Landmark. Advanced Student's Book book. Read reviews from world's largest community for readers. Builds on what learners bring to class and respects thei. Using real-life listening and reading, Landmark gets students thinking, noticing, and reacting. Stewart Barbara. Landmark Advanced Student s Book. Файлы. download Landmark Advanced: Student's Book: Students Book Advanced level by Simon Haines, Barbara Stewart from Waterstones today! Click and Collect from.

Landmark Advanced Students Book

Language:English, Dutch, German
Published (Last):15.08.2016
ePub File Size:26.72 MB
PDF File Size:10.83 MB
Distribution:Free* [*Register to download]
Uploaded by: RENAY

Landmark Advanced: Student's Book: Students Book Advanced level by Simon Haines, , available at Book Depository with. Landmark Advanced: Student's Book: Students Book Advanced level by Simon Haines, Barbara Stewart starting at $ Landmark Advanced: Student's Book: . Landmark builds on what learners bring to class and respects their I used this book myself to improve my English, and now I use it for my A-students in class.

If she went to the last session without formal withdrawal, she did complete. It led her to finally open up with the truth about her life. She waited a long time to do that! One wonders about her coaching. She'd have had a personal coach in the SELP, but sometimes participants slip through the cracks. I knew what was going on, generally, with all of my participants.

However, I spent a bit more time with them, sometimes much more time, than the standard. Something missing from the manual: active verification that participants are not sacrificing their lives to participate. If nothing else, this blog might lead to upgrades to the trainings. What happened with the blogger, should not happen my stand , and it does my assessment , possibly still. Her stories generally ring true.

She is describing things that actually happened, for the most part, at least, factoring for the usual failures of human memory. But she has overlaid that with a story, an interpretation, and she loses the distinction, she believes the story.

That's her choice, to be sure -- we choose what to believe -- but we'll see what she actually says. Much of what she says is of high interest, she is pointing to hazards of participation, and these are, in general, real hazards. I've certainly seen what she describes. It is, however, far from the whole story. Notice, she "begs to differ. She's missed that "exceptions prove the rule. I have assisted in many capacities and interacted closely with LE participants, assistants and leaders.

This dates this. My first comments below were made without having seen the About page. I knew this was not recent, that was clear. It is now clear that this was up to 15 years ago, perhaps. I was so heavily involved, and so conditioned to believe that I belonged at Landmark, that it took me too long to realize that I was in fact giving up on my own life.

What took so long? Well, she was "heavily conditioned. Policies have changed, she would no longer be excluded, but might be "advised" to not participate without having consulted a professional. Back then, she violated the rules. She is concerned about whether or not she "lied. She did not disclose a relevant fact, and that led to consequences when she did disclose it.

This person, in , was still liveing in a world of right and wrong, innocence and blame, and so she is reactive to a claim that she lied. What was actually said, we don't know, because someone sensitive to being called a liar may hear "liar" when what is actually said is something else, like "You did not tell the whole truth.

But here, something material, she was directly asked, on a legally binding document, she did not disclose. And that meant that she did not belong. In fact, these things are waived all the time. The Introduction Leader Program worked exactly as designed for her. What was hidden was revealed. That is one of the trainings in Landmark where it is very difficult to hide. She managed it for almost the entire program, and may still have managed it beyond that. What she disclosed was not the actual difficulty she was having, but something that had happened long in the past, and while the Center staff took it seriously, it was not the actual problem.

In the end, she chose not to hide, which was a huge step for her, she is to be acknowledged for that. However, then, her real training could begin.

She chose to bail, dramatically, and with a lot of blame. This blog is a place for people with similar experiences but are too afraid to speak openly, or else have been ostracized for doing so. Landmark is a human society, and shows the traits of human society. Sometimes it rises above that. Not always. This participant thought of Landmark as something "out there. I did. I was told I was crazy for this, but, in fact, I know that this was very, very true to the training.

Are you in charge of the corporate office? I am responsible for what I do and don't do, with this and everything on the planet. That is the training. I do make choices, set priorities, etc. I do not do everything at once, who could? And as a result of this stand, I see miracles. Who is creating those? Not a useful idea. What is useful is the stand that I am responsible. There is an alternate stand: God is responsible.

That one can also be useful if we understand it. Landmark, qua Landmark, does not talk about God. This participant wanted a miracle, that her life would turn around, but was not willing to take responsibility for that not happening, which is the same as taking responsibility for it happening. This blog is NOT a place for people to defend Landmark Education, since there are many other places on the net to do that. That's not surprising. She does not want to hear anything that might contradict her developed position or stand.

She's quite explicit, one of the topics is "ex-coachable. It was unravelling in the ILP, as it usually does. Lack of authenticity becomes visible in that program. I recently supported a mock, a person preparing for their candidatable lead, this was set up close to me, so it was easy to go. The person had already met all the measures to be candidated. He was a financial consultant, and apparently successful, he could impress people with his reliability, he had the skill of inspiring trust.

But when he shared his possibility, based on a situation in his life, something was off. Details were missing. It all seemed too pat. It was flat. His possibility was about listening to his wife, being sympathetic. What he was not saying, it came out, was that they were divorcing.

The marriage had broken down. He wasn't dealing with real life, but with a nice-nice imagination. In a real introduction, people would have smelled a rat. The room full of Introduction Leaders -- and me -- dug and found out and coached him. My God, man, be real!

You are going through what might seem like hell. Your strong suit is looking good! Stop looking so effing good! And if he followed that coaching, his life would turn around. The divorce might still go through, but Maybe his wife was tired of living with Mr. We never know, family situations are complex and there are commonly interacting neuroses. But transformation begins with authenticity. If you can't pay the effing rent, say so!

I was coaching the SELP and completely ran out of money for the first time in, what, ever? I had very little money fifty years ago. Now, I'm on social security, as I was when I ran out. I didn't have the money to drive to the next session. So I said so at the coach's meeting. So they threw money at me. I completed. In that program, my car engine blew up, I got pleurisy in the middle of Workday 3 and the leader had me carted off to the hospital, but I completed the program. Pleurisy is famous for intense pain.

Now I know. What would you prefer, pleurisy or a spear in the side. Okay, Pleurisy, because it can easily be treated and a spear in the side has other complications, eh? But as to pain, I don't know. Toss a coin? In the next time I coached the SELP, there were many breakdowns, many possible excuses not to complete. None of them stopped me, what I did to complete still amazes me.

When I had difficulties, I shared them. I did not expect others to fix them, but sometimes help was given. The Leader took me home one time, and then drove me to my home the next morning. I took the bus when I could not get ride-sharing. Taking the bus into the Center was risky, because there was no bus home.

On one or two occasions, I went in, not knowing how I would get home. I always got home. The ILP is an enormous investment of time.

In fact, though, one can minimize the time, which might mean sacrificing meeting measures, that's all. Meeting measures is not the goal of the ILP. But someone who must look good may not disclose what's happening. Someone who is afraid of blame may not disclose, and this blogger was definitely afraid of blame. She thinks one cannot speak up in the Forum. In fact, one can, and great things happen when people speak up.

Whenever one person has an issue, many others also have it, typically. So if one speaks up, it can actually help many. But there is a fear, many of us have it, of looking bad if we speak up. Of being blamed, considered stupid or whatever. It's obvious where this comes from! Childhood, in a word. This is all covered in the Forum, it is very basic Landmark. Yet it can take years to realize the implications.

Definitely, it can take more than two. This person might have continued indefinitely if she had not taken the ILP. So, from this point of view, that was a very good choice! Much, much preferable, to be authentically angry with Landmark than to be inauthentically clinging to the teat that will not, under these conditions, give milk! I did not see the "earlier posts" at first, after forming an intention to respond.

This is going to be long. So, here goes: This is all a first draft, and much of it was written without having seen most of the posts The blogger, or anyone, is invited to comment here, as with anything on Wikiversity. Opinions should be attributed.

Landmark Advanced Teacher's Book

Disagreement is not disruptive, it is discussion, which is constructive. I will manage this page for clarity, ultimately, so what is here may be refactored. Comment on the Talk page "Discuss" link above will generally be left alone, but may also be refactored if this improves readability. While Landmark actively protects its reputation, it does not do so by having employees or volunteers comment on blogs, etc.

This is Wikiversity. One of the things I do here is to analyze material I find on the internet. Someone edited the Glossary to request a definition for "unreasonable request.

So I googled "unreasonable request landmark. The link was to the blog , so the most recent page displayed: Never going back to the promised land: this one thing: Epilogue.

Follow the Authors

I read it, and decided to write a commentary on it, before I realized how long it was, the full blog. So I spent about four full days, and some days, maybe over ten hours. Notice the quick assumption. Do Landmark graduates certainly including volunteers and possibly even including staff "comment on blogs. They are human beings with access to the internet, with stories and opinions and experience and the ability to write, and they are often interested in Landmark as a topic.


However, is Landmark "having" them do it? I've never seen it mentioned and there is no sign of any coordinated effort that I've seen. Landmark itself is famous for defending it's reputation. Write a magazine article and call them a "cult," and you are likely to hear from one of their lawyers.

That is a Landmark action, whereas internet commentary is the ad hoc activity of graduates and others acting on their own without instructions, encouragement, or specific training. So too, most criticism of Landmark is such, though there is a little that is organized. And Landmark has been known to go after that. I doubt that Blogger will hear from Landmark lawyers. If she does, I'd like to know about it. Rather, Landmark does engender high loyalty, and there are a lot of comments about Landmark that anyone who has done the courses knows are uninformed.

There is some legitimate criticism out there at least that's my story! Landmark leaders and participants are human beings. There is a story that in an early est training, someone mentioned a Werner-ism, "We are all assholes.

You are turkeys. Gobble Gobble. That's a hazard of kindergarten, people who have been through it imagine they know more than those who haven't. And, maybe, sometimes, they do. But it's still only kindergarten.

So, right away, I know that this person is very ready to judge. That's only normal, very human. This is good — he followed the assignment. The Forum leader praised him for an honest sharing, but said he left one important thing out: what actually happened. I've seen many, many like this. It also happens to be standard therapeutically, but that's another issue, the Forum is not therapy.

Rather, it is ontology. Something stands out very clearly to any graduate here: the participant does not want to say what actually happened. Instead, the participant reveals summary interpretations. Took advantage. Where it is found is becoming grounded in what happened. Without interpretation. Yes, we did interpret events, and those interpretations might be "reasonable" or otherwise, they might be socially popular or otherwise, but they trap us into a world of good and bad, right and wrong, abuser and victim, and that world is deadly.

I have seen what happens when the participant is coachable and simply says what happened. Often, with almost nothing else, even with what would have been considered a "horrible story," freedom appears, it can be almost like magic.

The "wrongness" keeps us locked into forever being damaged. The Forum leader could smell it and went for it. Authenticity is a high value in Landmark. I'll say that "likely" was an error, and "fake" was a story. To tone it down, I would now say that the forgiveness was, from the ongoing condition of the participant, likely not fully authentic. However, the Forum Leader will not go after every aspect of a share, and will acknowledge courage as courage. If the Leader actually said, "I acknowledge you for your brave share," that says nothing about the forgiveness.

I recall not being sure of gender and aware of the danger of assumptions. However, somehow I'd formed the idea it was a woman, and some of what I wrote indicated that. I'm still not seeing any indication of age of incident or other details.

Immediately, the Forum Leader excused himself from the room, which was baffling. About 45 seconds later, the Forum Leader comes back into the room and steps on stage with the participant to resume the conversation. What happened? He touched you? Nobody is "forced" to do anything in the Forum.

The participant was not pulled out of the audience and asked personal questions. They went to the mike. If the participant did not want to talk about this -- as a choice rather than as an already existing reluctance or embarassment -- the participant could easily have said so.

Of course, not being able to stand up for yourself is part of not having this training! So far, no "detail about sexual abuse, only the most superficial aspect, "he touched me. I think it's obvious what the Leader might have done. Looked at the file in the office. But it doesn't matter and that is another aspect to this. The blogger is baffled, in general, doesn't understand what is going on, and that the Leader left the room isn't really relevant to the story.

But, definitely, something is wrong! Like I've said, this interchange is absolutely routine, though details vary. The blogger was "shaking. Yes, thanks. I will redact this, eventually, like I show here.

The Forum Leader knows where transformation is for this person, very likely. They are highly trained to do this. That does not mean they are perfect. They make mistakes, like anyone. But again, as I mention, I've seen the outcome of this many times. Someone observing it, like this blogger, may be horrified, but the participant gains freedom, freedom from something that may have been oppressing her for many years.

The problem with it being in front of an audience? Well, the standard belief about this is that it is shameful. Landmark encourages "taking responsibility," and "being at cause," but that is about the life we live, ongoing. It is not "blame the victim" for "abuse. We carry round the past, and that is what we are responsible for, what we do and continue to do.

Second, the leader wants him and us to distinguish what physically happened from his interpretation or story about what happened. That is, the Leader "believes" that. Touching is also a story, but on a different level, one routinely accepted. We never know what "really happened," but what is accepted is that the participant has memories, actual memories, and freedom is found in accepting them as "what happened. That is not what the Leader is saying, that is not what the distinction of "story" implies.

That trips up a lot of people. The distinction is very simple, in fact, children can understand it. Stories are, in the Landmark ontology, neither true nor false. They are inventions, human inventions, and they obviously serve purposes. When we don't know that they are inventions, though, they can control us. We think they are the "truth.

Life becomes an event that "happened to us," and usually that is not a happy story! The Forum is not a court of law, and the Leader is not interested in the "abuser" or "molester" here. The Leader is interested in the participant, and what will empower the participant. As long as the focus is on the abuser, there is no possibility of transformation.

What is being described here could be reportable child abuse. There may be mandated reporters in the room. There is a promise of confidentiality that Landmark makes. It can be broken, if the law requires it. It simply is not the business of Landmark. If there is reportable abuse, I have never encountered any stand that "abusers" should be protected.

This participant, though, is an adult, freely choosing to participate in a transformative training. Should they be handled with kid gloves? So far, I've seen no roughness from the Leader in this report. Consider for a moment what a victory it might be for this person to be free of the shame, of the embarrassment!

I was shaking with anger from this. Not from the power of the distinction, but the implication it has in the real world. This completely misses the legal reality. First of all, if an illegally touched person gets on the stand and says "I was touched, but it wasn't abuse," -- which is not what the participant was being trained to say -- the criminal will still be convicted.

No, there is an hysteria here. It happens to be a common one in present society. The same touching might be, in one case, legally child abuse, and in the another, not. It depends on how the court interprets motives, and a great deal of complexity. Or it might be very simple. But "victim" does not help the "victim," that I'm sure of.

That someone is stressed, distraught, confused, afraid, angry, all that can be consequences of "inappropriate touching. And massively disempowering in certain ways, though it is often life-saving initially. All that is needed to send child predators to jail is children trained to be able to tell the simple truth. He touched me, and they can say where they were touched.

This "child" -- no longer a child -- does not yet have that. I actually stood up in the audience and said this out loud.

Good for her. But is this man ever going to go to jail? It is not said if this was said to the Forum Leader. This is really normal, but We have very few details now, and Blogger seems to expect us to have certain reactions based on what she wrote.

There is this paradox: if participants were transformed, they would be able to confront perceived abuse by Leaders. But they are not.

When perceived abuse is confronted, we do not know what will happen. However, I've seen what happens when the one perceived as abusive was a Leader, and she turned on a dime. Other times I've seen a Leader take the complaint apart, and successfully. I'll say it is very tricky when one is coaching about a complaint about oneself, and the complaint is rooted in a misunderstanding.

There arises a possible conflict of interest. I'm not seeing any inappropriate details of sexual abuse in the story. I'm seeing that the blogger had such a strong reaction that many details will likely be missing from memory. We know no details of the event. My suspicion is that the details were not provided. We have no idea of when. We do not know if the offender was still alive people will often "forgive" people who are dead.

We have no idea how long ago this was and if others are at risk. Why does "he need to be arrested"? That is actually a decision to be made by the participant and then the police or district attorney , not the blogger.

To report or not to report. Assessing guilt, as to a crime, is not the job of the child or adult that the child has become, nor is it the job of the blogger. But the she thinks it is. Very much. The blogger is furious. At the molester in her mind, and at the Forum Leader for The Forum Leader did not say that abuse did not take place. When the leader shouted "NO," as reported, it was not to the story of "he took advantage of me," it was to this not being an answer to the question, which was then repeated.

Again, I've seen variations on this many times. I never told anyone about what I saw and heard there. I just continued to participate and listen, because you have to be non-resisting in the Landmark Forum.

But it kept bothering me.

We would not. When someone testifies in court, they are asked to report what happened, and they will specifically be instructed to avoid interpretation. Interpretation is for the court, or for expert witnesses, a similar matter. If we simply understand the truth as I see it about interpretations, does this mean that we stop interpreting? Of course not! If I hear about child abuse, that is, facts and reports come to me, or I witness something, that I consider child abuse -- my interpretation!

They then have a legal responsibility to determine if it is abuse or not. I'll just tell them what happened! What I know!

Landmark Worldwide

I may mention my interpretation, but No interpretation is real, except being really an interpretation. This is an ancient knowledge, Landmark did not invent this. Landmark distinguishes the realm of survival and the realm of "enrollment," which is about love, inspiration, all that good stuff. It does not deny the realm of survival, and this is a common misunderstanding.

Rackets belong to the realm of survival, and people often get the idea that "rackets are bad. So most of Landmark training is about learning to distinguish the difference between this or that, and becoming quick at it.

What I see here is that the blogger failed to understand the most basic Landmark distinction, distinguishing interpretation from what happened.

From this, I would have no hope in success in any Landmark endeavor, until that was remedied. Many do misunderstand this, to be sure, I'd say it is common. It is common to think that "stories" are wrong and bad, though one will never hear this coming from a format, it is simply assumed, like a lot of things, such as the blogger's idea of the unwritten rules of the Forum.

There are formal rules that participants agree to. What is stated. The blogger focuses on "abuse is not real," which she invented as an interpretation of what was actually said. And we can then see how this colored the rest of the blogger's participation.

That is a demonstration of how interpretation disempowers us! So, she is deeply disturbed, but doesn't tell anyone. Not just during the Forum. Why not? Look, it's obvious to me that the blogger was having a full-blown amygdala hijack, rooted in basic survival instincts and history, but if this had been shared, it might have been cleared up.

I can suspect a lot here, but don't yet have much evidence. It is said here in response to a comment that his deeply disturbing event was not mentioned, not just in the Forum, but elsewhere as well.

So the Blogger is giving us as a reason why, I'd read this, that she had been told to sit down after one or two sentences on the mike. No explanation of what she was doing. A Leader may make an ad hoc judgment that was was being said was not going to "further the conversation," which is very specific during courses.

That is, there is an agenda. However, there would still be many opportunities, and not just at the mike. Did she do any seminars? Her seminar group. Her SELP coach. Her ILP coach. The Advanced Course Leader, she tells us in another section, who said, "Any questions? Blogger was not about to reveal this occurring. She was afraid.

That fear was not created by Landmark, but was triggered by her Landmark experiences. From the point of view of designing the training, Landmark, to empower itself, will take responsibility. Sometimes it doesn't. That is, sometimes individuals don't, even if they are Leaders. I don't download it. There is almost certainly a source trauma.

It might not be as simple as her being sexually abused, as I mention. Witnessing abuse can sometimes generate stronger reactions in the witness than in the "victim. I don't believe that just appeared out of nowhere, and she knows how to tell a story she has done very well here, in many places.

I get angry about some of what she reports, the Leader claiming she had lied, for example. If she wants to know, she could probably find it, or at least identify a likely source. I was in therapy for years and the therapist told me I was likely hit when I was small, I had body reactions from it. I think I know the likely source, and much of my psychology can be derived from that. My mother.

But I have absolutely no memory of it. One the other hand, and this is a huge clue: I have practically no memory of my mother, either, not from early childhood. I remember the house. I can't see anyone in it.

And I knew this about my childhood memories when I was about I'm not downloading it. I think that sexual abuse is very possible, and it might not be consciously remembered.

But that is not the only possibility. That people will react to stories of sexual abuse is common, but this one is very mild. I've sat in meetings not in Landmark where far, far more disturbing stories were told, where everyone in the room was crying.

That this participant had such a strong reaction is a pointer to something I'd suspect the blogger needs to know, and doesn't. And doesn't want to find out. It is far easier to focus on others, and how wrong they were. Just my opinion! But I've seen a lot, I've seen people break through these things. We have it all backwards, normally. We think that being wrong is a terrible thing.

It's not. It's normal. Get over it! As long as we are afraid of "being wrong," we cannot truly find reality, which can be a terrible waste.

So, I'm writing this, as I read I often do that, write as I read, my reactions are authentic, and if they are wrong, so what? I'll only go back and change them if they would actually cause harm.

This is a wiki, what I write here remains unless it is "revision-deleted" or deleted, which takes administrative tools. It's in history. I am editing this and may continue to edit it and my drastically change it, but the original version is easily readable. So this was incredible to read: Fortunately, years later, I was to learn that forgiveness of wrongdoing what that traumatized participant was trying to do was not what I always thought it was.

Forgiveness is actually a way to release yourself from the wrongdoing and move forward. To do this most powerfully, one drops the idea of "wrongdoing. It happened. If there are actions to be taken, one can take them such as reporting what is judged as abuse. But these are in the realm of survival. We do not stop functioning in that realm, but survival is a game we are going to lose.

Playing that game is not where love and joy and freedom are found, practically the opposite.

When I was in the Forum, I was a long ways off from learning that. And it seems I should have learned it then. Because Landmark is so great; it works, right? Where does the "should" come from? See, if one does the work, certain flag words pop out, like "should. For whom does it work most reliably? For those who take responsibility for making it work. It would include not waiting years to share what is actually going on.

But this is where this blogger was. In the training, we take something like that, for ourselves, and make up an empowering story.

That's quite a trick, actually, but And then we can also declare what might seem impossible. We do not imagine that we have choice in many areas where we do, where simply declaring a choice can turn everything around.

Of course, one must then stand for it. It's not "magic," though sometimes it can seem like it is. It moves beyond words. We do. It can happen that "leaving Landmark" is absolutely perfect.

I've seen many walk out of the Introduction Leader Program. I never thought any of them were "wrong" for doing so. They were doing what they were choosing to do. If they were. That is, the "meaning" of what happens is invented. That realization is an endless well of possibilities. A couple of years ago, there was an experimental version of the Forum, testing techniques that will presumably be incorporated, it was called Direct Access. The reference is to our occurring world, how life occurs to us, and creating our occurring is Direct Access to creating our life.

Poslat příteli

Normally, we think we have no power over how things occur to us. As long as we believe we have no power over this, we are trapped by the condition of our own Already Always Listening.

I like this blogger. I can't wait to read the second installment. More will be revealed. We don't know age. The assumption presented by the blogger is that it was an adult, or at least someone older than the participant in the hot seat. Now, the blogger easily may not have told the whole story.

This much we know: the participant wanted to tell the story of forgiveness, was proud of it, perhaps. We do not know if there was actual contact for the "forgiveness. The theme here fits with other Landmark criticism, that, allegedly, Landmark "blames the victim. Landmark is not blaming victims. It is pulling the rug out from the entire ontology of Bad and Blame and Wrong. When that is disappeared, people still protect themselves and their children, etc.

Societies and organizations still have rules and laws and still enforce them, perhaps with a little more room for compassion. It is not compassionate to tolerate harm. However, it's well known: abusers are generally also victims. On the other side, if a victim lives the rest of their life, "ruined" because of the abuse, who is responsible for that?

It is not about blame, it is about responsibility, and responsibility is about power. No power, no responsibility. The victim who becomes an abuser is taking control, in a certain way. And they are responsible for the choices they make. Is that the "truth"?

This is a stand, an interpretation, a story, but an empowering one. If you come to me with a Tale of Woe, about how circumstances have ruined your life, my training tells me to first listen, to feel and show empathy with the pain, no matter who "caused it.

Is this "blame"? No, only through the knee-jerk definition of "blame" as being automatic when one causes something Bad. Landmark distinguishes and generally sets aside these knee-jerk conditioned reactions. Most of us are trained by our upbringing to avoid blame. It's obvious why, this is a social survival trait. There is limited time in the Forum, and a lot of material to present, and the presentation is not necessarily designed to generate a deep understanding, but to give an experience of freedom, an opening in the clouds of the past, the dramatic version of which is called "popping.

As I knew from my study of Zen, almost fifty years ago, w:kensho , if not followed by massive practice, fades and becomes a "pleasant memory. For some people, the breakthrough of the Forum is enough. It actually happens that people have this breakthrough from an Introduction. There are unfortunate aspects to the training, that, my opinion, exist because Landmark is also a human organization, and has a past, and relies on past experience. I saw clear examples, where an obviously inspiring idea was stopped because, a Forum Leader told, me, "they tried it and a child cried.

It looked bad. I confronted a few of these traits in my own Introduction Leader Program. One might note in the full blog that the blogger recognizes that some people in Landmark are spectacular.

The Center Manager who asked corporate for a full refund. There are Center Managers who would not do that. And there are Center Managers who would. However, thinking of that partial refund as an action of the Center Manager is limited thinking. In fact, I'd identify the cause -- remember, cause is a story -- as the blogger, who knew quite what she was doing.

She was being brave. She was asking for what she wanted, even if it was "unreasonable. This blogger got something from Landmark. She thinks it some sort of amazing discovery that the benefits arose when she left. That's simply not uncommon. Like the Less Wrong community, this is an organization which claims to empower people and enable them to achieve their goals.

I heard people recount how Landmark had enabled them to become a responsible adult, to build a relationship with their estranged son, to repair their relationship with their wife, to decide to quit their job and become funded as a grad student. It's quite successful in attracting members more than 1 million participants , so you may be interested to know how it works.

Note that I only attended one session; this is a first impression. If you have more experience with Landmark, please tell us about it in the comments. Also, a word of warning: Landmark Education is a for-profit employee-owned company.

If you go to one of these things, beware the Dark Arts. And after that retreat, there are more advanced seminars to sign up for. Forum graduates, who are universally enthusiastic about the positive change Landmark has effected in their lives, are encouraged to recruit their friends.

By the way, this is a really good way to recruit people. I had precommitted to not make any downloading decisions while at the seminar. An optimistic worldview The seminar was mostly a lecture conveying an empowering, optimistic worldview.

The message was that you can achieve anything, basically. Or, put more charitably, the message is that you can construct a personal narrative in which your actions are guided by goals and possibilities, rather than being limited by constraints. The speaker evoked laughter in some of the veterans — not humorous laughter, but the kind of giggle that comes from feeling all warm and fuzzy inside. The speaker was pretty good, admittedly.Like I've said, this interchange is absolutely routine, though details vary.

On one or two occasions, I went in, not knowing how I would get home. Something missing from the manual: active verification that participants are not sacrificing their lives to participate. Those six weeks included some of the most gratifying, collaborative conversations of my career. However, she is rationalizing her own disempowering habit. It's not that it's wrong. I've certainly seen what she describes. We were having Thanksgiving with people who have no frame of reference to what my friend was talking about.

This is a stand, an interpretation, a story, but an empowering one. When I was in the Forum, I was a long ways off from learning that.

KATELIN from Las Cruces
I do fancy reading books quicker. Feel free to read my other articles. I have only one hobby: trophy hunting.