Corboy wrote:
"LGATs probably cannot afford to do this kind of research.
(Cough)"
I did see that *cough* ;-D
I just wanted to put together a couple of things that I have noticed from this thread, and connect a couple of dots. Y'all can correct me if I'm stitching together something that doesn't fit.
Bakkagirl has mentioned PhD's who have inexplicably jumped onboard with this whole ICF scenario. Somehow this is legitimate in their minds.
Another item brought up by bakkagirl, on this thread, is the way that recent corporate culture includes "social responsibility." I would add to that a certain sense of entitlement, especially if the people involved see their appropriation of material as being "in the highest good of all." I definitely saw that entitlement in my Landmark recruiter, and by others at Landmark.
My son was involved in research, as a subject, in the 80's and 90's. Much of the research was very similar to what corboy has just described. He participated voluntarily, and was compensated. Most of the researchers were interns, graduate students, etc. At that time, I trusted their integrity.
Since then, the culture has changed, and many of the people in the researcher's age group would have been indoctrinated into a sense of entitlement in the public school system.
So we have PhD's, some of whom would have been involved in this research, (paid for by various universities), joining organizations like ICF, and thinking that if they appropriate the results of this research "for the highest good of all, " they are justified. And of course they have been thought-reformed right into being absolutely convinced that all of this actually is "in the highest good of all."
The LGATs really don't have any great need to "afford" anything. Add to that the fact that I DO believe that LGATs do their own "field tests" of this research, (which they can tweak to their purposes), and that they do it quite cheaply. Consider that the people conducting the research are "volunteers," and that the subjects are NOT informed, are NOT compensated, and have NOT given consent.
"LGATs probably cannot afford to do this kind of research.
(Cough)"
I did see that *cough* ;-D
I just wanted to put together a couple of things that I have noticed from this thread, and connect a couple of dots. Y'all can correct me if I'm stitching together something that doesn't fit.
Bakkagirl has mentioned PhD's who have inexplicably jumped onboard with this whole ICF scenario. Somehow this is legitimate in their minds.
Another item brought up by bakkagirl, on this thread, is the way that recent corporate culture includes "social responsibility." I would add to that a certain sense of entitlement, especially if the people involved see their appropriation of material as being "in the highest good of all." I definitely saw that entitlement in my Landmark recruiter, and by others at Landmark.
My son was involved in research, as a subject, in the 80's and 90's. Much of the research was very similar to what corboy has just described. He participated voluntarily, and was compensated. Most of the researchers were interns, graduate students, etc. At that time, I trusted their integrity.
Since then, the culture has changed, and many of the people in the researcher's age group would have been indoctrinated into a sense of entitlement in the public school system.
So we have PhD's, some of whom would have been involved in this research, (paid for by various universities), joining organizations like ICF, and thinking that if they appropriate the results of this research "for the highest good of all, " they are justified. And of course they have been thought-reformed right into being absolutely convinced that all of this actually is "in the highest good of all."
The LGATs really don't have any great need to "afford" anything. Add to that the fact that I DO believe that LGATs do their own "field tests" of this research, (which they can tweak to their purposes), and that they do it quite cheaply. Consider that the people conducting the research are "volunteers," and that the subjects are NOT informed, are NOT compensated, and have NOT given consent.