Fornits Home for Wayward Web Fora An open discussion about the troubled parent industry
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
You know what happened there? That guy got Greg House-d.So in short.....oh hell no. On the off chance that someone was trying to browbeat another student, someone, hell, usually another student would step in and let the kid respond. And our staff (save for a few members, but they generally didn't last long) were never anywhere near that cocksure.Our groups/workshops were never that assertive. Assumptions were usually kept in check and a shit ton more questions were asked. There was actual discussion in request groups, even the more passionate and inflamed ones.
In a similar fashion. Feedback, memory, affirmation. But goddamn was that heavy handed. Jesus. There was no nurturing there at all.
Quote from: ""psy""Quote from: ""irvbulldogs72""In a similar fashion. Feedback, memory, affirmation. But goddamn was that heavy handed. Jesus. There was no nurturing there at all.and yet... That very same woman decides to continue... and complains about this documentary when it is released (explaining how much he helped her realize the truth)... She ended up loving the "program".See what happens when they explain how it works to that elderly lady.I did. It was plain and simple manipulation. Dude....I've seen workshop scripts. They're nowhere near that exciting. It listed the tools in the order that they were supposed to be in, and obviously how to set up the excercises, and what music went with what exercise.And the thing that I can say as a fact differentiates the post workshop experience from this.....we don't look back fondly on all of our workshops. Hell, some people absolutely hate certain workshops. And although we get that workshop high/euphoric feeling, there is no confusion as to to the fact that it was in no way puppies and kittens.
Quote from: ""irvbulldogs72""In a similar fashion. Feedback, memory, affirmation. But goddamn was that heavy handed. Jesus. There was no nurturing there at all.and yet... That very same woman decides to continue... and complains about this documentary when it is released (explaining how much he helped her realize the truth)... She ended up loving the "program".See what happens when they explain how it works to that elderly lady.
The last exercise of the evening is the "Red and Black" game. This is a type of "prisoner's dilemma" game popular in social psychology experiments. Participants are encouraged by the trainer and by staff to "win" the game, really pour it on. Staffers become like cheerleaders, and, after the trainer has explained the game ("The purpose is to win"), participants are divided into two teams and are left on their own to elect captains and figure out how to win the game.[COMMENT: The game, of course. is rigged. It directly follows the long "parent process," when participants are in an euphoric, emotionally primitive state in which they experience the ultimate gratifications of childhood: unconditional love and unlimited attention. After all the importance the trainer has placid an "winning," "doing whatever is necessary to win," and "creating your own reality," it turns out this game can be won only if the two sides cooperate. In the 18 trainings subjects reported on only once did participants figure out how to cooperate.)By the time the game has to be stopped, 3 of 3"behavior" subjects (100%) reported that many people had become very excited. driven, and frustrated about winning. it is at this point the trainer steps in and harangues and humiliates the participants. He swears at them, he calls them names, he blames the arms race and world hunger on people like them, who "can't imagine winning without killing the other side."The recrimination is very strong, and very effective. All subjects reported being affected by it and remembering it. The pattern was the same for 14 of 15 "experience" subjects (93%). Either subjects felt distraught because they tried to win by making the other side lose, or they figured out the key to winning, but they were too frightened to speak up or too self-critical to believe they knew the answer. Either way, one "experience" subject noted, everyone seemed to feel embarrassed and crushed. As one "behavior" subject noted, it was, paradoxically, a no-win situation.
Day three, event seven:Three of 3 "behavior" subjects (100%) reported that the homework assignment was to look at their behavior in the game and determine what was underneath the display of competitive activity. They are instructed to stay in the training room for sixty minutes of silence. During this time and at home they are to face themselves and determine what is their "ground of being," their "core." one "experience" subject recalled that the song "Games People Play" is played on the sound system.Three of 3 "behavior" subjects reported that everyone seemed just crushed by the heavy disapproval they faced. The trainer's disgust and anger appeared devastating to many participants.[COMMENT: The pattern that was recognized in the first night again emerges: leniency and then attack. Several messages seem to be communicated in the "Red and Black" game: (a) the trainer's values must be agreed with, even if they keep changing; (b) regression, compliance, and merging are the primary psychological states of the training; (c) humiliation and euphoria are the primary emotional states of the training; (d) the trainer's expectations for the participants obviously does not apply to the trainer or the training (e.g., they may set the participants up, lie to them, win at any cost, be dishonest, or double cross them). The double standard is a common occurrence in restrictive groups. In Vitality the trainer continually does many of the things he criticizes the participants for. The rules are for the participants, not for the trainer; he is not held to the same standards to which participants must adhere. The double standard in restrictive groups is often the cause of verbal, financial, or sexual abuses. This is a good example of the limits a restrictive group places on the participants: in Vitality it is considered to be unacceptable for participants to comment on elements of the training that break the training's own rules. It is a well kept secret, like the Emperor's non-existent new clothes.
Quote from: ""psy""Sorry.. forgot to post the second part of that:QuoteDay three, event seven:Three of 3 "behavior" subjects (100%) reported that the homework assignment was to look at their behavior in the game and determine what was underneath the display of competitive activity. They are instructed to stay in the training room for sixty minutes of silence. During this time and at home they are to face themselves and determine what is their "ground of being," their "core." one "experience" subject recalled that the song "Games People Play" is played on the sound system.Three of 3 "behavior" subjects reported that everyone seemed just crushed by the heavy disapproval they faced. The trainer's disgust and anger appeared devastating to many participants.[COMMENT: The pattern that was recognized in the first night again emerges: leniency and then attack. Several messages seem to be communicated in the "Red and Black" game: (a) the trainer's values must be agreed with, even if they keep changing; (b) regression, compliance, and merging are the primary psychological states of the training; (c) humiliation and euphoria are the primary emotional states of the training; (d) the trainer's expectations for the participants obviously does not apply to the trainer or the training (e.g., they may set the participants up, lie to them, win at any cost, be dishonest, or double cross them). The double standard is a common occurrence in restrictive groups. In Vitality the trainer continually does many of the things he criticizes the participants for. The rules are for the participants, not for the trainer; he is not held to the same standards to which participants must adhere. The double standard in restrictive groups is often the cause of verbal, financial, or sexual abuses. This is a good example of the limits a restrictive group places on the participants: in Vitality it is considered to be unacceptable for participants to comment on elements of the training that break the training's own rules. It is a well kept secret, like the Emperor's non-existent new clothes.I'd be interested in seeing how many of these you recognize: hereAgain.. I have to thank you for this. It's clearing up a lot of unanswered questions.Event One: Hallmark Reader's Digest Diet Decaf version of that. Same basic message, much more lenient undertone.Event Three. Something akin to that.The concept of Event Four...the localization of emotional pain bit. We used that to help focus, but we didn't do that exercise.And Event Seven.....that's just fucked up. We did the first half, the recollection part. We sure as hell didn't transfer blame though.
Sorry.. forgot to post the second part of that:QuoteDay three, event seven:Three of 3 "behavior" subjects (100%) reported that the homework assignment was to look at their behavior in the game and determine what was underneath the display of competitive activity. They are instructed to stay in the training room for sixty minutes of silence. During this time and at home they are to face themselves and determine what is their "ground of being," their "core." one "experience" subject recalled that the song "Games People Play" is played on the sound system.Three of 3 "behavior" subjects reported that everyone seemed just crushed by the heavy disapproval they faced. The trainer's disgust and anger appeared devastating to many participants.[COMMENT: The pattern that was recognized in the first night again emerges: leniency and then attack. Several messages seem to be communicated in the "Red and Black" game: (a) the trainer's values must be agreed with, even if they keep changing; (b) regression, compliance, and merging are the primary psychological states of the training; (c) humiliation and euphoria are the primary emotional states of the training; (d) the trainer's expectations for the participants obviously does not apply to the trainer or the training (e.g., they may set the participants up, lie to them, win at any cost, be dishonest, or double cross them). The double standard is a common occurrence in restrictive groups. In Vitality the trainer continually does many of the things he criticizes the participants for. The rules are for the participants, not for the trainer; he is not held to the same standards to which participants must adhere. The double standard in restrictive groups is often the cause of verbal, financial, or sexual abuses. This is a good example of the limits a restrictive group places on the participants: in Vitality it is considered to be unacceptable for participants to comment on elements of the training that break the training's own rules. It is a well kept secret, like the Emperor's non-existent new clothes.I'd be interested in seeing how many of these you recognize: hereAgain.. I have to thank you for this. It's clearing up a lot of unanswered questions.
