Indeed, on the worst crimes against humanity, and perpetrators...
I do think it is very important to understand the etiology of LGAT's, and the rationale that influenced the development of this 'approach'. I believe 'one' reason it has been so difficult to interdict these activities (to regulate their use, or ban them all together) is that 'reputable' researchers/practitioners were engaged in these techniques, and still are. There is the idea, maybe apocryphal, that the developers of sensitivity training (T-groups) -- and much of this work took place at the Esalen Institute, at the National Lab in Bethel, Maine, attempted to distance themselves for Erhard, and those who 'commercialized' these methods, the idea being that it was this commercialization, "enlightenment in a Weekend", and delivery by non-experts that led to the psychological carnage of so many participants.
Even if that is the case (the distancing), there is a lengthy history of casualties occurring in expertly-administered group therapy, and group training sessions (corporate). I am a witness to casualties of coach training, which included LGAT, in Asia, and quite recently. It is my impression that these incidents have been reported, and reported, and reported by concerned individuals -- with virtually no response coming from psych quarters. Sooo....one has to assume that it is held by some people in high places, that there is some intrinsic value to this 'work', that outweighs the risk entailed to 'some' participants.
I would say there are quite a few precedents for this in the annals of mental health activities; forms of 'therapy' that have been roundly debunked, but continue to be administered.
All for now,
Bakka
I do think it is very important to understand the etiology of LGAT's, and the rationale that influenced the development of this 'approach'. I believe 'one' reason it has been so difficult to interdict these activities (to regulate their use, or ban them all together) is that 'reputable' researchers/practitioners were engaged in these techniques, and still are. There is the idea, maybe apocryphal, that the developers of sensitivity training (T-groups) -- and much of this work took place at the Esalen Institute, at the National Lab in Bethel, Maine, attempted to distance themselves for Erhard, and those who 'commercialized' these methods, the idea being that it was this commercialization, "enlightenment in a Weekend", and delivery by non-experts that led to the psychological carnage of so many participants.
Even if that is the case (the distancing), there is a lengthy history of casualties occurring in expertly-administered group therapy, and group training sessions (corporate). I am a witness to casualties of coach training, which included LGAT, in Asia, and quite recently. It is my impression that these incidents have been reported, and reported, and reported by concerned individuals -- with virtually no response coming from psych quarters. Sooo....one has to assume that it is held by some people in high places, that there is some intrinsic value to this 'work', that outweighs the risk entailed to 'some' participants.
I would say there are quite a few precedents for this in the annals of mental health activities; forms of 'therapy' that have been roundly debunked, but continue to be administered.
All for now,
Bakka