Yes #7 is a very peculiar thing to say about what is described in #2
Why would a "philosophical" "discussion" seminar have to say that it's not a substitute for therapy and that it's not run by mental health professionals?
This is a blatant bait and switch exercise and a lot of people probably walk blindly into Landmark thinking it's a place where there are lectures on philosphical concepts and practical ideas are discussed (which is what I would infer from the "curriculum" on their website). Or things like practical team building puzzle exercises (how to get the fox, the chicken and sack of grain across a river in boat that can only hold one plus the rower at a time).
Bakkagirl wrote:
"I would suggest, too, that the issue with LGAT entails more than the delivery of these programs by un-trained facilitators. This assumes that "sensitivity training", "encounter groups", "T-groups" delivered by psychologists are safe and are[ in some way efficacious. I guess that research would have to entail, too, delivery of these interventions in a corporate context."
As far as I'm aware these are psychology methods that are long discrdited and now deemed unethical (or at least ethically dubious) - even in an academic experimental environment with informed consent of the subjects and not involving sensitive personal information. These are probably on par with the horrific experiments that were once conducted in psychiatric hospitals early in the 20th century and before. Electric shock therapy, lobotomies, and such.
However trained professionals (at least ought to) know what methods are suitable for use and what are no longer acceptable. For example a GU Doctor knows that you don't treat syphilis with mercury vapour - even though that was thought the best cure a few hundred years ago.
Why would a "philosophical" "discussion" seminar have to say that it's not a substitute for therapy and that it's not run by mental health professionals?
This is a blatant bait and switch exercise and a lot of people probably walk blindly into Landmark thinking it's a place where there are lectures on philosphical concepts and practical ideas are discussed (which is what I would infer from the "curriculum" on their website). Or things like practical team building puzzle exercises (how to get the fox, the chicken and sack of grain across a river in boat that can only hold one plus the rower at a time).
Bakkagirl wrote:
"I would suggest, too, that the issue with LGAT entails more than the delivery of these programs by un-trained facilitators. This assumes that "sensitivity training", "encounter groups", "T-groups" delivered by psychologists are safe and are[ in some way efficacious. I guess that research would have to entail, too, delivery of these interventions in a corporate context."
As far as I'm aware these are psychology methods that are long discrdited and now deemed unethical (or at least ethically dubious) - even in an academic experimental environment with informed consent of the subjects and not involving sensitive personal information. These are probably on par with the horrific experiments that were once conducted in psychiatric hospitals early in the 20th century and before. Electric shock therapy, lobotomies, and such.
However trained professionals (at least ought to) know what methods are suitable for use and what are no longer acceptable. For example a GU Doctor knows that you don't treat syphilis with mercury vapour - even though that was thought the best cure a few hundred years ago.