In-Reply-To: <4b7q38$hi2@news.scruz.net> 
Message-ID: 
References:   <4b713s$fd4@news.scruz.net>  <4b7q38$hi2@news.scruz.net> 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII


On 20 Dec 1995, Reality is a point of view wrote:

> Cool, news propogation is fast today.
> 
>  +---- bckdrmn@netcom.com wrote:
>  | As far as your concern of potential harm, that is something only you can
>  | decide for yourself.  Unfortunately, the only way you can really determine
>  | an answer to this is to do the Forum yourself and decide.

Actually, if there is a real concern about well-being, including 
physical, emotional, mental, or spritual issues.  The volunteers who work 
the registration team have someone on staff determine whether it is 
appropriate to do the forum.  I was held for 72 hour observation (by my 
consent) and I had to get a signed form from a licensed therapist stating 
that they had examined me and saw no reason why I shouldn't do the 
Forum.  The policy has now changed to "Have you been institutionalized 
within the last 12 years".  The Forum is also not reccomended for 
Alcholics or Addicts with less than 1 year of sobriety.

If you have health concerns (diabetes, hypertension, candida...) that 
requires special considerations such as being able to eat in the room, 
being able to step out for medication, or passing large amounts of water, 
this should be arranged before you show up on Friday morning.

There are certain drugs (prozac, prolyxin, thorazine) which will 
automatically result in a reccomendation that you not do the Forum.  In 
some cases, they will not allow you to do the Forum even if you choose 
not to take their reccomendation.  I had one close friend I found out 
later was MPD.  She didn't do the Forum.

> I haven't read any of the media coverage or literature you
> refered to, though I did see the interview a while back, 60
> minutes maybe?  If that interview is any indication then I don't
> think I would be swayed either way, it was pretty nondescript
> and unrevealing.  No earth shattering news either way.

I have read it, and summarized it, and addressed the related issues in 
another posting.

> But this concept of doing The Forum to determine if I, or
> others, should do The Forum seems a little strange to me.  I
> mean, I can understand the intent, but why would that be so
> necessary?  Would I find out something wonderful that isn't in
> print or something an individual might tell me?

There are other things you can do, rather than jumping in with both 
feet.  You can go to other introductions, you can attend a "Special 
Evening about the Forum", or you can just call the Enrollment Manager at 
the local center.

> If there is something secret why not just dispel the controversy
> and say it out loud in public?  Wasn't it Ghandi that said
> something like "Truth never hurt a cause that is just."?

It isn't so much that it is secret.  In fact, it is commonly discussed.  
Landmark does not want people playing "Junior Forum Leader" streight out 
of the Forum.  Imagine some rabid graduate going after a schizophrenic 
with "The Fear Exercise".  The Forum is a room full of 120-150 people, 
all committed to having a breakthrough, all giving their permission to be 
coached, all screened by trained volunteers and staff, before the Forum 
Leader starts asking people to look at areas where their life is not up 
to their expectations.   When I did the forum, I had a good life.  My 
relationships with women were missing (I had been divorced for 2 years, 
had been "dumped" a year earlier, and had been celebate for almost a year.

> If I did do The Forum, and then spoke out against it wouldn't I
> run the risk of being labelled as one of those bitter cult
> busting types that the pro Forum people seem to get so easily
> upset about?

Not at all.  The staff would want to know if you were abused or 
mistreated.  Many people complete the Forum and "get on with their 
lives".  In some cases they have other support structures (religeous 
groups, 12 step groups, therapy groups, family or friends who are 
graduates) that enable them to keep the distinctions of the Forum alive 
without having to take more courses.  Some people come to "watch a 
show".  They listen to the conversations, but they don't call anyone, 
they don't do something unreasonable, they don't share themselves with 
anyone, and they sort of "assess" the entire thing.  It's a bit more 
expensive than watching 36 movies, but cheaper than watching 20 plays.
Usually they sit in the back the whole time, push their chairs back 
another 2 to 4 feet, and put their feet out in the isle.

>  | Most of the guest rooms around seminars, the Forum, and Advanced Course have
>  | people assisting in the rooms who are in a training program about sharing the
>  | Forum and looking at the distinctions of enrollment in their lives (not just
>  | around the Forum).  The people leading the guest rooms are usually very well
>  | trained.
> 
> I was talking about the recruiters in the main Intro room.  But
> now that you mention the guest rooms let me relate one
> experience I had.  The leader of the guest session did the rap
> and then those that didn't head to the back to sign up were
> interacted with one on one.  When I said I didn't want to sign
> up (repeatedly, politely) the leaders attitude toward me visibly
> changed.  Like I had become an enemy, a lesser person.

Actually, if you state simply "I'm not interested" to all of the various 
assistants, then everyone is supposed to accept that.  It sometimes comes 
off like they don't care.  I usually would thank them for coming and 
would let them know that they would probably get a phone call in the next 
week or so just to make sure that they were taken care of.  Beyond that,
it was important to make sure that the people who did want to register 
(but might have had considerations or questions) were supported 
appropriately.

When I would make follow-up calls, I would ask them if they were taken 
care of, did they register (sometimes the cards don't get removed from 
the box properly), did they have any questions, did they get any value 
out of the evening, what did they see for themselves?  I would ask if 
they wanted to register, if they said "No", I would ask if they wanted to 
be called again.  If they said no, they didn't want to be called again, I 
would tear up their card and let them know that they could call us or 
talk to their friend if they had any questions.  This is the actual 
corporate policy.

In the first month of the program, nobody tore up a card.  By the end of 
the program, cards would get ripped after the first call.  The worst part 
of being in the IFLP is that you have to "Experiment" on real, living, 
breathing human beings.

> Of course I am a sensitive person so I could easily be reading
> something into his actions, but the reaction has been pretty
> uniform.  Then again when I think I am being polite I might
> really be rude from the others perspective so grains of salt are
> highly encouraged.

They are supposed to drop you like a hot potato.  If you say "No I'm Not 
Interested" as opposed to "I'd love to do the Forum, but I don't have the 
money with me", they are supposed to honor your choice.  Most guests do 
not make choices, they become victims of their circumstances (I'd love to 
have a great marriage, but I can't fit it into my schedule).  It's always 
a question of what possibility they are committed to fulfilling, against 
what circumstances they must overcome.  Often, those circumstances are 
their way of avoiding resonsibility for any choice in their lives.

> And speaking of training, are recruiting techniques part of the
> training?  The approach seems to be pretty uniform.  I have
> started to wonder if it is explicitly taught, or implicitly via
> osmosis.  The recruited recruiting like their recruiters.

Actually, it is explicitly taught.  Introduction leaders must learn 20-30
distinctions, be able to reproduce them verbatim, with a partner and be 
able to share a personal experience on at least 5 distinctions.  Once 
they can "reproduce the script", they can improvise, but it is important 
that specific distinctions be communicated.

Much of modern marketing has actually adopted the methodologies used at 
Landmark.  If you think about it, the Forum is a Course on the 
Possibility of Possibility.  When a merchant wants to sell you a product, 
he tries to create a possibility (Wear this perfume and have "Gatsby" at 
your side).  The Forum also is designed to fulfill that possibility (you 
want a breakthrough in your relationships with women, as at least 5 women 
to go on a date with you before the end of the break).

>  | I would be happy to continue this part of the conversation in private Email
>  | since I don't know what your were told by other people (and the level of
>  | participation of the other people).
> Well, at the risk of getting the person I spoke to (who shall
> remain nameless just in case:) in trouble . . . I went to an
> Intro session.  After the session (I think this was the same
> night I had the guest room experience described above) I was
> sitting in the main room talking with a recruiter.  A happy
> pushy one with touches of defiant pushy.

Every introduction leader has his own style.  Used to assist with one 
leader who would "talk and talk and talk until I get what I want".  I 
could listen to people and get them to share what they wanted -- their 
heart's desire, invite them to register, and when they said "No" I'd say, 
OK, I don't want to force you to have (whatever they wanted), and walk 
away.  The next person who asked them to register would get an 
unqualified YES.  One guy actually grabbed me by the hand and demanded 
that I personally register him.

> After multiple "no thank you, I don't wish to sign up" responses
> from me the person I was with broke in and said that the
> recruiter should mellow, I said I didn't want to sign up.  I'm
> sure that the similar conversations we had before informed that
> comment, I'm known to be very stubborn.

The "recruiter" was obviously an enrollment assistant.  Too many repeats 
of that and they will ask him to withdraw from the program.

> As we are leaving the person I'm with goes into the offices for
> a second.  I'm hanging out looking at pictures.  Glancing over I
> see that person in tears, surrounded by five or ten staffers.
> I'm of course concerned.  I ask someone what is going on.  I'm
> told "[name] must really love you."

If I know the Landmark Staff, they were probably trying to determine why 
he was being so pushy that the person who invited you had to intervene.
Only about 20% of the people who come to a guest event sign up at the 
introduction.  In very well managed rooms, with the best trained leaders 
and a well trained team of enrollment assistants, the figure goes up to 
about 60%.

Some people call the center the next morning and register, others 
register when their guest share with them, others get the phone call at 
the end of the week, and others will ask for as many as 5 follow-up calls.

> On the trip back I learn about the 'sign up 20 people to get
> into the be a leader course' pressure.  My Forum judgement
> scale is tipped dramatically.

Generally, this isn't publicized.  There is method to the madness 
though.  Once an enrollment assistant realizes that enrollment is a 
simple function of choosing the fulfillment of a possibility over the 
circumstances, the enrollment statistics are trivial.

> Later I am told by that person that the person that took over
> Landmark leadership, a corporate CEO or some such, and the
> Landmark crew had recently had a discussion and came to the
> conclusion that the bottom line emphasis brought in by the CEO
> type is the wrong direction, that people complain a lot about
> the recruiter pressure and that issue needs to be resolved, that
> the point wasn't the bottom line.

I mentioned this in another post.  This policy shift was a result of 
evaluating the operative practices of the organization relative to stated 
charter of the company.

> My scale tipped back a bit.  So now I'm concerned that this
> reputed change in Landmark direction isn't more widely known.

Landmark has been in a restructuring process since 1992.  The 
organization created some goals and a charter that sounded like fantasy 
in 1992.  By 1997, it is intended that the organization will be 
consistent with that charter.

>  | I hear that they are working on a web page, and have mentioned this group to
>  | many of the people I know (including course leaders and staff people).  I
>  | don't know if any of them are reading the group, and I definitely haven't seen
>  | them posting.
>  +----

The staff communicates on "the Well" using "communicator".  But landmark 
preferrs to have participants engage in conversations with others.  It's 
much more effective to see what you might have at stake, than to try and
describe all of the different results that have been produced and have 
you lose interest because the breakthroughs shared don't match the ones 
you are committed to having.

> I hope that my posts, and those of the cult busters, won't scare
> them off.  Or make them militant.  The Scientology wars on
> USENET are a good 'what not to do' example.

There are about 2 million satisfied graduates of Landmark worldwide.  All 
this with nothing more than "Word of Mouth" promotion.  In fact, the 
demand often exceeds the demand.  In some centers, there are waiting 
lists of up to 3 months for some courses.  We literally have people 
begging to be put in some of the courses (one has been closed for over a 
month now, they are about to fill up the March course.

> -- 
> Gary Johnson                   "The numbers themselves may be our best tools."
> gjohnson@season.com            Fed flip?


	Rex Ballard
	Standard & Poor's/McGraw-Hill
	Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect
	the Management of the McGraw-Hill Companies.




From rballard@cnj.digex.net Wed Dec 27 02:15:42 1995
Status: O
X-Status: 
Newsgroups: alt.self-improve,alt.fan.landmark,sci.psychology.misc