Scary Larry back on campus!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Anonymous]

I don't know what Love is but I know what it isn't.  Love isn't exposing your inner self to a group.  I love my wife.  I don't tell her everything.  I love my kids, but I don't tell them how often I masturbate or what I think about when I do, for example.

That's all for the best. You sound like a real monster.

[Ursus]

Those are my ideas. Why aren't these guys citing me?

Forget work crew and all that. Let the control be a willing subject, fed up with the past and ready for reform. You're saying, or at least your articles is, that if Hyde limited the extent of ego regression, then it could work.

No... I actually think it is a very dangerous business to be mucking around with people's ideals and self-concepts like that, let alone adolescents who are at a very vulnerable point in their development, and hence even easier cannon fodder than the adults in the LGAT investigated in that article, let alone adolescents who are a captive audience in a boarding school and can not go home to exercise some reality-checks at the end of the day.

The excerpt I cited specifically mentions being in love as an example of a usually non-pathological ego regression.  At Hyde this cannot happen because:

• you are dealing with adolescents (self concept still not fully formed)
• you are dealing with a long-term residential habitat (no reality checks)
• you are dealing with a megalomaniac who want to make money off of you ('nuff said)

The coercive nature of the program along with the blatant goals of behavior modification put Hyde squarely in the realm of pathological.  And since Hyde School can not exist without the conditions noted by the bullets above, continued existence of Hyde will always be inherently pathological.

[Anonymous]

Excerpted From:
Pathology as "Personal Growth":
A Participant-Observation Study of Lifespring Training
Psychiatry, Vol 46, August 1983
By Janice Haaken, Ph.D. and Richard Adams, Ph.D.

The interpretive framework adopted here is supported by several psychoanalytic premises concerning group behavior. In discussing the relationship between ego functions and group behavior, Freud noted that "intensification of the affects and the inhibition of the intellect" characterized "primitive groups" (1959 p20). Primitive groups promote the blurring of ego boundaries and psychological merger with the group leader, who serves as an ego ideal for group members. By projecting ego and superego functions, e.g. the regulation and control of impulses, into the leader, members may express infantile aggressive and libidinal drives normally held in constraint (Kernberg 1980 p212). This psychological state may be described as regressive in that it is reminiscent of the experience of early childhood--the oceanic experience of oneness with the all-good, protective parent who mediates between the child's immediate needs and the external world.

Regression, however, does not inevitably imply pathology. From a psychoanalytic perspective, many healthy and adaptive forms of human activity, such as falling in love (Grunberger 1979 pp5-6) and artistic achievement (Kris 1964 p28), require the capacity to regress. When falling in love, one must be able to experience temporary states of psychological merger with another person and artistic achievement often involves access to impulses and irrational of primitive fantasies. In addition, the ability to work in groups or to engage in collective forms of social action requires the capacity to merge with the group ideals and group interests. The critical distinction in determining pathology in group members concerns the extent of regression--i.e., the dominance of primitive fantasies or impulses and the level of ego control maintained. By ego control, we mean the capacity for reality testing, for mobilizing adaptive defenses, for distinguishing between internal and external events, and for bringing affective states under rational control.

http://www.rickross.com/reference/lifes ... ring4.html

The gist of the your excerpt is that Hyde or any entity engaged in group-mediated behavior can succeed at no psychological cost. There must be a balance between ego regression and ego control.

As for your objections:

"You are dealing with adolescents (self concept still not fully formed)"

I don't think teens are at a higher risk. Ego regression can be a danger to adults as well as teens. The ego of an adult can regress to that of an adolescent, and beyond. We see this in cults.          

"You are dealing with a long-term residential habitat (no reality checks)"

It is reasonable to assume that reality checks can be implemented at Hyde, just as they are at other boarding schools.

""You are dealing with a megalomaniac who wants to make money off of you ('nuff said)"

So they'll have to lose you know who.

I'm unqualified to judge here; I'm just working with the given materials. But as I understand your article, character education is not beyond the realm of possibility.

[Ursus]

The gist of the your excerpt is that Hyde or any entity engaged in group-mediated behavior can succeed at no psychological cost. There must be a balance between ego regression and ego control.

The excerpt does not imply that there is no cost, although I will concede that the excerpt I chose (due to its reference to the state of falling in love) is considerably less emphatic about that point than the rest of the article.  If you go back to the link and read the article, you will see what I mean.  If you prefer a pdf download, there is a link in the "Burnside's piece on Mr. W" thread, which I believe is still about half way down the first page of topics in the Hyde Index.  The link is somewhere on page 2 of that thread.  Incidentally, the Mr. W incident is a prescient case in point as well.  You might want to read that whole thread (only 2 pages, less than 20 posts).

As for your objections:

"You are dealing with adolescents (self concept still not fully formed)"

I don't think teens are at a higher risk. Ego regression can be a danger to adults as well as teens. The ego of an adult can regress to that of an adolescent, and beyond. We see this in cults.

I disagree with your contention re. risk.  Empirical evidence from Hyde School "graduates" on its own should be sufficient to prove that.  And it has been my own personal experience that this is a very bad situation.  And there are numerous articles on adolescent psychology and the effects of thought coercion and behavior modification on adults, let alone teenagers, that attest to that as well.  Good point re. cults!

"You are dealing with a long-term residential habitat (no reality checks)"

It is reasonable to assume that reality checks can be implemented at Hyde, just as they are at other boarding schools.

Hyde's perception of reality is not the same as the rest of society's, and certainly not like that of other boarding schools.  If the Catholic Church still can not adequately police their own, what makes you think that Hyde can fare any better?  Don't get me started on that nemesis this particular thread is named after...

"You are dealing with a megalomaniac who wants to make money off of you ('nuff said)"

So they'll have to lose you know who.

And what do you think the well-groomed progeny are for?

I'm unqualified to judge here; I'm just working with the given materials. But as I understand your article, character education is not beyond the realm of possibility.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, particularly when they have put as much work into articulating it as you obviously have.  However, given the current trends in education, not to mention society as a whole, I find the term "character education" a cliche'ed oxymoron at best.  At its less than best, it's a catchy misnomer dressing up atavistic and control-oriented behavior modification programs that use thought coercion to do the job that a smack on the hands with a ruler by a nun used to do.  At least it was clear what the smack, in fact, was.  Behavior mod is less obvious, and has the potential to do some real and long-lasting psychological damage because it fucks with your mind, not with your knuckles.

Sorry if I seem a bit strident about this, but such is my lot! ::seg::  ::seg::  ::seg::

What is your history or interest in all this?

[Anonymous]

The gist of the your excerpt is that Hyde or any entity engaged in group-mediated behavior can succeed at no psychological cost. There must be a balance between ego regression and ego control.

The excerpt does not imply that there is no cost, although I will concede that the excerpt I chose (due to its reference to the state of falling in love) is considerably less emphatic about that point than the rest of the article.  If you go back to the link and read the article, you will see what I mean.  If you prefer a pdf download, there is a link in the "Burnside's piece on Mr. W" thread, which I believe is still about half way down the first page of topics in the Hyde Index.  The link is somewhere on page 2 of that thread.  Incidentally, the Mr. W incident is a prescient case in point as well.  You might want to read that whole thread (only 2 pages, less than 20 posts).

As for your objections:

"You are dealing with adolescents (self concept still not fully formed)"

I don't think teens are at a higher risk. Ego regression can be a danger to adults as well as teens. The ego of an adult can regress to that of an adolescent, and beyond. We see this in cults.

I disagree with your contention re. risk.  Empirical evidence from Hyde School "graduates" on its own should be sufficient to prove that.  And it has been my own personal experience that this is a very bad situation.  And there are numerous articles on adolescent psychology and the effects of thought coercion and behavior modification on adults, let alone teenagers, that attest to that as well.  Good point re. cults!

"You are dealing with a long-term residential habitat (no reality checks)"

It is reasonable to assume that reality checks can be implemented at Hyde, just as they are at other boarding schools.

Hyde's perception of reality is not the same as the rest of society's, and certainly not like that of other boarding schools.  If the Catholic Church still can not adequately police their own, what makes you think that Hyde can fare any better?  Don't get me started on that nemesis this particular thread is named after...

"You are dealing with a megalomaniac who wants to make money off of you ('nuff said)"

So they'll have to lose you know who.

And what do you think the well-groomed progeny are for?

I'm unqualified to judge here; I'm just working with the given materials. But as I understand your article, character education is not beyond the realm of possibility.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, particularly when they have put as much work into articulating it as you obviously have.  However, given the current trends in education, not to mention society as a whole, I find the term "character education" a cliche'ed oxymoron at best.  At its less than best, it's a catchy misnomer dressing up atavistic and control-oriented behavior modification programs that use thought coercion to do the job that a smack on the hands with a ruler by a nun used to do.  At least it was clear what the smack, in fact, was.  Behavior mod is less obvious, and has the potential to do some real and long-lasting psychological damage because it fucks with your mind, not with your knuckles.

Sorry if I seem a bit strident about this, but such is my lot! ::seg::  ::seg::  ::seg::

What is your history or interest in all this?

Note that I was not defending Hyde as we know it, which, I agree, is, to use the article's terms, ego regression without ego control. I was postulating what Hyde --- we needn't even call it Hyde --- what any entity engaged in group-mediated behavior could be. The article, as distinct from personal opinion, suggests that given the right balance between ego regression and ego control, such an entity could be a positive influence.

[Ursus]

Note that I was not defending Hyde as we know it, which, I agree, is, to use the article's terms, ego regression without ego control. I was postulating what Hyde --- we needn't even call it Hyde --- what any entity engaged in group-mediated behavior could be. The article, as distinct from personal opinion, suggests that given the right balance between ego regression and ego control, such an entity could be a positive influence.

I did get that, although it is helpful to be crystal clear about some things, and that is one of them.  Ha!

[lucy]

I can't imagine a meeting like that doing anything but making it worse.

If I were that kid, I'd probably take comfort in the false sense of equality and sympathy created by that seminar. But as I said, the seminar was ineffectual in solving his problem. Based on two years of empirical observation, I contend that those seminars do not solve anyone's problems. What seminars do achieve is the transfer of information from the individual to the group. And because that information is essentially one's selfhood, that information is power. When an individual relinquishes information to the group, in the form of public confession, he relinquishes a share of his power to the group. A seminar weakens an individual while, at the same time, it strengthens the group's hold on him. My hypothesis is that those who really believe in Hyde and give themselves over to it are those who get torn apart after graduation.

Very intelligent take on the whole Hyde philosophy!  You made me take a step back and look at what bothered me so much about Hyde especially the seminars.  It is true about the hold they have on people who speak about their personal and private matters.  I believe this is the reason most families don't look back once they leave Hyde.

I think that potential parents should think very carefully before they commit to joining this Cult because this is exactly what it is, a Cult.

[Anonymous]

I don't know what Love is but I know what it isn't.  Love isn't exposing your inner self to a group.  I love my wife.  I don't tell her everything.  I love my kids, but I don't tell them how often I masturbate or what I think about when I do, for example.

That's all for the best. You sound like a real monster.

  Thanks for sharing!

[Jesus H Christ]

I'm unqualified to judge here; I'm just working with the given materials. But as I understand your article, character education is not beyond the realm of possibility.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, particularly when they have put as much work into articulating it as you obviously have. However, given the current trends in education, not to mention society as a whole, I find the term "character education" a cliche'ed oxymoron at best. At its less than best, it's a catchy misnomer dressing up atavistic and control-oriented behavior modification programs that use thought coercion to do the job that a smack on the hands with a ruler by a nun used to do. At least it was clear what the smack, in fact, was. Behavior mod is less obvious, and has the potential to do some real and long-lasting psychological damage because it fucks with your mind, not with your knuckles.

  Is character education possible?   Well if your institution defines what it is, as does Hyde,  then uses a secret formula to decide if that education has been absorbed by the student, as does Hyde, and then make no effort to track the long term effects of said education, as Hyde assiduously avoids doing, then yes it is.

  What is character education?  Can you define it?  Can you describe a method to measure it?   ................  Didn't think so.

[Anonymous]

I'm unqualified to judge here; I'm just working with the given materials. But as I understand your article, character education is not beyond the realm of possibility.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, particularly when they have put as much work into articulating it as you obviously have. However, given the current trends in education, not to mention society as a whole, I find the term "character education" a cliche'ed oxymoron at best. At its less than best, it's a catchy misnomer dressing up atavistic and control-oriented behavior modification programs that use thought coercion to do the job that a smack on the hands with a ruler by a nun used to do. At least it was clear what the smack, in fact, was. Behavior mod is less obvious, and has the potential to do some real and long-lasting psychological damage because it fucks with your mind, not with your knuckles.

  Is character education possible?   Well if your institution defines what it is, as does Hyde,  then uses a secret formula to decide if that education has been absorbed by the student, as does Hyde, and then make no effort to track the long term effects of said education, as Hyde assiduously avoids doing, then yes it is.

  What is character education?  Can you define it?  Can you describe a method to measure it?   ................  Didn't think so.

I think that it's done on a case-by-case basis. If you were an introvert as an incoming student, then character education is extroversion. If you were rebellious, then its compliance. If you were a substance abuser, then it's sobriety. Along with a general ability to follow the rules.

[Anonymous]

I'm unqualified to judge here; I'm just working with the given materials. But as I understand your article, character education is not beyond the realm of possibility.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, particularly when they have put as much work into articulating it as you obviously have. However, given the current trends in education, not to mention society as a whole, I find the term "character education" a cliche'ed oxymoron at best. At its less than best, it's a catchy misnomer dressing up atavistic and control-oriented behavior modification programs that use thought coercion to do the job that a smack on the hands with a ruler by a nun used to do. At least it was clear what the smack, in fact, was. Behavior mod is less obvious, and has the potential to do some real and long-lasting psychological damage because it fucks with your mind, not with your knuckles.

  Is character education possible?   Well if your institution defines what it is, as does Hyde,  then uses a secret formula to decide if that education has been absorbed by the student, as does Hyde, and then make no effort to track the long term effects of said education, as Hyde assiduously avoids doing, then yes it is.

  What is character education?  Can you define it?  Can you describe a method to measure it?   ................  Didn't think so.

I think that it's done on a case-by-case basis. If you were an introvert as an incoming student, then character education is extroversion. If you were rebellious, then its compliance. If you were a substance abuser, then it's sobriety. Along with a general ability to follow the rules.

Needless to say, Hyde does not seek to develop students in the other direction! So extroversion, compliance, and sobriety mark off some of the territory of "character education," but not introversion, rebelliousness, or dependency. Unfortunately, character education does not include many admirable qualities that are deemed too close to the undesirable qualities. Thus, reticence, critical thinking, or curiosity put a student beyond the pale of character education. So, there exists a definition of character education, even if it's not the one that Hyde attempts to capture in its five concepts.

[Anonymous]

I'm unqualified to judge here; I'm just working with the given materials. But as I understand your article, character education is not beyond the realm of possibility.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, particularly when they have put as much work into articulating it as you obviously have. However, given the current trends in education, not to mention society as a whole, I find the term "character education" a cliche'ed oxymoron at best. At its less than best, it's a catchy misnomer dressing up atavistic and control-oriented behavior modification programs that use thought coercion to do the job that a smack on the hands with a ruler by a nun used to do. At least it was clear what the smack, in fact, was. Behavior mod is less obvious, and has the potential to do some real and long-lasting psychological damage because it fucks with your mind, not with your knuckles.

  Is character education possible?   Well if your institution defines what it is, as does Hyde,  then uses a secret formula to decide if that education has been absorbed by the student, as does Hyde, and then make no effort to track the long term effects of said education, as Hyde assiduously avoids doing, then yes it is.

  What is character education?  Can you define it?  Can you describe a method to measure it?   ................  Didn't think so.

I think that it's done on a case-by-case basis. If you were an introvert as an incoming student, then character education is extroversion. If you were rebellious, then its compliance. If you were a substance abuser, then it's sobriety. Along with a general ability to follow the rules.

Needless to say, Hyde does not seek to develop students in the other direction! So extroversion, compliance, and sobriety mark off some of the territory of "character education," but not introversion, rebelliousness, or dependency. Unfortunately, character education does not include many admirable qualities that are deemed too close to the undesirable qualities. Thus, reticence, critical thinking, or curiosity put a student beyond the pale of character education. So, there exists a definition of character education, even if it's not the one that Hyde attempts to capture in its five concepts.

Afterthought: the reticent, critical, and curious student will not get a diploma --- I should know! --- not only because those qualities are too close to undesirable, but because they are ingredients of the "ego control" discussed above.  If Hyde is to work, it must begin to incorporate those qualities into character education.

[Ursus]

Seems to me that anytime you use manipulative means towards any end, regardless of how laudable, you compromise the allegedly intended results.  It's common sense that when you feel your vulnerabilities have been exploited (e.g., via the use of ego regression), it kind of sours the milk and you turn elsewhere for your next breakfast.  I would imagine this has a lot to do with the low rate of alumni return.

[Anonymous]

Seems to me that anytime you use manipulative means towards any end, regardless of how laudable, you compromise the allegedly intended results.  It's common sense that when you feel your vulnerabilities have been exploited (e.g., via the use of ego regression), it kind of sours the milk and you turn elsewhere for your next breakfast.  I would imagine this has a lot to do with the low rate of alumni return.

To the extent that you are a member of any group you are liable to group-mediated behavior. As a Westerner, an American, a voter, an activist, a worker, a family member, and so on, you undergo a degree of ego regression. You also undergo a degree of empowerment in joining these coalitions. But you are one player in an ocean of individually insignificant players, and the will of the majority influences you more than you influence it. The article suggests that this is a healthy setup given the right balance between ego regression and ego control, and I agree. I don't see why a school like Hyde that engages in group-mediated behavior can't help out the helpless student given that ideal balance. The low alumni giving is due to the fact that Hyde never struck that balance, but shot toward the pathological end of the continuum of ego regression, under the influence of a power-hungry man.

[Ursus]

The article suggests that this is a healthy setup given the right balance between ego regression and ego control, and I agree.

The article does not suggest this. Please read the entire article if you wish to use it to bolster your argument:

Pathology as "Personal Growth":  A Participant-Observation Study of Lifespring Training
http://www.rickross.com/reference/lifes ... ring4.html

The first two sentences of this paper state (emphasis added):

This paper presents an overview of a Lifespring Basic Training workshop from a psychoanalytic perspective. Basing our conclusions on a participant-observation study, we argue that the impact of the training was essentially pathological.

---------------------------------

The paragraphs quoted on a previous page of this thread were part of the introduction.  In the introduction, the researchers described various more or less benign forms of ego regression as a means of establishing a theoretical context for investigating the effect Lifespring had on its participants.

All of the more or less benign forms of ego regression cited in the introduction used a small number of players:

• parent and child
• two parties in love
• self and artistic revelation

NONE of these examples of more or less benign forms of ego regression utilized the effect of group-with-vested-interests on individual.  That is because this latter dynamic is inherent in the development of a cult.