One of my mom’s friends was into Landmark. He was not what I would describe as a successful person, to put it bluntly.
On the subject of dark arts, the longer course involves several greater than twelve hour days of lectures with limited bathroom and meal breaks. These are clearly not designed to promote clear thinking about the content of the courses.
The information is largely obsolete, and may never have been accurate. As to the “mom’s friend,” the suggestion that a program involving about 180,000 people each year is to be judged by a snapshot of an individual is … interesting. Anyone can take the Forum—they no longer exclude people based on psychological diagnoses, though they recommend that certain people not take the Forum—and I’ve seen some rather damaged people even go on. The question would be if those people benefited or not, and what I’ve seen is progress, sometimes startling progress. But you can also find on the internet a story of a Landmark Communications Course Leader who murdered his wife. Appears to be true. And so?
The Forum is for real people, not saints. Forum Leaders aren’t saints, they make mistakes, they are simply highly trained in presenting the “distinctions.” That involves consciousness far beyond the ordinary, I can see and say that much, but it’s still only training and practice.
The Forum and Advanced Course are about the same: 9 AM to 10 PM. There are two half-hour breaks, one in the morning and one in the afternoon, and there is an evening meal break of an hour and a half.
Calling it “lectures” is quite misleading. I have very low tolerance for lectures. Landmark has honed the Forum script for decades, they know what works and what doesn’t. There are periods where the Forum leader reads—or “recreates” the material, but these are relatively short. There will then be conversations with individuals, which are, by nature, somewhat unpredictable, showing or demonstrating the material or whatever comes up. The Forum leader will ask for volunteers from the audience to go to the microphones. Nobody is required to do this.
And then, as a third modality, there will be “paired sharing.” The seats have been arranged to make this generally work out easily. People will talk to the person next to them about what’s coming up for them about the issue just covered. That’s the only place where there is any expectation that individuals speak. Don’t want to share with strangers, sit with someone you feel okay about sharing with. And you can still decline.
The only time I felt that it was all going on for too long, it was really difficult for me, was in the Advanced Course when I’d become aware of my long-standing “act,” what had disempowered me for so many years in so many contexts. Until it became clear to me, I became convinced that this whole thing was indeed a cult, I was odd man out, nobody would understand me, it was all group-think. That went on for about an hour, and it was excruciating. And then it became totally obvious to me what had happened, and I was free. My “act” was precisely this: I was a loner, standing for the Truth, which only I could see. Nobody was going to hear me, they were going to reject me. And, of course, with this expectation firmly ensconced and believed, that’s exactly what happened, often.
In fact, once I saw what I’d been doing, I also could see what I could do to move beyond this. It was actually obvious, so, right there, began the rest of my life. My act still comes up, the grooves are deep, but it can now be quickly recognized. My act was based on certain experiences in grade school, it was the reaction of a very bright eleven-year old, to a social situation that was not favorable to his connection with people. He was indeed isolated. Then.
Now, he actually knows how to speak for a large group, instead of to it.
it is encouraged that people take care of personal needs before the course and during the breaks, but nobody who walks to the door is denied exit. It’s possible that in est they might have been asked what they were doing, or that they might have been reminded of their commitment to staying in the room for each session, but they never would have been prevented from leaving.
Nowadays, though—and I’ve worked the door in the Advanced Course—nobody is questioned. If someone approaches the door, we open it, carefully, so that minimum noise is made. We don’t talk to them, unless they talk to us (in which case we would probably walk outside the room with them.) We smile at them when they leave and when they come back in.
The course is experiential. It’s true that people will “think about it,” but that actually can inhibit the work. This is not “informational learning,” and there is no dogma or information being transmitted. Rather, people are encouraged to simply listen, to be aware, of the leader and of each other and, as well, of their own internal conversation, to identify it as what it is, generally, a pile of conditioned responses that can isolate us from what is actually happening. It’s coming from the past, not so much the present.
What is being transmitted is not “clear thinking”—which is almost, by definition, an obscuration, if it involves “judgment,” decisions about true./false—but “clear perception.” Clear thinking needs clear perception as a basis, or garbage in, garbage out.
It’s an ancient technique. Used to transmit dogma, it could be highly offensive. I haven’t seen it being used that way in Landmark, and I’ve had a lot of opportunity to observe. What I’ve seen are people being freed of their limitations, and they know it, it’s visible in their faces, and they can communicate it to people who have had the experience.
It can be hard for a beginner, though, to explain this to others. “Well, it was fantastic, man, it just …it was amazing … you have to be there!” With an excited smile and wide eyes.
It is no wonder people think it’s a cult, it sure can look like one. People just don’t have a right to be so happy!
A major difference, though, Landmark is quite effective at connecting people with their families, people reconcile with estranged parents and children, one hears stories at every closing session. There are no “suppressive persons,” and people who blame others for trouble in their lives are confronted with a choice: continue the “racket,” with its very limited payoffs, or let it go and move into a new realm of unlimited possibilities. “Rackets” are not “bad and wrong,” they simply are limited and disempowering interpretations of life.
Landmark takes people to “nothing,” and then they create their future. Landmark doesn’t tell people what to fill that space with. It’s silent on God/not-God. However, I’m a Muslim, and I rode to Boston (four hours per classroom) and did a lot of work in the Introduction Leader Program with a United Church of Christ minister. If we talked theology, well, we were pretty distant. But when we talked about Reality—which is my definition of “God,”—we literally saw eye-to-eye. I suspect that this work is what was actually being taught, so long ago, using differing metaphors and ways of expression.
So it can’t be unique. However, it’s rare, as far as I can tell. Closest thing I’ve seen to it is 12-step programs.
The ontology involved in the Landmark “conversation,” though, is remarkably similar to what I’ve seen from Yudkowsky, and Yudkowsky uses certain language, in certain places, that would indicate to me familiarity with the Landmark work. If I really cared, I might pull out some linguistic analysis tools, do a little Bayesian work on this. But I don’t care. Yudkowsky is quite clear, and that’s fantastic.
I have a suggestion for you: Since you’re running some of these courses yourself, you could make a list of which specific rationality skills you think that the courses, with their present content, improve. For instance, increasing cognitive reflection, reducing framing bias, reducing sunk cost bias, etc. Then you could test it by handing out surveys to half of your students before the course, and to the other half after, and see what kind of results you get.
Thanks. I’m not running courses. I was in a training to lead Introductions, which are just that, a brief Introduction. A typical Intro might have a handful of guests. There is a survey form handed out, but it’s not any kind of test.
The Forum might benefit from such a survey, but it’s not generally done. If I worked like crazy, I could be a Forum Leader in a few years, but I’m not going there. Other people can and will do it, and they will do it well.
Landmark is in a process of revisioning itself, and measures of performance as suggested could be useful. However, Landmark isn’t about teaching rational skills, as such; rather, it’s about opening a clearing which can enable the recognition of “identity” and the realm of “self” that must underlie deep rationality.
An old story: the Sufi had been out talking with barbarians, fierce tribesmen, and brought them into the mosque. However, they were wearing boots, and the imam pulled the Sufi aside and asked him to get his friends to remove their boots.
The Sufi said, “I got them into the mosque, you get them to take their boots off.”
Landmark doesn’t “teach” the tools of rational process, it opens the door to the space of clarity, in which transformation becomes possible.
First, my comment was slightly sarcastic. It was making fun of my own skeptical reaction, while still noting it.
Second, Germans aren’t a good counterexample because Germans are capitalizing their nouns according to some traditional scheme. But when people capitalize things without any real reason, it’s a way of making them seem special and interesting and worthy of respect.
Such as? “Reality?” I do that for a reason. Essentially, I’m personalizing Reality, as a single, unique entity. Nothing like it. I used to capitalize nothing, now I capitalize Nothing.
I’m distinguishing a special usage from a “normal” one. It’s a cue.
As, “The Forum Leader asks the group, ’What did you get for your $500?” The group replies, unprompted, “Nothing.” And they are laughing. Of course, maybe I just capitalized it there just because it’s the beginning of the sentence.
With Forum Leader, “Leader” is capitalized because it is, in fact, a formal title.
“Normal” communication is not as fun as abnormal. I’m trying to figure out, though, what this “thing” is that capitalizes. I thought I did that. I don’t think that my post capitalized itself. In fact, I’m glad it didn’t.
You capitalized words in accordance with whether or not they were special according to the group. Capitalizing words makes them seem special and deserving of respect. Capitalizing lots of words that aren’t normally capitalized is a signal that you’re approaching these issues in accordance with an ideological system that’s oriented towards things in terms of respect and belief rather than skepticism.
Can you give a specific example of capitalization that shows what you are saying, chaosmosis?
The only word that I capitalized that would be outside of common usage would be “Reality.” And that’s my own personal decision and expression. it has nothing to do with Landmark. Capitalization is used to indicate a specific entity as distinct from a generic kind of entity. What “belief” is involved?
Yes, I have respect for Reality. I am not skeptical of Reality, only of my own “reality.”
There are some blatently uninformed and simplistic comments on here and on Landmark—hardly “rational” from what I can (briefly) see. Most of these are from people who haven’t attended and many are legacies (eg. “cult” hangover) are from the old Est training, which was run very differently to how it is run now.
For the record, there are no limitations to bathroom breaks. Nor, in reality, the meal breaks—it is an intensive curriculum (for many reasons) and you are encouraged to not miss any of it, but if you want to go home and have a siesta, nothing stops you and no-one will really know or care.
“Independent research” (published on Landmark’s site) shows 80% or so of people attending the Forum (The introductory course) reckon it is life-transforming and the best thing they have done in their lives. I have witnessed this in action and the impact on other people’s lives, as well as my very confused 16yo daughter, so I can vouch for the substance of that statement.
If nothing else, that should make people sit up, take note, have a look if it is for them rather than making uninformed and simplistic comments—it is always easier to be cynical than to be positive. Landmark may just help some of those cynics if they we willing to get off the keyboards and have a genuine look.
What is your relationship, if any, with Landmark? Have they paid you a substantial sum of money (say, $1000 or more in total)? Have you paid them a substantial sum of money (say, $1000 or more in total)?
They may have relaxed the bathroom break rule since 2009 (when the article I linked is from). But if they’re scheduling an all-day event and encouraging people to miss meals, that’s a serious flaw. I, at least, need food to think clearly. And I need the equivalent of three solid meals. I know I’m not the only one in this situation.
If Landmark isn’t accounting for this, then they’re not interested in having participants think clearly about what they’re hearing. That, to me, is enough: when I’m trying to change my life, I want to make a decision with my full brainpower. And that means being well-fed.
Neither the participants nor the experimenters know who received which treatment—so all the participants are told they are attending a Landmark Forum, the experimenters have two addresses to hand out the participants, but they don’t know which is the real Landmark Forum and which is the carefully-crafted applause lights / horoscope-style statements that apply to everyone / empty words / positive-thinking drivel lecture.
Probably one of the experimenters would have to find a third-party motivational speaker of some sort, work out the content-free speech, and then excuse themselves from the rest of the experiment.
One of my mom’s friends was into Landmark. He was not what I would describe as a successful person, to put it bluntly.
On the subject of dark arts, the longer course involves several greater than twelve hour days of lectures with limited bathroom and meal breaks. These are clearly not designed to promote clear thinking about the content of the courses.
A coworker of mine has done Landmark and speaks highly of it. He’s successful and intelligent.
Take that as a warning (even intelligent people can succumb) or a comfort (it won’t destroy you completely) as you like.
The information is largely obsolete, and may never have been accurate. As to the “mom’s friend,” the suggestion that a program involving about 180,000 people each year is to be judged by a snapshot of an individual is … interesting. Anyone can take the Forum—they no longer exclude people based on psychological diagnoses, though they recommend that certain people not take the Forum—and I’ve seen some rather damaged people even go on. The question would be if those people benefited or not, and what I’ve seen is progress, sometimes startling progress. But you can also find on the internet a story of a Landmark Communications Course Leader who murdered his wife. Appears to be true. And so?
The Forum is for real people, not saints. Forum Leaders aren’t saints, they make mistakes, they are simply highly trained in presenting the “distinctions.” That involves consciousness far beyond the ordinary, I can see and say that much, but it’s still only training and practice.
The Forum and Advanced Course are about the same: 9 AM to 10 PM. There are two half-hour breaks, one in the morning and one in the afternoon, and there is an evening meal break of an hour and a half.
Calling it “lectures” is quite misleading. I have very low tolerance for lectures. Landmark has honed the Forum script for decades, they know what works and what doesn’t. There are periods where the Forum leader reads—or “recreates” the material, but these are relatively short. There will then be conversations with individuals, which are, by nature, somewhat unpredictable, showing or demonstrating the material or whatever comes up. The Forum leader will ask for volunteers from the audience to go to the microphones. Nobody is required to do this.
And then, as a third modality, there will be “paired sharing.” The seats have been arranged to make this generally work out easily. People will talk to the person next to them about what’s coming up for them about the issue just covered. That’s the only place where there is any expectation that individuals speak. Don’t want to share with strangers, sit with someone you feel okay about sharing with. And you can still decline.
The only time I felt that it was all going on for too long, it was really difficult for me, was in the Advanced Course when I’d become aware of my long-standing “act,” what had disempowered me for so many years in so many contexts. Until it became clear to me, I became convinced that this whole thing was indeed a cult, I was odd man out, nobody would understand me, it was all group-think. That went on for about an hour, and it was excruciating. And then it became totally obvious to me what had happened, and I was free. My “act” was precisely this: I was a loner, standing for the Truth, which only I could see. Nobody was going to hear me, they were going to reject me. And, of course, with this expectation firmly ensconced and believed, that’s exactly what happened, often.
In fact, once I saw what I’d been doing, I also could see what I could do to move beyond this. It was actually obvious, so, right there, began the rest of my life. My act still comes up, the grooves are deep, but it can now be quickly recognized. My act was based on certain experiences in grade school, it was the reaction of a very bright eleven-year old, to a social situation that was not favorable to his connection with people. He was indeed isolated. Then.
Now, he actually knows how to speak for a large group, instead of to it.
it is encouraged that people take care of personal needs before the course and during the breaks, but nobody who walks to the door is denied exit. It’s possible that in est they might have been asked what they were doing, or that they might have been reminded of their commitment to staying in the room for each session, but they never would have been prevented from leaving.
Nowadays, though—and I’ve worked the door in the Advanced Course—nobody is questioned. If someone approaches the door, we open it, carefully, so that minimum noise is made. We don’t talk to them, unless they talk to us (in which case we would probably walk outside the room with them.) We smile at them when they leave and when they come back in.
The course is experiential. It’s true that people will “think about it,” but that actually can inhibit the work. This is not “informational learning,” and there is no dogma or information being transmitted. Rather, people are encouraged to simply listen, to be aware, of the leader and of each other and, as well, of their own internal conversation, to identify it as what it is, generally, a pile of conditioned responses that can isolate us from what is actually happening. It’s coming from the past, not so much the present.
What is being transmitted is not “clear thinking”—which is almost, by definition, an obscuration, if it involves “judgment,” decisions about true./false—but “clear perception.” Clear thinking needs clear perception as a basis, or garbage in, garbage out.
It’s an ancient technique. Used to transmit dogma, it could be highly offensive. I haven’t seen it being used that way in Landmark, and I’ve had a lot of opportunity to observe. What I’ve seen are people being freed of their limitations, and they know it, it’s visible in their faces, and they can communicate it to people who have had the experience.
It can be hard for a beginner, though, to explain this to others. “Well, it was fantastic, man, it just …it was amazing … you have to be there!” With an excited smile and wide eyes.
It is no wonder people think it’s a cult, it sure can look like one. People just don’t have a right to be so happy!
A major difference, though, Landmark is quite effective at connecting people with their families, people reconcile with estranged parents and children, one hears stories at every closing session. There are no “suppressive persons,” and people who blame others for trouble in their lives are confronted with a choice: continue the “racket,” with its very limited payoffs, or let it go and move into a new realm of unlimited possibilities. “Rackets” are not “bad and wrong,” they simply are limited and disempowering interpretations of life.
Landmark takes people to “nothing,” and then they create their future. Landmark doesn’t tell people what to fill that space with. It’s silent on God/not-God. However, I’m a Muslim, and I rode to Boston (four hours per classroom) and did a lot of work in the Introduction Leader Program with a United Church of Christ minister. If we talked theology, well, we were pretty distant. But when we talked about Reality—which is my definition of “God,”—we literally saw eye-to-eye. I suspect that this work is what was actually being taught, so long ago, using differing metaphors and ways of expression.
So it can’t be unique. However, it’s rare, as far as I can tell. Closest thing I’ve seen to it is 12-step programs.
The ontology involved in the Landmark “conversation,” though, is remarkably similar to what I’ve seen from Yudkowsky, and Yudkowsky uses certain language, in certain places, that would indicate to me familiarity with the Landmark work. If I really cared, I might pull out some linguistic analysis tools, do a little Bayesian work on this. But I don’t care. Yudkowsky is quite clear, and that’s fantastic.
I have a suggestion for you: Since you’re running some of these courses yourself, you could make a list of which specific rationality skills you think that the courses, with their present content, improve. For instance, increasing cognitive reflection, reducing framing bias, reducing sunk cost bias, etc. Then you could test it by handing out surveys to half of your students before the course, and to the other half after, and see what kind of results you get.
Thanks. I’m not running courses. I was in a training to lead Introductions, which are just that, a brief Introduction. A typical Intro might have a handful of guests. There is a survey form handed out, but it’s not any kind of test.
The Forum might benefit from such a survey, but it’s not generally done. If I worked like crazy, I could be a Forum Leader in a few years, but I’m not going there. Other people can and will do it, and they will do it well.
Landmark is in a process of revisioning itself, and measures of performance as suggested could be useful. However, Landmark isn’t about teaching rational skills, as such; rather, it’s about opening a clearing which can enable the recognition of “identity” and the realm of “self” that must underlie deep rationality.
An old story: the Sufi had been out talking with barbarians, fierce tribesmen, and brought them into the mosque. However, they were wearing boots, and the imam pulled the Sufi aside and asked him to get his friends to remove their boots.
The Sufi said, “I got them into the mosque, you get them to take their boots off.”
Landmark doesn’t “teach” the tools of rational process, it opens the door to the space of clarity, in which transformation becomes possible.
You get their boots off.
Personally, I’m skeptical of anything that capitalizes nouns that aren’t normally proper.
What about Germans? Are you skeptical of Germans?
First, my comment was slightly sarcastic. It was making fun of my own skeptical reaction, while still noting it.
Second, Germans aren’t a good counterexample because Germans are capitalizing their nouns according to some traditional scheme. But when people capitalize things without any real reason, it’s a way of making them seem special and interesting and worthy of respect.
My comment was not slightly sarcastic.
Such as? “Reality?” I do that for a reason. Essentially, I’m personalizing Reality, as a single, unique entity. Nothing like it. I used to capitalize nothing, now I capitalize Nothing.
I’m distinguishing a special usage from a “normal” one. It’s a cue.
As, “The Forum Leader asks the group, ’What did you get for your $500?” The group replies, unprompted, “Nothing.” And they are laughing. Of course, maybe I just capitalized it there just because it’s the beginning of the sentence.
With Forum Leader, “Leader” is capitalized because it is, in fact, a formal title.
“Normal” communication is not as fun as abnormal. I’m trying to figure out, though, what this “thing” is that capitalizes. I thought I did that. I don’t think that my post capitalized itself. In fact, I’m glad it didn’t.
You capitalized words in accordance with whether or not they were special according to the group. Capitalizing words makes them seem special and deserving of respect. Capitalizing lots of words that aren’t normally capitalized is a signal that you’re approaching these issues in accordance with an ideological system that’s oriented towards things in terms of respect and belief rather than skepticism.
Can you give a specific example of capitalization that shows what you are saying, chaosmosis?
The only word that I capitalized that would be outside of common usage would be “Reality.” And that’s my own personal decision and expression. it has nothing to do with Landmark. Capitalization is used to indicate a specific entity as distinct from a generic kind of entity. What “belief” is involved?
Yes, I have respect for Reality. I am not skeptical of Reality, only of my own “reality.”
Reality is not a “thing.”
There are some blatently uninformed and simplistic comments on here and on Landmark—hardly “rational” from what I can (briefly) see. Most of these are from people who haven’t attended and many are legacies (eg. “cult” hangover) are from the old Est training, which was run very differently to how it is run now. For the record, there are no limitations to bathroom breaks. Nor, in reality, the meal breaks—it is an intensive curriculum (for many reasons) and you are encouraged to not miss any of it, but if you want to go home and have a siesta, nothing stops you and no-one will really know or care.
“Independent research” (published on Landmark’s site) shows 80% or so of people attending the Forum (The introductory course) reckon it is life-transforming and the best thing they have done in their lives. I have witnessed this in action and the impact on other people’s lives, as well as my very confused 16yo daughter, so I can vouch for the substance of that statement.
If nothing else, that should make people sit up, take note, have a look if it is for them rather than making uninformed and simplistic comments—it is always easier to be cynical than to be positive. Landmark may just help some of those cynics if they we willing to get off the keyboards and have a genuine look.
What is your relationship, if any, with Landmark? Have they paid you a substantial sum of money (say, $1000 or more in total)? Have you paid them a substantial sum of money (say, $1000 or more in total)?
They may have relaxed the bathroom break rule since 2009 (when the article I linked is from). But if they’re scheduling an all-day event and encouraging people to miss meals, that’s a serious flaw. I, at least, need food to think clearly. And I need the equivalent of three solid meals. I know I’m not the only one in this situation.
If Landmark isn’t accounting for this, then they’re not interested in having participants think clearly about what they’re hearing. That, to me, is enough: when I’m trying to change my life, I want to make a decision with my full brainpower. And that means being well-fed.
Peer reviewed double-blind placebo-controlled study (minimum 4 years following life of participants) or go home.
How would you do a double-blind with this sort of thing?
Neither the participants nor the experimenters know who received which treatment—so all the participants are told they are attending a Landmark Forum, the experimenters have two addresses to hand out the participants, but they don’t know which is the real Landmark Forum and which is the carefully-crafted applause lights / horoscope-style statements that apply to everyone / empty words / positive-thinking drivel lecture.
Probably one of the experimenters would have to find a third-party motivational speaker of some sort, work out the content-free speech, and then excuse themselves from the rest of the experiment.