still did worst (about as bad as those assigned to AA).”

I’ll look some more for the actual study…I do know this is off topic, but someone DID bring up effectiveness of AA.

You’re right, they have indeed been sued for this issue. An outline of the cases can be found at the wikipedia site here.

AA and Landmark aren’t that different. Both require a great deal of dedication and self-examination, not to mention a reliance on peer pressure to conform to a desired behavior. The chief difference is that Landmark sessions are facilitated, last longer and are vastly more expensive.

That said, many people in AA tend to take it further than just meetings. They volunteer their time to meetings and other activities at various levels. Like Landmark, some people are paid, but the majority aren’t. When I was in AA, it was not uncommon for some members to spend upwards of ten to 20 hours a week volunteering for various AA-related activities, and this time did not always include meetings.

As for AA-conducted research, well, lotsa luck. According to their website, they do not conduct any kind of research, nor do they do any sort of follow-up with members. Because AA is, by definition, anonymous, there are no records kept aside from lists maintained by individual groups (which may be out of date), and since data are self-reported, any success is defined by the member and is generally attributed to AA whether that’s the case or not. The best they can do is a periodic survey, which can be found here. I think this is what CeilingWhacks was referring to. It’s a PDF, but not a very large one.

There are a lot of problems with their survey data; for one, the people most likely to respond are the ones most likely to report positive experiences. Since there are no records with which to correlate survey data, and since surveys are completely anonymous, anyone can say anything. You basically have to take AA at its word, and with numbers this squirrelly, you really can’t.

Robin

I responded to a similar question so long ago now that the thread is lost in the mists of antiquity (or at any rate, it’s in the archive, where the links to it from threads that are still active don’t work and you can’t search for it). But my experience and take on it were very similar to WhyNot’s. I personally got a lot out of it, as they offer a lot of valuable insights and strategies for living. They’ve combined them with techniques of influence and persuasion (many of them the same ones used by interrogators, psych-ops personnel, advertisers and marketers, and religious groups) and packaged them together in an effective bundle.

Yeah, I’m aware of how loaded that last sentence is, and that was deliberate. As others have pointed out, there’s very little in the content provided in the Landmark Forum that’s revolutionary or startling – it’s mostly stuff that, at some level, you already know. So why does it have the impact it does? It’s not just the long hours and fatigue and hunger and all that, though those do have an effect. A lot of it is the creation of a sense of acceptance and intimacy among the participants. You see all these other people talk about very painful, emotional, or difficult topics, and while the Forum leaders won’t hesitate to call “bullshit” on what’s said, they carefully do so in a way that’s accepting of the person while rejecting their “story”. We’re nearly all hardwired in ways that make us predisposed to like and identify with others with whom we have shared some kind of intimacy, and the topics brought up in the Forum very often are things the participants have only discussed with the people closest to them, if at all. And suddenly here’s this whole group of people who are willing to listen to you and accept you and not attack or ridicule you. This establishes connections between the participants that might take years to accomplish, if at all, outside that context. A lot of this isn’t even conscious – the emotional intimacy that gets established kicks off all kinds of physiological changes (release of oxytocin, etc.) that creates a feedback loop that reinforces all of this. Once you begin to identify with the group, then it’s almost shockingly easy to be led down whatever path the group is on – the acceptance and approval of the group becomes extremely important, and going along seems better than disagreeing or being contentious and risking the loss of their acceptance and the good feelings that it brings. This is one of the main reasons why isolation is important.

It’s also critical to get people agreeing to things. It almost doesn’t matter what it is, but it does matter that you get people to expressly say yes to things. Once you’re doing that, it’s easier to get them to accept and agree to the fundamental premises that the rest of the ideas are based on. If people begin to rethink that agreement later, pointing out that they’ve already agreed on the premises, and that the conclusions logically follow from them. The effectiveness of this type of technique has been pretty conclusively proved experimentally.

One of the most effective bits is the insistence that things don’t inherently “mean” anything – that whatever meaning we ascribe to them is self-generated, that things mean what we say they mean, and our interpretation of events is just that – our own interpretation. This is useful for helping you understand that generally people aren’t out to get you, that they don’t “mean” something insidious by everything they say, and that how you choose to interpret things effectively becomes reality for you. All quite true, quite helpful, and it’s surprising how few people actually understand and live that. This set of ideas is, however, also useful for deflecting criticism – anything you might criticize about the Forum or Landmark or anything to do with it is simply “your interpretation”, not what actually happened. And the things that they in fact actually do or say are all carefully crafted to stop short of crossing any lines of responsibility – if there’s an implication that you should browbeat your acquaintances into coming to your Forum “graduation” and being subjected to a sales pitch, well, that’s your interpretation – what they said is that you’re encouraged to invite others so that they can see how it has affected you and hear from others what it’s all about.

Once all of that kicks in, it’s very easy for the leader to steer the group toward the conclusions he/she wants to arrive at – the desire to please the leader takes hold of nearly everyone in the room, and they provide more and more of the type of “sharing” and comments that they think the leader wants.

Like any other techniques for persuasion, they can be used for good ends or bad. Most people I know who’ve done the Landmark Forum consider their lives better for it, myself included. On the other hand, the same techniques that help you reconsider how you go about living are also applied to getting you to take more courses and sign up more people for the Forum and the other courses, and it’s natural to regard anything self-serving like that as suspicious, particular when it employs many of the same techniques as cults, albeit to different ends.

Very, extremely, wonderfully well-said, rackensack. There’s nothing there I disagree with.

I’m very familiar with AA and that was an excellent post Robin, thanks.
If people find Landmark a positive experience that’s great. I knew people in the past involved with est and that’s why I was curious.

I have a couple of friends who are Landmark graduates (converts? evangalists?) and while I’d never heard much about it, I’m glad it’s helping them but also couldn’t help but think it all sounded a little…fishy. This thread has helped provide perspective from both sides so while I know it’s a zombie, I’d like to see who else might have any additional experiences they’d like to share…

I never took any Landmark stuff, but my wife did before we were married, and my opinion of it matches what WhyNot and rackensack said. General self-help stuff delivered with a hard-sell, accompanied by a hard-sell for further classes and volunteer work.

  1. 90mins for dinner break with 30 min breaks every 2.5-3 hrs ??? That’s a fact
  2. The Landmark Forum can be hard going when traditional morals and values don’t often align with what is being proposed in the course. In my opion that traditional stuff is mostly what is the problem in the world
  3. The Landmark Forum starts 9am and finishes approx 10pm = 11 hrs
  4. I’ve never seen anyone abused in the courses though I have often seen people wake up to their crap with great coaching and getting a brand new future

The methods of getting people are enough for me to move on. I don’t even like churches that try to do that crap. There is obvious emotional manipulation going on. It’s still exploiting the same techniques that cults do, so it’s irrelevant how much it helps people.

To say the least, it is highly suspicious that (1) the “independent research page” contains not a single external link, and that (2) while a few web searches easily reveals external links discrediting some of those sources, many searches fail to identify external links substantiating even one. It appears that none of the quoted material can be found on any external link.

I don’t have a dog in this fight but possibly the fact that you are responding to a post that is almost 6 years old is the reason for link failures.