A Complaint about Landmark Education

[smartile]

I've participated in several courses with Landmark Education (LE), their curriculum for living and one of their coaching programs. I took the Landmark Forum (their introductory course) back in 2006.

All that being said, I've got a complaint about LE. And the reason I'm sharing this is so others are free to make their own choices about Landmark Education.

It's ok to say "NO"

The people, participants and staff at LE think that Landmark Education is the best thing since sliced bread and that everyone should participate. Granted, I thought the same thing when I completed the course and I still do

That's not the problem. The problem occurs right from the beginning of their funnel system. If you register and complete the Landmark Forum, you'll be asked to register into other courses. This makes sense because LE is trying to run a successful business.

These requests come from volunteers and staff who have different levels of training. Some people are highly skilled and others are not.

The skilled people are not the problem, the unskilled are. On one occasion an LE volunteer asked that I participate in another course. I said, "no" because I didn't want to. No means no, right?

Well, not exactly. No could of meant he needs to ask another way until he gets a yes. This can be annoying.

If you're asked to participate in the Landmark Forum or curriculum you'll be in one of three places:

a. yes
b. no
c. maybe

If you're a yes, then you know what to do, you can stop reading now. And if you're a "maybe" then explore that further with LE. Maybe you haven't got all the information you need.

What if you're a "no"? If you're a "no", then I would suggest you stick with being a "no". Don't give a reason for being a "no". You'll just bury yourself if you start giving reasons.

I'm curious, how have others managed this???

[Savage]

Tony Robbins' people did the same thing, offering a "free coaching session" where trainees collect personal information and then use it to badger you into signing up for a $10K seminar package.

I've never done Landmark, but lots of people have told me about it. It sounds incredibly cultish. People say it has some good ideas that helped them, but I've heard horror stories about the sales practices employed.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by smartile

I'm curious, how have others managed this???

One of the most valuable things I got out of my participation in Landmark courses was a high quality "No."

For awhile there, their vigorous word-of-mouth marketing really, really bugged me. During the Forum (the first course), I called the guy who invited me to do it and complained: "all this marketing, this is awful, I hate it!" And he asked me, aside from the marketing how did I like it? Well, as a matter of fact, it's great and I love it, but that's beside the point! Why don't they stop trying to FORCE me into being their marketing person?!?

My friend suggested I just let that part go, and if I don't want to invite anyone or talk it up to anyone I don't have to. Grumble grumble.. ok then, I said. I went back in (it's a weekend seminar) and got some of the valuable stuff I've ever gotten in personal development. I am very grateful for what I got out of it. Sometimes I wanted to share what I got with others, and invite them to participate, too. If they said no, I said ok, thanks for listening to me. I recommend Landmark to anyone who is doing okay and up for a rigorous weekend. It's not for anyone who is depressed, suicidal, on mood-altering drugs, or who isn't willing. It's not really good for crawling out of a hole, but it's great if you're basically alright and you want to have a big breakthrough in what's possible in your life. That's why I feel free to recommend it so heartily here. (You're right, though, some people are really motivated to get everyone in the world to do Landmark and get a little pushy.)

And when Landmark coaches invited me (urged me!) to invite someone, or to participate in another course, I learned to say, "I'll pass!" with a great big smile on my face. Nothing else necessary. When I said that, they just stopped. It was great, like a superpower. Before that, I always felt the urge to explain or rationalize or apologize or waffle. Since then, when I need a good no, I have one in my pocket like a magic amulet. "I'll pass!" I just love saying that. Also, "Thanks, and no!"

If anyone ever pressures you, whether it's to do Landmark courses or anything else, just give 'em a big smile and belt out one of those phrases. Even if it's not a yes/no question. It's fun!

[smartile]

Steve,

It sounds incredibly cultish. People say it has some good ideas that helped them, but I've heard horror stories about the sales practices employed.

This is the same reason why a friend of mine had second thoughts about participating in the Landmark Forum. The marketing practices definitely need a facelift. It should be ok for me to say, "no" without feeling made wrong by Landmark Education staff or volunteers.

Landmark Education has something to offer those people who want to increase their personal awareness. Unfortunately, they're too aggressive in marketing their program which leaves a bad impression. If there is value, then you would think that participants would naturally want to share it with others.... ?

[Vantage72]

Here's my opinion of Landmark several years after taking some courses, it also answers the question of the OP about 'no'.:

Most of the course is good and valuable material (80%). Mind you this all my experience and therefor very subjective:

There is one small part about what they call 'enrollment' it's basically where you learn on how to enthusiast other people to sign up for Landmark.

They basically want you to enroll your peer group (family, friends, colleagues) in Landmark. They want you to bring as many as possible to the closing event, which allows them the opportunity to sell it. The closing event is brought like it is this party, in reality you are split up with your guests, and they will have their own sales pitch.

They used 'social pressure' in my group to motivate you to bring more people. For example stuff like 'raise your hands if you don't bring anyone'. Giving approval to the people that bring a lot of people in, and disapproval for the people with no guests. They will say stuff 'Like how could you be so selfish to not want other people to get the results that you are having. How can you decide for them'

They are basically coming from the belief "Landmark is so good, there is nothing like it, and everyone should do it"

My belief is "There are so many ways, Landmark is just one of them. It may suit some, but it does not suit everyone".

On Sunday night they will get you high on the results. Mayor enthusiasm, everybody sharing everything they got out it, and that's when.... they will sell you the advanced course. Again they will used the raising hands to create peer pressure. If you sign up now you get a discount etc.

Another way they sell their stuff: They setup people to have very high expectations (almost unrealistic). So when they come out of the course it may last for 2 months but then life becomes more normal. Some people get disappointed, and of course it's an easy opportunity to sell more courses.

A basic 'sales trick': If they want you to sign up, and you answer 'no', they will ask 'why?'. Now most people start explaining themselves, which then makes it easy to argue with their reasoning. They try to discharge your reasoning. I sometimes got called by Landmark and i said 'No' to them. When they ask me 'why' I might answer 'No reason. just no'. End of discussion.

For the rest: they use very long sessions, homework assignments and no coffee, so that people get tired. tired people get deeper in their emotions and more can happen. I don't see this as a bad thing. it's very effective.

My general advice: keep an open mind and take what you can use. Landmark has good stuff, and so has Tony Robbins, CBT, The Work, Sedona, EFT, BSFF, you name it. The Work of Byron Katie was and is most effective for me.

[cookie5]

Im with that No means"NO". Why ask for yes if No is right for someone! back off LE. My other question is LE says, leaders enpower, leaders arn't followers you can't be a leader if you follow. So if sitting in a landmark forum with a so called LE "leader" , well dosn't that tell you well (we are sitting in this room with an LE "leader", so therefore we are followers. So then we can't be leaders as to LE's wqay vision etc. Contradiction. Ummmm YES! funnily LE would see this as reason excuse etc. But where doe's Le reflect on itself? Umm it dosn't???? as LE says it's about being and to be??? Well to be is to question reason ask debate. To me that's being!!! Testing right from wrong good from bad, learning growing and just not in one way but many.

[Mato Kinze]

I sponged off all my friends who did Landmark. They were so hyped about it that it was all they could talk about for almost a year. I didn't NEED to do the Forum OR the Advanced Course, because it was around me all the time.

Of course, my friends kept telling me what I was missing by not going, but because they WERE my friends, my response of, "You know... I'm just not interested in being told how wrong I am. " seemed to keep them off my back and still talking.

I got all the great ontalogical theories and how they were operating in my friends' lives without having to be brainwashed into being someone else's marketing pawn. In seeing how those theories were operating in someone else's life allowed me to apply them to my own.

That being said, if you don't have a whole group of close friends to spout all the stuff about "Story", "Making Meaning", and "Racquets", then you will definately get some good stuff out of going. Just let the other crap fall off and practice saying "no" without feeling the need to provide an explanation.

[fishbelowtheice]

What I hear here is a point of view that does not want to be responsible for saying "no" and wants other people to be responsible for that.

The brilliant unique (IMO) culture and environment and the game at LEC is what it is. Persons choose freely to be there or not. Complaining about the stepped up atmosphere of invitations and requests in that particular setting is like going to McDonalds and complaining about the way they make the hamburgers? What are you doing in McDonalds then? You can say well..."I like the new McCoffee and I love the fries but THEY need to change the hamburgers for me". They do? Really? Hmm. How about, YOU buy a McDonalds franchise or buy LEC and get crackin - make it the way you want. The spoilt entitlement culture of today is very strange to me. There seems to be a point of view that thinks because I "want" something or "think" something, others should listen to it. I don't care much for nor understand this sense of entitlement element in our culture today.

There are so many options of where to go to school and who to give our business to, to choose from today. LEC is what it is, no facelift needed. Just say "no" smile and go somewhere where no one asks you anything you don't want them to ask you and love your life. And THAT is my point of view about this "no" biz.

[blossom]

A friend did Landmark and they are like Amway there...always trying to get new recruits. It IS like a cult. He felt so bad cos everyone kept pressuring him to bring his friends into the fold, and even though he got alot out of it, he just didn't feel comfortable being like an Amway rep All his friends kept trying to get me into it...they wouldn't stop going on about it, like it was some sort of miracle, when alot of what they did talk about I felt like I had worked out on my own and didn't need to spend money for someone to teach me! The answers are all within anyway...you don't need to pay someone to tell you that.

[spirit4711]

I've done trainings with a different company with a similar business model as Landmark, and I've talked with several Landmark graduates too.

Actually I like the business model. Word of mouth (from satisfied graduates) brings in new prospects (friends, relatives, colleagues etc). It cuts down lots on sales costs which cuts down the price of the trainings so more people can afford it. Makes sense to me.

For graduates it's a great way to practice their influencing skills. After all, if you're passionate about something, you'd like people in your life to experience the same passion, no? Whether it's that new restaurant, that new movie, or Landmark.

It can come across as very pushy. I have a personlity type that can't be pushed that easily so I don't mind that. Others may get offended.

Different businesses use different sales processes. There's no one single way that works for every prospect and every business, otherwise we'd all use the same process.

So if Landmark appeals to you, do it. If it doesn't appeal to you, don't do it. Nobody puts a gun to your head.

[dendennz]

My manager at work has been involved in Landmark for probably well over 5 years now. At times she's tried to do a hard sell on getting my husband and I into it. I was gobsmacked when we were told that because we took anti-depressants that we couldn't do it. Personally I was delighted.

I can see some of the benefits of my manager having done it, but I will have to say that it takes up ALL her spare time PLUS some. And she's exhausted. To me she's really pushing pushing all the time to get so much done. I think it's over the top. Conferences etc that start very early in the morning, go very late at night (10pm and later) AND there is homework!

I agree with Steve: it has elements of a cult to it and it gives me the heebie jeebies..

Cheers,

Jenny.

[theorique]

Originally Posted by fishbelowtheice

What I hear here is a point of view that does not want to be responsible for saying "no" and wants other people to be responsible for that. [...]
[...] The brilliant unique (IMO) culture and environment and the game at LEC is what it is. Persons choose freely to be there or not. Complaining about the stepped up atmosphere of invitations and requests in that particular setting is like going to McDonalds and complaining about the way they make the hamburgers?
[...] There seems to be a point of view that thinks because I "want" something or "think" something, others should listen to it. I don't care much for nor understand this sense of entitlement element in our culture today.

I think the analogy is more like if you went to McDonald's and they assumed that since you were there and (presumably) enjoying the "food", that you wanted to sign up all your friends and family to come for a full weekend of meals there, and that you wanted to sign up for a month long package where you eat at McDonald's for each meal.

In the case of a personal dev / personal growth seminar where people may reveal things of a highly personal and sensitive nature, there is a potential opportunity for abusive sales tactics. It's not about entitlement but about basic boundaries in self-help situations that verge on therapy.

Example: Bob has revealed in the seminar that he is self conscious and vulnerable because he feels constant shyness and timidity. What if a sales rep asks him: "what's the matter Bob, too shy and timid to tell your wife and your brother that they should come here for a weekend and have the great experience that you've had?".

Yes, he's responsible, and yes, he chose to be there, yes, he's responsible for saying his own "no" but that doesn't make this kind of manipulation right. He didn't reveal that personal stuff in order to be upsold or pressured into pitching the seminar to his family.

(DISCLAIMER: I have not attended Landmark and I am not claiming that they actually do this, just that this kind of situation is a potential area for abuse in all seminars and workshops that deal with personal growth.)

-jack

[spirit4711]

Originally Posted by theorique

(DISCLAIMER: I have not attended Landmark and I am not claiming that they actually do this, just that this kind of situation is a potential area for abuse in all seminars and workshops that deal with personal growth.)

-jack

The potential is there, but much more interesting is the number of times it actually happens. After all, 0.00001% still means there's potential. It's like: don't cross the empty street in case suddenly a car appears!

I can say from the trainings I attended there was zero manipulation. There was putting mirrors for people to look into, to reflect on their own behaviour in the exercises and assignments. Those were specifically designed to offer people the opportunity to see what they are doing in the exercises, how they ran the same patterns in daily life, and to learn from that to change the things that weren't working for them.

The different trainers I've encountered had very high integrity. And yes they were human and made mistakes too.

I can imagine that Steve runs the CGWs from the same high level of integrity, but he uses another sales process. Based on what I've read from CGW participants they got comparable value from CGW as I did from the trainings I did.

Don't confuse the sales process with the value of the trainings!

[Angela]

Originally Posted by dendennz

I agree with Steve: it has elements of a cult to it and it gives me the heebie jeebies..

That's funny, because Steve's arena also has the same elements of cultishness -- and some people get the heebie-jeebies from those elements. That is: "a group whose beliefs or practices could be, reasonably or unreasonably, considered strange." Also, "brainwashing," authoritarian and possibly dangerous rituals (just ask SmartAlx!), mind control, separation from friends and family (ha! I just realized this one. Steve is always advocating that. ), post-cult trauma (see kittywompus). All sure signs of a cult!

Of course, none of us talking here sees ourselves as part of a cult, and we'd laugh off that description as the ignorant ramblings of the uninformed, or misinformed. Same with Landmark. I have read about a couple of people who have considered themselves to have narrowly escaped being drawn into the insidious brainwashing kool-aid drinking cult that is Landmark Education, and frankly, they struck me as utterly stupid people. It would be the same if someone said the same thing about Steve and Erin Pavlina. Um, you have a choice here. No one's kidnapping you or forcing anything on you.

There are some people here who TOTALLY get into Steve & Erin's philosophy, to the point that could look to an outsider like .... well... zombie-ism, and similarly, there are people who participate a LOT in the landmark stuff, to the exclusion of other aspects of their life. It's not because Pavlina or Landmark is a cult; it's because some people just buy the whole farm. Others dip their toes in, and still others just lean into it, get what benefits they can, and leave the rest.

The Forum costs about as much as the CGW, by the way, and it sounds like there are some similarities in the way it's run - you listen to a trainer, volunteers come up to talk something through with a trainer, you relate what you hear to your own life, you turn to the person sitting next to you and you do an exercise, repeat several times over the course of a long, somewhat emotionally intense weekend that leaves you feeling intimate and bonded with the other participants in a very special way.

@blossom, regarding the "all the answers are within" philosophy -- I agree with you. BUT. I also recognize that there are habitual patterns of thinking (perspectives) that make it unlikely to reach the level of insight in years that are made available to you in one weekend of landmark training. Well, I should say two weekends, because I loved the Advanced Course so much. I really credit that course as the best training/teacher/insight-producer I've ever had. I think you, blossom, would really love it. I would only tell you what my friend who referred me in there told ME when I called him, complaining about how they were "pressuring" me to market it to everyone I know: He said: use what benefits you, and let the rest go. And the fabulous words I later learned (what the hell took me so long to learn the value and usefulness of these two simple words?!?)

"I'll pass."

If Landmark, or anything else for that matter, doesn't resonate for you, just use 'em!

[Brutha]

How about, YOU buy a McDonalds franchise or buy LEC and get crackin - make it the way you want. The spoilt entitlement culture of today is very strange to me. There seems to be a point of view that thinks because I "want" something or "think" something, others should listen to it.

Then you also think that there's no problem when a politicians lies to his voters and instead does the things that his personal friends who happen to be lobbyists want?

Or a doctor who only cares about making money and sells his patient a lot of expensive medical tests that the patient doesn't need.

A company that happens to do deep personal coaching operates in a different space than McDonalds.

[fishbelowtheice]

Originally Posted by theorique

I think the analogy is more like if you went to McDonald's and they assumed that since you were there and (presumably) enjoying the "food", that you wanted to sign up all your friends and family to come for a full weekend of meals there, and that you wanted to sign up for a month long package where you eat at McDonald's for each meal.


(DISCLAIMER: I have not attended Landmark and I am not claiming that they actually do this, just that this kind of situation is a potential area for abuse in all seminars and workshops that deal with personal growth.)

-jack

The analogy was not about how McDonalds operates, because McDonalds does not operate that way (and neither does Landmark Education btw and since you have not done it, I am surprised you would jump in with all that you said.)

My comment was about savvy adult customers and how they behave.

It does not seem like a good use of time for a customer, who has a free choice about where to shop and spend their time and money to go into any establishment and ask them to do it in a way other than that establishement is dong it. That person would move to another planet because this world does not work that way. Normal healthy self determining adults go where they can have things they want. There is nothing hidden about the way LEC is and what to expect. Many people LOVE IT = the million of people who are lining up for their programs worldwide and some people do not = the ones who never do it or attend anything more then one Introduction To TLF or leave TLF or complete it and never do business with the LEC again. That is how the adult world works. And it is great that it is that way. I love how it is. I am in charge and driving the car!

There is a million choices. I don't complain about how certain companies I don't do business with or stopped giving my business to because I do not give them my business. IT'S THAT SIMPLE!!! Who has time?

Don't like the new iPad? Don't buy the new iPad! Why even talk about the new iPad Got nothing better to do?

[blossom]

Thanks Angela. I have had people try and get me to do the course. I think their pushiness put me off abit though. I do my best to keep an open mind, since, really , anything people decide to get into and really throw themselves into can be considered "cultish"these days, depending on the level of zealousness that they display.

I suppose when my $50,000 that I ordered comes, I can put aside some for a course in this...I don't see the harm in it, and it could add to what I already know? I just don't want to end up like an Amway disciple

Originally Posted by Angela

That's funny, because Steve's arena also has the same elements of cultishness -- and some people get the heebie-jeebies from those elements. That is: "a group whose beliefs or practices could be, reasonably or unreasonably, considered strange." Also, "brainwashing," authoritarian and possibly dangerous rituals (just ask SmartAlx!), mind control, separation from friends and family (ha! I just realized this one. Steve is always advocating that. ), post-cult trauma (see kittywompus). All sure signs of a cult!

Of course, none of us talking here sees ourselves as part of a cult, and we'd laugh off that description as the ignorant ramblings of the uninformed, or misinformed. Same with Landmark. I have read about a couple of people who have considered themselves to have narrowly escaped being drawn into the insidious brainwashing kool-aid drinking cult that is Landmark Education, and frankly, they struck me as utterly stupid people. It would be the same if someone said the same thing about Steve and Erin Pavlina. Um, you have a choice here. No one's kidnapping you or forcing anything on you.

There are some people here who TOTALLY get into Steve & Erin's philosophy, to the point that could look to an outsider like .... well... zombie-ism, and similarly, there are people who participate a LOT in the landmark stuff, to the exclusion of other aspects of their life. It's not because Pavlina or Landmark is a cult; it's because some people just buy the whole farm. Others dip their toes in, and still others just lean into it, get what benefits they can, and leave the rest.

The Forum costs about as much as the CGW, by the way, and it sounds like there are some similarities in the way it's run - you listen to a trainer, volunteers come up to talk something through with a trainer, you relate what you hear to your own life, you turn to the person sitting next to you and you do an exercise, repeat several times over the course of a long, somewhat emotionally intense weekend that leaves you feeling intimate and bonded with the other participants in a very special way.

@blossom, regarding the "all the answers are within" philosophy -- I agree with you. BUT. I also recognize that there are habitual patterns of thinking (perspectives) that make it unlikely to reach the level of insight in years that are made available to you in one weekend of landmark training. Well, I should say two weekends, because I loved the Advanced Course so much. I really credit that course as the best training/teacher/insight-producer I've ever had. I think you, blossom, would really love it. I would only tell you what my friend who referred me in there told ME when I called him, complaining about how they were "pressuring" me to market it to everyone I know: He said: use what benefits you, and let the rest go. And the fabulous words I later learned (what the hell took me so long to learn the value and usefulness of these two simple words?!?)

"I'll pass."

If Landmark, or anything else for that matter, doesn't resonate for you, just use 'em!

[fishbelowtheice]

Originally Posted by Brutha

Then you also think that there's no problem when a politicians lies to his voters and instead does the things that his personal friends who happen to be lobbyists want?

Or a doctor who only cares about making money and sells his patient a lot of expensive medical tests that the patient doesn't need.

A company that happens to do deep personal coaching operates in a different space than McDonalds.

No idea what your saying or how what you are saying fits brutha? There are consequences to a politician who lies to his voters and instead does the things that his personal friends who happen to be lobbyists want.

There are consequences for doctor who only cares about making money and sells his patient a lot of expensive medical tests that the patient doesn't need.

AND I have no problem if you stop giving McDonalds your business because you don't like their hamburgers though or stop giving any business your time and $ because you don't like the service. Your an adult and a free thinker right?

[Plato]

Add to the Steve list:

Voices of dissent are quickly squashed and roundly mocked. In Scientology they call these people "Suppressive Persons". This is because it only takes one or two respected voices to WAKE UP THE GLASSY EYED FOLLOWERS. Apostasy is the number one crime in all religions.

Invention of enemies to the group. These are "unconscious people" and skeptics. This creates greater group unity and feeling of connection. And by making skepticism a sin, Steve had made it impossible for anyone to criticize him. It also allows Erin to make a hefty living as a psychic without being challenged too much.

Using an "I'm perfect, you are broken, only I can fix you" frame in most blog posts.

Putting down other gurus. Steve is quick to stamp on Eckhart Tolle, Ken Wilber, Anthony Robbins and such people when they are brought up.

Portrays self as the saviour of the world: see Lightworker. Does this while encouraging followers to try to live up to unmatchable expectations. When the followers fail it re-inforces the frame that Steve is just "better"... like magic.

Claims to have intentions of serving the world but nobody really knows what effect he is having. Are people benefiting from reading the blog? The only success stories I ever read are that people have quit their jobs and broken off all their relationships or taken up a new career as a "mystic"

Most of his blog posts are a form of "cold reading" where he makes "Barnum statements" about the people who are broken. "Barnum" statements are ones which EVERYONE thinks apply to them personally. This is why Steve's blog posts seem to be written personally for you. Trust me, they are not.

All the advice is full of promise and enthusiastic, but not specific and clear enough to be pinned down.

Tells people what they already think. For example: setting clear, specific goals and taking all the possible consequences into account. The most impressive thing about this is people think he's saying something they don't already know.

As Robert Greene would say, he's a skilled player of the game of power using the guise of innocence and honesty and "positive loving intentions" as a shield. Such people hate having their methods exposed.

Oh boy. What have I done?

[Brutha]

I don't complain about how certain companies I don't do business with or stopped giving my business to because I do not give them my business. IT'S THAT SIMPLE!!! Who has time?

Ethical standards get uphold if the good people in society waste some of their time with shaming those people who derivate from the ethical standards of society.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Plato

Add to the Steve list:

Voices of dissent are quickly squashed and roundly mocked. In Scientology they call these people "Suppressive Persons". This is because it only takes one or two respected voices to WAKE UP THE GLASSY EYED FOLLOWERS. Apostasy is the number one crime in all religions.

This is one area that, in my opinion, Landmark approach's could benefit Steve in the work he does -- they have mastered the art of transforming dissenters. When someone inside the seminar voices a dissenting remark, question, complaint, whatever, the Landmark trainers are pretty impressive at getting the person to insight right there on the spot. That is not to say that the person is transformed into a glassy-eyed follower, but rather, (s)he is transformed in his/her ability to effectively handle whatever bad feeling had led them to go kittywompus. (S)he is put into an insightful state in which (s)he can access his/her own inner resources, and feel good on a dime. That person may still evaluate whatever they were complaining about as something they do not want, but they learn to free themselves of feeling bad because of some external stimuli or other, and if it's appropriate for them, to just let it go, or take action that works better in some way.

To me, Steve sometimes appears to get reactivated himself by other people's reactiveness, and I think he could be very powerful indeed as a trainer if he transforms that for himself -- I think that's something he could learn from Landmark Education (not the only place of course, but a really good place.)

Sorry to speak of you in the third person, Steve.

[fishbelowtheice]

Originally Posted by blossom

Thanks Angela. I have had people try and get me to do the course. I think their pushiness put me off abit though. I do my best to keep an open mind, since, really , anything people decide to get into and really throw themselves into can be considered "cultish"these days, depending on the level of zealousness that they display.

Haha, well said Blossom. I just look at the years of mocking and cynicism that followed Tom Cruise expressing unabashed enthusaism, jumping up and down on a couch on Oprah over his new relationship. Unapologetic enthusiasm is somtimes considered bad form in our society.

Do some people experience enthusiasm and happiness as a threat?

[fishbelowtheice]

Originally Posted by Brutha

Ethical standards get uphold if the good people in society waste some of their time with shaming those people who derivate from the ethical standards of society.

Can you express the same thing you are saying in more basic, street terms? I am not able to follow what you are saying. I just don't know who or what you are refering to.

[blossom]

Originally Posted by fishbelowtheice

Haha, well said Blossom. I just look at the years of mocking and cynicism that followed Tom Cruise expressing unabashed enthusaism, jumping up and down on a couch on Oprah over his new relationship. Unapologetic enthusiasm is often considered bad form in our society.

Do some people experience enthusiasm and happiness as a threat?

I think this is a good point! Everyone is used to a certain level of unenthusiasm, which has become the norm, so anytime a person gets really excited people think they must be strange.
Really, that's kinda strange that people don't like it when someone is too excited! I myself am like this, and I just don't know how to be that excited and express it. It feels unnecessary to me though.
It's definately a taboo behaviour. But Why? We should be excited to see someone else that excited about their life.

Maybe it's "Tall Poppy Syndrome", which alot of people in Australia suffer from, stemming back to our convict roots?

People don't want anyone to reach for anything above the status quo...it makes them uncomfortable, as it reflects how miserable and bored they are with their own lives, and they react negatively to that. I've experienced this first hand.

[Plato]

Originally Posted by Angela

and feel good on a dime.

This is an interesting turn of phrase. Why do you describe it as feeling good on a dime?

(I'm trying to understand how you represent this process internally, so I can understand it myself)

[Brutha]

I just don't know who or what you are refering to.

I know it's for some Americans hard to understand that something like ethics might be important for some other people on this planet but I do consider ethics to be important and not every self interested decision happens to be ethical unless there's public outcry that punishes unethical behavior.

Can you express the same thing you are saying in more basic, street terms?

The sales practices violate ethical principles.
Ethical principles exist as other members of society are willing to do things that aren't necessarily in their own self interest such as spending time on shunning the company in question in public.
From a game theoretic perspective that's required to prevent companies to abuse their power.

No idea what your saying or how what you are saying fits brutha? There are consequences to a politician who lies to his voters and instead does the things that his personal friends who happen to be lobbyists want.

If that would really be the case than US politics would run a lot better than it does.

Your an adult and a free thinker right?

As an adult I can speak out against unethical behavior or campaign to get laws that put companies out of business.

There are consequences for doctor who only cares about making money and sells his patient a lot of expensive medical tests that the patient doesn't need.

There are in the extent that doctors are members of a profession that's regulated by laws.

You have basically two options:
1) The people in the self development business commit themselves to ethical behavior
2) You need government to formulate some minimum standards.
3) You believe that power can go without responsibility.

To keep up 1) it's important that the good people in society spend resources on punishing the bad people who violate the rules by speaking out against them.
Here you argue that this process of speaking out against unethical behavior is somehow wrong.

Most of his blog posts are a form of "cold reading" where he makes "Barnum statements" about the people who are broken. "Barnum" statements are ones which EVERYONE thinks apply to them personally.

If you want to write personal development articles it makes much more sense to write articles that focus on problems that apply to everyone than to focus on problems that few people have.

Invention of enemies to the group. These are "unconscious people" and skeptics. By making skepticism a sin, Steve had made it impossible for anyone to criticize him.

I think we have banned one person on the basis of being unconscious and that person would have been a fine follower from a cult perspective (Steve thought of him as a stalker).
I can't remember banning anyone for being a skeptic.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by fishbelowtheice

Unapologetic enthusiasm is somtimes considered bad form in our society.

That is one thing, now that you mention it, that I left behind when I did the Advanced Course -- never again did I squash or hide my own enthusiasm because of any concern about what others might think. Very valuable thing to get -- thanks for reminding me!

Originally Posted by Plato

This is an interesting turn of phrase. Why do you describe it as feeling good on a dime?

Have you ever heard the phrase, "turn on a dime"? It means to make a very tight, concise turn, like a race car turning a corner without wasting any space, time, or effort. That's how I was using (or abusing ) the phrase, do you see?

[fishbelowtheice]

Originally Posted by blossom

I think this is a good point! Everyone is used to a certain level of unenthusiasm, which has become the norm, so anytime a person gets really excited people think they must be strange.
Really, that's kinda strange that people don't like it when someone is too excited! I myself am like this, and I just don't know how to be that excited and express it. It feels unnecessary to me though.
It's definately a taboo behaviour. But Why? We should be excited to see someone else that excited about their life.

Maybe it's "Tall Poppy Syndrome", which alot of people in Australia suffer from, stemming back to our convict roots?

People don't want anyone to reach for anything above the status quo...it makes them uncomfortable, as it reflects how miserable and bored they are with their own lives, and they react negatively to that. I've experienced this first hand.

Great point blossom.

"Tall Poppy Syndrome" might explain in part why they labeled women "witches" and burned some of them alive in Salem in the dark ages.

Your "convict roots"? You got "convict roots"? Wow - I forgot Australia was a penal colony! Has there ever been any great films that displayed that part of Australia's history! That is what Bas Luhrman's or Lee Tamahori's next film could be about!! I'll go see it.

[fishbelowtheice]

Originally Posted by Brutha

I know it's for some Americans hard to understand that something like ethics might be important for some other people on this planet but I do consider ethics to be important and not every self interested decision happens to be ethical unless there's public outcry that punishes unethical behavior.
The sales practices violate ethical principles.
Ethical principles exist as other members of society are willing to do things that aren't necessarily in their own self interest such as spending time on shunning the company in question in public.
From a game theoretic perspective that's required to prevent companies to abuse their power.
If that would really be the case than US politics would run a lot better than it does.

As an adult I can speak out against unethical behavior or campaign to get laws that put companies out of business.


There are in the extent that doctors are members of a profession that's regulated by laws.

You have basically two options:
1) The people in the self development business commit themselves to ethical behavior
2) You need government to formulate some minimum standards.
3) You believe that power can go without responsibility.

To keep up 1) it's important that the good people in society spend resources on punishing the bad people who violate the rules by speaking out against them.
Here you argue that this process of speaking out against unethical behavior is somehow wrong.
If you want to write personal development articles it makes much more sense to write articles that focus on problems that apply to everyone than to focus on problems that few people have.
I think we have banned one person on the basis of being unconscious and that person would have been a fine follower from a cult perspective (Steve thought of him as a stalker).
I can't remember banning anyone for being a skeptic.

You seem to be thoughtful and saying something specific and on topic in terms that you understand but they are terms I just can't grasp. Sorry. No disrespect intended. I did read what you wrote. I just am unable to say anything about what you wrote. Thanks for replying to me.

[Plato]

I think we have banned one person on the basis of being unconscious and that person would have been a fine follower from a cult perspective (Steve thought of him as a stalker).
I can't remember banning anyone for being a skeptic.

Haha, I know who you are talking about. He was hilarious and, I agree, a bit disturbing.