Talk:Large-group awareness training/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

---

The role that LGAT's are playing in society is very important, and will become more-so, I believe, with time.

What we need is someone who wants to write more into this article.

While I agree that LGAT's are rip-offs, I think it's cool the way that they are an outlet for people to think about themselves, their friends, what they are doing. People who come out of LGAT's think about themselves and their societies in ways that they have never thought before. They discover many more possibilities, and receive an education in human interactions and cybernetics theory. It's true that it's annoying when they try to sell you on their program, or try to sell you magnets, or whatever inane thing it is that they're doing. But I think that there's something here worth deeper study and appreciation.

I imagine that in the future, there will be something like free LGATs organized over the Internet.

This article is a good starting off point, we now need to add in some of the other perspectives.

-- LionKimbro (who, incidentally, is not an LGAT person, but has observed from afar)

This discussion is about the article, not about your experience in a lgat. I think the old version should be reinstated. It included some useful links.

This discussion is about the article, not about your experience in a LGAT. I think the old version should be reinstated. It included some useful links. -Squid 1980

I'm troubled by this article, because it is, essentially, nothing but opinion -- even if those opinions are right. If we could identify who has these opinions, and note that they are newsworthy (because they're a large group, or because they're famous), then we could go with Wikipedia's policy of providing facts about opinions. I don't know enough about the subject to do this myself; maybe someone else does. --WillBriggs 02:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

This article is not NPOV

"What's good for the goose..." and all that. It could also use more history of the LGAT movement. I'll contribute when I get some time. Kat'n'Yarn 07:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Repeated Vandalism An encyclopedia must be objective. Every attempt to provide details of the Mankind Project, or to balance the presentation, has been met by vandalism. The vandals are apparently advocates of MKP who do not want objective content of the weekend or links to critics of it.

Stop vandalizing all attempts to bring in an element of objectivity and accountability.

LGAT

LGAT also can mean Lesbian Gay Awareness training, I was surprised to find Large Group Awareness training....

NPOV template

I do not believe this article to be impartial, so have flagged it with the NPOV template. If these groups are often detrimental, then say so, but it's unnecessary to paint it as if they are all devil-spawned groups for 'brainwashing' (there's even no scientific consensus over what 'brainwashing' is) the God-fearing people of the world. You can say that researchers consider them to be similar to cults, you can say that people are actively trying to destroy them. But Wikipedia is not any of these particular people. -- Sasuke Sarutobi 17:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I've re-ordered the article in an attempt to reduce bias. I've described the term as 'controversial', since it, well, is. I'd also say that at least some of the perceived negativity in the training relates not only to the method, but also to what people think is being preached. This is original research, though, so I'm omitting this. -- Sasuke Sarutobi 18:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The last 2 edits you've made so far look alright. Smeelgova 00:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC).

I removed the word "controversial". For the most part the term itself is not controversial, it is the practice of Large Group Awareness Training that is controversial. Please provide a reference where this word is used by reputable sources to describe this term. Smeelgova 13:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

The term has also been severely watered down and expanded from Margaret Singer's last descriptions of it in Cults in our Midst (book) by interest groups such as the Christian countercult movement and Rick Ross (consultant). There seems to be a tug of war between money-driven groups such as Scientology and Landmark Education on one hand, religious scholars who study new religious movements in a historical context and the licensed therapy groups, each of which cultivates their own stable of expert witnesses who also make money on the arguments and from the various families and victims involved. Given that the term was coined by Singer in a relatively narrow context, it seems best to focus initially on her original formulation. There is a good piece by a fellow named Chris Mathe I saw at [1] which seems to address all the camps in a balanced way. Perhaps a focus on his cautions and Singer's original text (NOT extensions after her death) would be best, given that Singer's main issues seemed to be on the way such methods were being infiltrated into the workplace setting with inadequate pre-screening and a clear profit motive. Then again, having once attended such a training I am obviously the brain-washed pawn of Satan and my nameless Manchurian Candidate masters. 8^) Rorybowman 17:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Very interesting, but unfortunately this is your opinion. The Chris Mathe link did not work. At any rate, we should stick to information cited from reputable sourced material. Smeelgova 22:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

Hmmm. http://perso.orange.fr/eldon.braun/awareness/choosingx.htm [2]. My opinion aside, the term is Margaret Singer's and going back to the original source will tighten it up appreciably. I currently have an ILL request to get Singer's original book, which I think will narrow it down appropriately. From there it should be a small matter to track how others have picked it up from Singer and expanded it to its current usage. I believe it was also used in the earlier DIMPAC report and I shall try to find a copy of that. As an academic, I suspect that Singer's arguments are pretty darn precise, and going to those will help to clarify and improve the article. Rorybowman 17:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good, it is a most fascinating book. I still maintain that we should stick to utilizing information/material from reputable secondary sources in this matter. Smeelgova 17:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

What issues need to be addressed to remove the NPOV tag? Rorybowman 22:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

None, because there is always WP:BOLD. Smee 15:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC).

Origins in DIMPAC Report

A quote from pp 37-39 of the 1986 DIMPAC report:

Large-Group Awareness Training

Historical Background

The Human Potential Movement bloomed in the 1950's and 1960's. Sensitivity and encounter groups spread rapidly, promising increased communication, intensified experience, and expanded consciousness. Business, educational, and other groups were sold sensitivity training programs, some conducted by psychologists, but most led by non-professionals who used the [38] processes and techniques developed by psychologists. There soon appeared the commercially packaged large-group awareness trainings (LGATs), which combined a number of the encounter and sensitivity techniques with various sales, influence, indoctrination, and behavior control techniques.

Most existing commercial LGATs grew out of a format developed in the early 1960s by William Penn Patrick, who labeled his venture Leadership Dynamics Institute (LDI). This was the first of what has become a smorgasbord of commercially sold LGATs.

Church and Carnes (1972) describe the original LDI program as an encounter group training session costing $1,000 and in which persons "were held virtual prisoners for four days of living hell during which members of the class were beaten, deprived of food and sleep, jammed into coffins, forced to perform degrading sexual acts, and even crucified" (p. 178). Purportedly, this commercial encounter group would make persons "better leaders and executives." The seminar was supposed to rid people of their "hang-ups," teach total obedience, and motivate participants to persuade other persons to take the training. Patrick, who headed Holiday Magic Cosmetics, Mind Dynamics, LDI, and other pyramid sales organizations, decreed that attending an LDI "seminar" was required for anyone wishing a management position with Holiday [39] Magic. Attendees were kept in the dark about what they would experience at these seminars, as "graduates" were pledged not to reveal their experiences. The venture ended amidst multiple law suits in California courts.

Some changes have occurred in subsequent LGATs, while certain features have remained. In most of the new groups, attendees continue to pledge secrecy and push the product on friends and acquaintances within a pyramid sales structure. The status of "graduates" of the LGATs is generally dependent upon the number of recruits they bring in. Eliciting most criticism, however, is the extensive use of deceptive and indirect, and even coercive, techniques of persuasion and control at all levels of the organization, including the training.[3] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rorybowman (talk • contribs) 18:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

• Interesting, but this was not the original origins of the movement, you should check out some of the links/scholarly articles in the External links section of the article at present. Smeelgova 18:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

There was an earlier use? Terrific! The "google scholar" link is terrific but a lot of those articles are in restricted PubMed spaces that I can't get to, so I'm hoping other editors can track them down and insert the appropriate references. Checking out the abstracts, many are very interesting. I would particularly welcome references to earlier uses of the term. Thanks for tracking down so many of these citations! Rorybowman 18:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I am sure they are there. Earlier uses of the term were mentioned in the wiki article before I started to edit it. I will find citations for this. Smeelgova 18:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

Section "Examples of supposed LGATs"

There are a lot of redlines in this list and checking some of these groups I'm seeing some pretty tenuous representations: some as vague as a single listing by name at [4] or [5]. By Singer's definition there is no way that Promise Keepers is an LGAT and some groups (such as The Hunger Project which are listed on those pages are not listed here. Is there any logic to what is listed and not listed or does someone just have to have listed it somewhere once? I would appreciate it if some of the anonymous editors who have added groups here could at least begin fleshing out the redlines. Perhaps change the subheading to "Examples of alleged LGATs?" Rorybowman 01:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Per your suggestion, I have changed the subsection heading from "supposed" to "alleged". Smeelgova 02:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

Looking at the history of this article it seems that this list was introduced on 18 January 2003 [6] as a fairly direct copy from http://www.csj.org/infoserv_groups/grp_lgat/grp_lgat_index.htm, which is the primary source for most of these. Other than being listed on that page and by Rick Ross, how many of these fit the LGAT definition? I just don't see it, but am off to bed now. Rorybowman 05:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The Alphabetical List

I spent some time yesterday trying to sort out thee many redlines and am confused. I'll put down what I see about these groups and let others weigh in on whether they should be in this article or not. The list itself seems to have been copied into http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Large_Group_Awareness_Training&oldid=852653 from a list at http://www.csj.org/infoserv_groups/grp_lgat/grp_lgat_index.htm and then added to willy-nilly

• Alpha Course is a mainstream religious education program. How does that meet Singer's criteria?
• Cannon Training / The Great American Business Owner|[7] seems to be a motivational speaker
• Context Associates is a redline and should at least have an offsite link to whatever it is
• Erhard Seminars Training is explicitly within Singer's definition, the ur-LGAT
• Exegesis was presumably a bot-link to exegesis and so I removed that wrong wikilink
• Garden Company redline
• Insight was another (bot-generated) wlink that did not reference an organization
• Impact Trainings should at least have an off-site pointer
• Klemmer & Associates points to a stub but is clearly within the motivational genre
• Landmark Education sued Singer so clearly belongs here
• Lifespring is another Erhard descendant and falls within Singer's definitions
• Life Training / Kairos Foundation, who and where? should at least have an offsite ref or be removed
• Mankind Project is one I know of so I will stay out of this other than to note it came in wholesale with the original list
• Momentus is redline and should have an off-site link or be de-wfied. Who is it?
• Personal Best Seminars seems to generic as a business name, should have an article or link or be removed
• PSI World seems to have been an earlier name for "Pace Setter International" now http://www.psiseminars.com/aboutus/aboutus.html, yes?
• Promise Keepers is clearly not an LGAP by Singer's definition: far too short and public
• Resource Realization/ WWASP should probably just be a link to WWASP in Utah
• Silva Method is a remote viewing outfit now, but may have some history as an LGAT that I don't appreciate
• Sterling Institute of Relationships is at http://www.sterling-institute.com but Arthur Kasarjian's stage name has another owner
• Training Phoenix 2000 a very vague redline, I say link it or lose it
• Werner Erhard and Associates is clearly addressed by Singer
• Whole Mind Learning (WML) redline, link it or lose it
• WorldWorks redline link it or lose it

Various other organizations such as The Hunger Project came here from http://www.csj.org/infoserv_groups/grp_lgat/grp_lgat_index.htm and have been delinked. I would argue that since the term is most strongly associated with Singer it is more responsible to hold to Singer's original definition. Rorybowman 17:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

We can easily avoid concerns by removing all of these items from this article, and creating a new list article. I will do that. Smee 17:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

Smee, you are a Solomon! Might I suggest reference links on each entry to indicate who listed it as an LGAT and an external link if possible? I'm not sure it is relevant to include all of these redlines as wikilinks, particularly the orphaned groups. I can help with those references if you like. I'll let the Alpha proponents add that one back in themselves. Rorybowman 17:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment! So rare these days on wiki... At any rate, yes, I agree with what you have said, reference links would be helpful. As to this Alpha group you mention, I am not familiar with it, and will not add it unless I know more from other sources. Smee 17:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC).