Byron Katie's School For The Work March '09

I was participating heavily for a while but then got swamped with work. We had degenerated into ad hominum attacks ("you went to the School so should act a certain way and you don't so I don't have to listen to you any more"), and I didn't really see much point in continuing the discussion. I notice there's been a lot of new stuff added. I'll take a look and see if it sparks anything to say.

-jgf75

ad hominem, you say?  then what's with the attack on 'the anticult' dude?

very interesting actually, this ad hominem bizness.

from http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html
 
The ad hominem fallacy fallacy
 
One of the most widely misused terms on the Net is "ad hominem". It is most often introduced into a discussion by certain delicate types, delicate of personality and mind, whenever their opponents resort to a bit of sarcasm. As soon as the suspicion of an insult appears, they summon the angels of ad hominem to smite down their foes, before ascending to argument heaven in a blaze of sanctimonious glory. They may not have much up top, but by God, they don't need it when they've got ad hominem on their side. It's the secret weapon that delivers them from any argument unscathed.
 
In reality, ad hominem is unrelated to sarcasm or personal abuse. Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument. The mere presence of a personal attack does not indicate ad hominem: the attack must be used for the purpose of undermining the argument, or otherwise the logical fallacy isn't there. It is not a logical fallacy to attack someone; the fallacy comes from assuming that a personal attack is also necessarily an attack on that person's arguments.
 
Therefore, if you can't demonstrate that your opponent is trying to counter your argument by attacking you, you can't demonstrate that he is resorting to ad hominem. If your opponent's sarcasm is not an attempt to counter your argument, but merely an attempt to insult you (or amuse the bystanders), then it is not part of an ad hominem argument.
 
Actual instances of argumentum ad hominem are relatively rare. Ironically, the fallacy is most often committed by those who accuse their opponents of ad hominem, since they try to dismiss the opposition not by engaging with their arguments, but by claiming that they resort to personal attacks. Those who are quick to squeal "ad hominem" are often guilty of several other logical fallacies, including one of the worst of all: the fallacious belief that introducing an impressive-sounding Latin term somehow gives one the decisive edge in an argument.
 
~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~
 
from http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/person.html

Uses of ad hominem consideration:
 
-When examining literary or philosophical works, looking at the author's character or circumstances can sometimes provide insight into that person's ideas. In other words, ad hominem considerations can show motives and can sometimes provide explanation. However, these considerations do not demonstrate the truth or falsity of the ideas.

-The character of a person is often relevant in consideration of the sincerity of views being offered and so is often relevant to pragmatic decision-making.

Non-fallacious examples of the ad hominem:

-If a philosopher presents a "naturalistic view of knowledge," arguing that all knowledge is a function of the adjustment of an organism to its environment and at the same time pleads that his own knowledge is an exception to this generalization, then ad hominem considerations would not fallacious.

-If William James were to claim that all philosophers were either tender-minded or tough-minded except for his own variety of pragmatism, then ad hominem appeals cannot be ruled inadmissible.
 

jgf75 sez "RR participants are ex-cult members with a track record of falling for strong, charismatic, manipulative people who don't allow dissenting thought".

false. rr-land membership includes non-ex-cultees. for example there are those who've joined because they have relatives in cults.

"Crude classifications and false generalizations are the curse of organized life." -George Bernard Shaw

"All generalizations are false, including this one." -Mark Twain

'It doesn't seem to have occurred to any of the Rick Rossers that:- RR participants are ex-cult members with a track record of falling for strong, charismatic, manipulative people who don't allow dissenting thought'

-jgf75

Not to mention that this statement is incredibly condescending and demeaning. Even if every single person on the RR forum is an ex-cult member (inaccurate as pointed out in the previous post), how incredibly offensive to suggest that they are weak-minded individuals in this way. What the poster is suggesting is that the people on RR are essentially a flock of sheep who are simply going to follow whichever 'strong, charismatic' person comes along next in their lives. This is outrageous and essentially strips the dignity of a group of people that I know to be intelligent, thoughtful and often insightful posters. Such a statement once again reinforces the negative stereotypes of those who have been in high demand groups and 'cults'. As though being duped by a charismatic leader necessarily makes one a dupe for life.

I suggest that it would highly benefit the poster jgf75 to do some research. People who are led into high demand groups and cults are intelligent, idealistic people who, probably at a vulnerable time in their lives became involved in an organization that in all likelihood used highly sophisticated techniques of coercive persuasion ... the group presented itself in a deceptively benign manner which usually much later turns out to be false. These techniques are well known, they have been studied and documented in all kinds of scientific literature and books. Read Robert Jay Lifton, Margaret Singer, Janja Lalich, even Steve Hassan for goodness sake. Read 'The Guru Papers'. Get educated! This would just be scratching the surface, by the way. Hmmm ... on the other hand maybe those books are only for weak, pathetic ex-cult victims who are unable to think for themselves.

Unfortunately, at this time, it would be very rare to learn about these deceptive methods of persuasion engineering in high school or college. ANY normal, intelligent person who is not aware of how these techniques function is a risk of falling prey to a high demand group. Thinking you are somehow 'too smart' or 'too independent' and paticularly 'too spiritual' to have it happen to you is exactly how these groups flourish. Suggesting that people do not need to be educated on methods of persuasion engineering is incredibly arrogant.

People who extricate themselves fully from cults and 'cult-hopping' have usually had to do some serious soul-searching, reflection and research into the ways that they became involved in their group. Those who don't do the research are the ones who may indeed be vulnerable to continuing involvement with another group. The people on RR are exactly the ones who are determined not to let it happen again.

To suggest that the posters on RR are somehow in thrall to one particular poster is nonsense. It essentially devalues and denigrates the indivdual contributions of a great number of people. To suggest that dissenting thought is not permitted on the RR forum is ludicrous. What this 'jgf75' apparently fails to realize is that the RR forum is one of the few public forums where a dissenting opinion on cults, sects and New Religious Movements can be found. The forum was created for that very purpose. As has been said before on the Byron Katie thread, if you want to weave your hearts and flowers around BK's portrait and put it on an altar in your front room, go ahead. Then go on over to the BK website, Carol Skolnick's sickly-sweet blog or any of the gazillion other places on the Internet where you can adore BK as a living goddess, all the while claiming that you would never ever in a million years fall under the influence of any nauseatingly love-bombing (honey! sweetie! darling!), blue sparkly-eyed, white-haired, incredibly, astoundingly wealthy Guru as long as you live, right?

Meanwhile, Byron Katie is rolling around naked in $100 bills on the bed in her luxurious (probably all white) bedroom of her Ojai, California home. (Endearlingly situated right next to the ocean, no doubt, so BK can feel the soft salt breeze in the morning). There's a glass of champagne on the night-stand along with the latest 'Work' participants' wedding rings, gold bracelets, pearl necklaces and other precious items. She is 'loving what is' you betcha.

Yes, I know that none of those who are involved with Byron Katie would ever be foolish enough to fall for a manipulative Guru, like the rest of us feeble-minded patsies over there on the RR forum. Good for you.

Yeah. "The AntiCult" finally reached a new high for me with his post that started: "This Mary Poppins Byron Katie connection, is very interesting." I've decided that he (she?) is actually a performance artist, seeing how far he (she?) can go before even the Rick Ross participants catch on. Think about it. The AntiCult spells out in extreme detail how all these NLP and hypnotic language techniques work (or how he/she claims they work). Then he/she allows few dissenting opinions on the board, and draws all kinds of conclusions by associating two concepts, making up an evil backstory, and repeating it often enough (often with "evidence" that consists of links to his/her earlier threads) until he/she drops the "might" or "could be" and states the suppositions as fact.It doesn't seem to have occurred to any of the Rick Rossers that:- RR participants are ex-cult members with a track record of falling for strong, charismatic, manipulative people who don't allow dissenting thought, - The AntiCult is a strong, manipulative person who doesn't allow dissenting thought,- and The AntiCult clearly knows a lot about manipulation, hypnosis, and similar tactics (though I have taken the liberty of consulting some professional hypnotists who trained with Erickson's daughter Carol, and they say AntiCult's explanations show evidence he's taken training, and evidence he doesn't understand what he's talking about).
I'll bet AntiCult is laughing his/her head off as he/she twists that entire community around his/her little finger, using exactly the same techniques that he/she is blasting others for using.

-jgf75

this post borders on hysteria. or is out and out hysteria. someone is getting desperate. desperate to divert attention off problems with byron katie. losing their cool bigtime. 

"making up an evil backstory"?

not made up. testimonies from multiple sources have shown there is much amiss.

just one example, from janaki's story (in the chapter entitled "money" - http://janakisstory.wordpress.com/chapter-11/):

More than anything, people ask me where all the money goes. Apparently a lot of people do the math, and they wonder why BKI is not transparent about this, never publicly displaying their financial reports.
 
And then there is the cash. Every single year that Katie comes to Europe, she collects vast amounts of cash that are given for the donation programs, or tickets that are paid for at the door. The cash is used for expenses, to pay American staff, who used to earn $ 2000 per School. Often the remaining money was given to staff and friends to take home to the States for her. Some would get up to $ 10.000 to put into their suitcases, that being the amount you are allowed to carry on your person to the U.S. without having to declare it.):

money in suitcases? wtf?

something to consider: jgf75 and randomstu showed up in this forum on the very same day (march 30 '09). both are trying to deny there are any problems with byron katie and co.

to kassie: agreed, jgf75's post about rick ross's forum is condescending and demeaning. huge judgment about cult participants. i guess someone forgot to do 'the work' on that. zero compassion for anyone who's had experience with a cult.

is very sad.

An outsiders 2 cents again:

Regardless of any Mary Poppins' associations or not, regardless of Stu's relationship with Mitchell, regardless of anything that is inferred or that is not obvious; the obvious is that The Work and BKI have been detrimental for some people, even destructive (as in Janaki's case).  That is significant and to undermine/minimize it is a terrible disservice, even unethical (in the case of promoting BKI at the expense of others).

As I've read various links provided and done google searches it is evident that some have experienced more anxiety as a result of 'doing The Work.,' that influence techniques (of course) are at work in the group dynamics of BKI, and that some people have been abused by the Org.  That appears to have happened because of the way BK's approach is presented (absolute, doctrine over person), influences from going to BK's school (the typical large group techniques), and practices as one gets closer to the inner circle (ex-communication, 'volunteer' service, secrecy, authoritarianism). Those are a cocktail mix for abuse.

That said it is also obvious that people have benefited from doing The Work.  There are a lot more pro sites (currently) than critical sites regarding BKI and The Work of BK.  That may or may not change as time goes on.  Usually $$ is a big player in cover-up and getting what an Org wants.

Any group (boyscouts, anti-religious, anti-cult, etc.) can become cultish.  An individual has to be able to trust themselves; 'cult'/totalistic influences are great at undermining that ability.

btw:  I think Anticult's analysis of the exercise of The Work is really insightful. 

Cheers!
~carol

An outsiders 2 cents again:
Regardless of any Mary Poppins' associations or not, regardless of Stu's relationship with Mitchell, regardless of anything that is inferred or that is not obvious; the obvious is that The Work and BKI have been detrimental for some people, even destructive (as in Janaki's case).  That is significant and to undermine/minimize it is a terrible disservice, even unethical (in the case of promoting BKI at the expense of others).

-oneperson

hi carol, just read your blog on byron katie. good stuff. thanks.

people can read it here:

http://tossandripple.blogspot.com/2009/04/who-would-you-be-without-your-story.html 

who would byron katie be without her story?

Joanieg wrote...
> Even if every single person on the RR forum is an ex-cult member (inaccurate as pointed out in the previous post),
> how incredibly offensive to suggest that they are weak-minded individuals in this way.

It's the essense of "political correctness" to avoid truths that some may find "offensive."

A minority of our population get ripped off by chain letters, emails from Nigerian princes, and other scams. The people who fall for such schemes... are they just a random sampling of "intelligent, thoughtful, insightful" people? I don't think so. People who have developed their independent, critical thinking skills are much less likely to get sucked in by that email from Nigeria ("just send me $1000 and I'll send you back millions... trust me!").

> As though being duped by a charismatic leader necessarily makes one a dupe for life.

If a person gets duped by a chain letter or Nigerian prince email scam etc... does that make him a dupe for life? Not necessarily. There's no shame in getting duped once; it depends on what you do after you're duped. Say someone loses $1000 to one of those email scams. When it's all over, they make some effort to examine why they got sucked into it. They examine their own desires, gullability, lack of critical skeptical thinking. In doing so, they gain understanding of why they fell for the scam. After all, millions of people get those scams in their email, and only a tiny percentage fall for it. Critical thinking is a learned skill; if, in the wake of being scammed, someone makes the effort to develop their critical thinking, then in the future, they won't be so easily hooked by the emotional power of their desires (to get rich, or get enlightened, or whatever).

Isn't falling for a cult similar to falling for an email scam? If someone falls for a cult once, and then afterwards does some self-examination to understand why they fell for it, then they're not a dupe for life. In fact, learning from the experience can make them less likely to fall for any type of scam in the future.

But what if they avoid the tiniest bit of self-reflection? What if instead, they focus 100% on demonizing the Leader and wildly exaggerating the Leaders power? What if they do this in a way that avoids or denies their own role in falling for it? What if they insist that their own beliefs and desires had nothing to do with it, that they are pure victims, intelligent and thoughtful people who bear not the slightest responsibility for embracing a "get rich quick" scheme, or a "too good to be true" spiritual dogma?

How can such a person learn anything that will help them avoid getting duped again? Say that an ex-Katie follower obsesses on how evil and powerful Katie is, but ignores the gaps in their own critical thinking that made them a blind follower? Such a person will be sure to avoid following Katie again, but what's to stopped them from falling for a new a different scam (whether a different spiritual cult, or a political cult, a psychological cult, or an anti-cult cult)?

I don't think you do any favors to an ex-cultist by telling them that they're pure and innocent victims, intelligent and thoughtful people who played no role in getting deceived. I'd say the opposite. The best way to help such people is to encourage them to develop critical, skeptical, independent thinking. That's what will help them avoid deception in the future.

> People who are led into high demand groups and cults are intelligent, idealistic people who, probably at a vulnerable
> time in their lives became involved in an organization that in all likelihood used highly sophisticated techniques
> of coercive persuasion

The passive-voice wording "People who are led into high demand groups" implicitly suggests that these people have no independent judgement. They had no role in choosing to join the group. No, they were "led," just like someone with no possibility of independent thought and critical judgement has no defense against being "led" into any deception.

Talk about "condescending and demeaning"! What could be more insulting to the ex-cultist than to suggest they were "led" into it like a blind animal! I say it's far far more respectful to recognized ex-cultists as people who made the mistake of choosing to be blind followers... yet are pefectly capable of examining that mistake, developing their critical faculties, and thus learn to be resistent to acting like blind followers again in the future.

Stuart
http://stuart-randomthoughts.blogspot.com/

stu, the quotes you just attributed to me are by 'kassie'. you're addressing the wrong person.

you also did that the other day. i made a post that was mostly a quote by someone at the ross forum. i provided a link and then quoted the whole message. you responded to the quote as if i'd said the words. sorry if it wasn't crystal clear that i was quoting another person.

this is the post i made:

http://guruphiliac.lefora.com/2009/03/23/byron-katies-school-for-the-work-march-09/page4/#post8111340

and this was your response:

http://guruphiliac.lefora.com/2009/03/23/byron-katies-school-for-the-work-march-09/page4/#post8113237

might want to direct your responses to the actual persons who have said the things you take issue with. i was merely quoting. left it up to readers to evaluate the information quoted for themselves.

RandomStu said: "The passive-voice wording "People who are led into high demand groups" implicitly suggests that these people have no independent judgement. They had no role in choosing to join the group. No, they were "led," just like someone with no possibility of independent thought and critical judgement has no defense against being "led" into any deception."

No, Stuart. What I am saying is that people do not know the true nature of the group they have chosen to join due to deceptive recruitment techniques. I am not suggesting that these people have 'no independent judgment'. I am saying that it is not possible to make a fully informed independent judgement when facts about the group are deliberately being obscured or omitted.  

Choosing to join an apparently innocent yoga group, learning some simple breathing techniques for relaxation or answering four simple questions does not fully equate to falling for an e-mail scam. Those are the kind of innocent-sounding front groups that some cults utlilize. I used the word sophisticated ... because these groups are becoming more so over time as opposed to your average e-mail scam which is usually pretty crude.

I did not explicitly discuss issues of self-responsibility in my post; however, I said: "People who extricate themselves fully from cults and 'cult-hopping' have usually had to do some serious soul-searching, reflection and research into the ways that they became involved in their group." Let me clarify that I consider self-responsibility a key element in the reflection process.

Let me just say, Stuart, that what you entirely misunderstand as "demonizing the Leader and wildly exaggerating the Leaders power" is from another perspective simply recognizing the leader for what he/she is and understanding the true nature of the cult. Nobody abdicates self-responsibility by doing that. It is your bias that makes you see it as 'demonizing'. Do you know Katie personally that it bothers you so much?

It is very helpful for an ex-cult member to understand the mechanics of persuasion engineering that have been utilized in any cult. Usually the techniques are curiously similar from group to group. That is what "stops us from falling for a new, a different scam".

I have no personal stake in whether Katie as a person is 'evil' or 'powerful'. I'm just learning that the techniques used by my own cult leader and cult are almost the same as those used by the BK machine. The similarities are eerie and quite fascinating.

You say that those who are having a discussion of the techniques being used by the Byron Katie machine are 'obsessing' ... it's just another patronizing way of suppressing dissent. There is no reason why people can't examine Byron Katie or any other cult/cult leader in a critical light and still take responsibility for their own cult involvement. You are creating an entirely false dichotomy.

You also try to turn my post around to make me appear to be the one who is condescending and demeaning towards former cult members. This doesn't make a lot of sense since I am a former cult member myself. Oh well. I'll let others who read this board come to their own conclusions from what I have written.  

It seems at the heart of the matter you simply don't believe that persuasive coercion exists Stuart.  I don't think it's good to get into a back and forth about that here. The topic here is Byron Katie and I hope that people will be able to get back to posting about their experiences with her.

Thanks for the kudos on the blog post joanieg.

Stu I'm in process of reading your story from your blog.  I've gotten through 1/2 and have printed off the rest to read later tonight.  It's entertaining and insightful, and I'm learning a bit about a Zen journey.

Kassie that was an excellent clarification you just posted.  I was thinking along the same lines...as far as involvement in 'cults.' Much seems to boil down to trust. Belief and trust are a couple major factors that pulled me in and kept me in.  I continued with my group at various crossroads because I had to decide, "Who and what do I trust?".  Not to mention, "Who and what do I fear?"  And underneath that is an indoctrinated belief system...and the layers continue.  ;-)

Stuart said: "Talk about "condescending and demeaning"! What could be more insulting to the ex-cultist than to suggest they were "led" into it like a blind animal!"
 
Let us see, what could be more insulting... how about calling cult joiners "immature", which you did. That is just one example of "more insulting".
 
Stuart: "The group dynamics play a huge roll in this. Some of us are highly affected by being among people who all think and act the same way. They (this includes me, at least in the past) feel a strong pull to "follow the crowd." Once the Teacher builds a core group, this herd mentality has a power on some newcomers. Yeah, it's a real power... but it only works when we're too immature to think for ourselves."
 
There are plenty of reasons for getting involved in cults besides being "too immature".
 
L

Kassie said, in response to Stuart,

You say that those who are having a discussion of the techniques being used by the Byron Katie machine are 'obsessing' ... it's just another patronizing way of suppressing dissent. There is no reason why people can't examine Byron Katie or any other cult/cult leader in a critical light and still take responsibility for their own cult involvement. You are creating an entirely false dichotomy.

You also try to turn my post around to make me appear to be the one who is condescending and demeaning towards former cult members. This doesn't make a lot of sense since I am a former cult member myself. Oh well. I'll let others who read this board come to their own conclusions from what I have written.  

It seems at the heart of the matter you simply don't believe that persuasive coercion exists Stuart.  I don't think it's good to get into a back and forth about that here. The topic here is Byron Katie and I hope that people will be able to get back to posting about their experiences with her.

Kassie, I have drawn my own conclusions about what you have said.  I thought you handled Stuart's comments very well.  I really wonder what his true agenda is here.

L

Over a year ago someone approached me who had been involved with a psychology organization.  The individual continued involvement with some of the same folks after the facility was shut down and then drifted away from the group. 

What brought this to mind are the endorsements that BKI now receives.  Time will tell.  And it may be that enough folks get good results with The Work of BK, that endorsements will continue. Hopefully (with the internet especially) folks will be able to read various people's experiences and understand that life isn't black and white; there are lots of shades of gray.

(btw:  I'm glad when folks get genuine help, even if it is via The Work...as long as they realize that what helped them may not help another. )

FWIW, here is the story of The Center for Feeling Therapy.  It's long, but worth the read, imo.
http://www.templeofdreams.com/center1.html

" [...]  The men who had run the Center held Ph.Ds from Stanford and the University of California. They had written three books that were published by the mainstream press, chosen as Psychology Today Book Club selections and quoted in such magazines as Mademoiselle and House & Garden. They had given lectures across the country and had been written about in glowing terms in a number of newspapers. From 1975 to 1980, they had been regulars on the talk show circuit, speaking of their theories and work on literally hundreds of television and radio shows, including The Tonight Show, Tomorrow, Merv Griffin, The Mike Douglas Show and Good Morning, America.    

What had happened? On the surface most people saw a new psychotherapy promising happiness, fulfillment and utopian community. In reality there were 350 people who had spent up to ten years of their lives in what administrative law judge Robert A. Neher called an "almost gothic maelstrom."  [...] "

ten thousand and one thank yous to arienariadne. it's because of arienariadne that we are engaged in this discussion of byron katie.

i have gone through arienariadne's messages and am going to post quotes i believe ought to be highlighted. am speaking as someone deeply concerned about what has been going on with byron katie and org.

here's my 'best of arienariadne' (anyone else feel free to add to this):

“The boot-camp tactics and mentality, the pressure to conform to total thought and behavior requirements, and many other features seemed very cult-like to me.  I would not hesitate to say The School is a cult experience.”

“Often people were crying so hard or were so anxious, they could not be understood when they took the microphone and tried to tell their experience.”

“At all times, there was a staff member in the back of the room speaking very softly into a dictophone, recording every story and event.  Katie's books are largely made up of these stories and a release is signed at the beginning, giving permission for your stories to be used.  One could literally feel the next book taking shape in that room.  It might have been a "voluntary" exploitation, but exploitation it was, nonetheless.”

“I couldn't help noticing the things that jarred, that were inconsistent, or that seemed to flaunt or exploit the power imbalance between Katie's organization and the rest of us.”

“There was a lot of sensory deprivation and sensory manipulation, in my opinion. And the Staff cadre was large and they were everywhere, roaming the room continually, peering into the faces of participants who dozed or listened with closed eyes.  It makes no sense to me to over-stress your students and then have to manage their reactions with constant staff vigilance.”

“I could tell from what newbies were sharing at The School that several people were starting to come unglued after a couple of days.  Some folks seemed sort of unglued from the beginning.  There was a general decompensation over the days.  As time passed, I began to be worried that some folks wouldn't recover adequately before they left.”

“Speaking for myself, then, it bothered me to see so many people crying, groaning, looking sad, depressed, or confused so much of the time.  I thought I would see lots of smiles and relaxed faces there.  What I mostly saw were either blank or sad/mad/confused faces.  There were sudden guffaws or giggles, true...but they would often come out of the blue and inappropriately.  There was some big-time LOOSENING going on there...and that might be desired effect or it might be symptomatic of something seriously wrong.  One size definitely does not fit all.  The blank looks seemed most apparent in the staff members and the people who were Repeaters.”

“I did have the impression that the staff was extremely stressed and that there were internal problems there.  There were several indications that all was not well between Katie and some Staff members.”

“Given all the Suggested Don'ts (don't look in a mirror more than once a day, don't wear jewelry or makeup, don't think about your appearance, etc.), most folks looked pretty crummy by Day 3.  Katie, however, looked radiant, rested, made up, perfectly coiffed, beautifully dressed at all times.  She sat alone on stage beside beautiful flowers, flanked by two large screens that duplicated her image up close...that beautiful facelift...who was her plastic surgeon, honey?”

“If anyone wanted Katie to address a particular concern of theirs, they had a note given to Katie by staff and she would usually, later, ask that person to stand and speak from where they sat.  There just wasn't the warm and cuddly thing with Katie going on.  In fact, she often did not seem warm at all.  I was surprised at often she seemed irritated or short or sharp...and then would come a couple of those famous Workletegook's: "...and I love it that you blah, blah, blah."  The messages were often very mixed and, judging from expressions and responses back from the speakers, often very confusing.”

... this statement is incredibly condescending and demeaning...what the poster is suggesting is that the people on RR are essentially a flock of sheep who are simply going to follow whichever 'strong, charismatic' person comes along next in their lives.

-kassie

Apologies for that. I was basing my opinion on the lack of dissenting opinions on the BK thread of RR.COM. Pretty much every dissenter has been summarily dismissed as being a "troll" or a BK spy, or dinged by the moderator for not being properly "supportive." I was definitely overstating the case. 

People who are led into high demand groups and cults are intelligent, idealistic people who, probably at a vulnerable time in their lives became involved in an organization that in all likelihood used highly sophisticated techniques of coercive persuasion

-kassie

I know this very well! I'm quite familiar with persuasion research from social psychology, as well as a lot of the sales and direct marketing techniques. I started researching it precisely because I kept falling for them over and over, despite considering myself intelligent and idealistic. I've grown to recognize a certain feeling of infatuation/urgency when I hear certain kinds of testimonials as being the "my irrational buttons just got hit by a manipulative tactic." It's very hard to resist, but my track record of being burned is long enough that my rational mind can override the rest. I never meant to give the impression that intelligent people can't be duped by manipulative techniques.

That's why I've been reading so much about BK. I have used TW very successfully, but have heard enough about her organization to be doing my best to separate fact from fiction precisely because I know that I could be falling for a cult without realizing it.

Suggesting that people do not need to be educated on methods of persuasion engineering is incredibly arrogant.

-kassie

I don't think I ever said that. I believe strongly that people need to be educated on methods of persuasion engineering! That's one reason I am so concerned about the correlation being confused with causality on RR.COM, combined with un-investigated logical leaps being made. I called licensed, certified Ericksonian hypnotherapists to double-check the stuff that was being said on RR.COM. Just because it's on RR.COM doesn't mean it's good education.

btw:  I think Anticult's analysis of the exercise of The Work is really insightful. 
Cheers!~carol

-oneperson

Carol, I concur!  (No, I am not The Anticult.  Scout's honor. :-))
L

Kassie said, "Suggesting that people do not need to be educated on methods of persuasion engineering is incredibly arrogant."

JGF75 said in response, "I don't think I ever said that. I believe strongly that people need to be educated on methods of persuasion engineering!"

Kassie said that you "suggested" that, not that you "said that".

Now, how might you have suggested that, as Kassie put it, "people do not need to be educated on methods of persuasion engineering"?  Please re-read your rather inflammtory post regarding The Anticult and those "Rick Rossers", as you dub them. THAT is how you might have suggested such a thing.

As a refresher, this is the post I am referring to:

Yeah. "The AntiCult" finally reached a new high for me with his post that started: "This Mary Poppins Byron Katie connection, is very interesting." I've decided that he (she?) is actually a performance artist, seeing how far he (she?) can go before even the Rick Ross participants catch on. Think about it. The AntiCult spells out in extreme detail how all these NLP and hypnotic language techniques work (or how he/she claims they work). Then he/she allows few dissenting opinions on the board, and draws all kinds of conclusions by associating two concepts, making up an evil backstory, and repeating it often enough (often with "evidence" that consists of links to his/her earlier threads) until he/she drops the "might" or "could be" and states the suppositions as fact.
 
It doesn't seem to have occurred to any of the Rick Rossers that:

- RR participants are ex-cult members with a track record of falling for strong, charismatic, manipulative people who don't allow dissenting thought,
- The AntiCult is a strong, manipulative person who doesn't allow dissenting thought,
- and The AntiCult clearly knows a lot about manipulation, hypnosis, and similar tactics (though I have taken the liberty of consulting some professional hypnotists who trained with Erickson's daughter Carol, and they say AntiCult's explanations show evidence he's taken training, and evidence he doesn't understand what he's talking about).
 
I'll bet AntiCult is laughing his/her head off as he/she twists that entire community around his/her little finger, using exactly the same techniques that he/she is blasting others for using.

JGF75, that last statement by you is something to take a close look at.  I'll repeat it: "I'll bet AntiCult is laughing his/her head off as he/she twists that entire community around his/her little finger, using exactly the same techniques that he/she is blasting others for using." 

That is quite an assumption for you to make.  Somehow you actually believe that this Anticult person is "twisting that entire community around his/her little finger", yet you cannot (so far) admit that Byron Katie is doing something quite akin to that, except on a MUCH grander scale? 

Your suggestion that The Anticult is some sort of "performance artist" is rather over the top.  JGF75, I dare to say that it does seem, at least to me, that you put on quite a performance yourself, in your rant about The Anticult displayed above.  You accused him or her of twisting people around their finger, yet you seemed to be attempting to do such a thing yourself.  There, I said it. :-)

Why on God's good earth are you not at least as upset about Byron Katie as you have been about The Anticult, who is merely putting forth information for people to assess?  Joanieg supplied a great series of quotes above about Byron Katie, given to us originally by Arienariadne, indicating serious problems with Byron Katie.  Problems such as many people becoming quite unhinged in Byron Katie's seminars - and paying a lot of money for the privilege. 

In case you have not noticed by now, several members in this Guruphiliac forum have indicated that they are simpatico with, or even involved with, the Rick Ross forum.  Please desist from making gross generalizations about and otherwise insulting the "Rick Rossers".  It is not helping your cause (whatever that is) and I for one do not appreciate it.

Furthermore, please know that I am yet another person in this forum who appreciates the Rick Ross forum. :-)

As well as this one!

L

Somehow you actually believe that this Anticult person is "twisting that entire community around his/her little finger", yet you cannot (so far) admit that Byron Katie is doing something quite akin to that, except on a MUCH grander scale?

-lifestream

excellent point

JGF75, I dare to say that it does seem, at least to me, that you put on quite a performance yourself, in your rant about The Anticult displayed above. You accused him or her of twisting people around their finger, yet you seemed to be attempting to do such a thing yourself. There, I said it. :-)

-lifestream

watch out. you too might get accused of performance art 
(kidding *wink*)

Please desist from making gross generalizations about and otherwise insulting the "Rick Rossers".  It is not helping your cause (whatever that is) and I for one do not appreciate it.
Furthermore, please know that I am yet another person in this forum who appreciates the Rick Ross forum. :-)
As well as this one!
-lifestream

amen sista/brotha

I think TheWork is a business and a money making machine. I think Katie is looking to leave a protected business for her children to run in her demise; she was a business woman before she 'woke up' so maybe she's just switched businesses. That process is repeated in many families across the world, and there's nothing wrong with that, except ... it feels incongruent. It smacks of something not being quite right - I've read things about her in the past when she found it hard to communicate with people, to find the words and I think I read somewhere that she chooses to connect with 'us' and therefore had to relearn language etc. Perhaps she's connected a little too much and is now indeed 'one of us'.
What a show!

-sandyfeet

amen again !