my expierience

[Anonymous]

The Phillips Schools and St. Paul's don't have admission teas because the kids and families are waiting in line to attend.  Do you think if they drop out of one of those schools they will be refunded their tuition...NO WAY!  Many prep schools make their students sign a contract upon entering their school as a Freshman stating that they will attend that school until graduation.  If you pull out before, you're responsible for the tuition through their senior year whether you're there or not.
Hyde holds Teas to educate and offer options to students and families who have no where to turn.  Tuition is not refunded only in some circumstances, where families pull out for no reason.  They've signed a contract that lays all that out.  If a student can't cut it or is a distraction to the rest of the school, they'll get their money back on a pro-rated basis.  The people on this site bitching about the lack of tuition refund are those who left because they didn't want to do the work. Hyde is a school and a program.  It's not a traditional prep school and dosen't claim to be and it's not a therapy school and doesn't claim to be.  It's a little of both for kids and families who aren't too "off track".
I guarantee that the "Tri-State" whiney, baby-boomer attitude is behind many of the complaints you read about on fornits.  Incluing Ass-Kow's passive aggressive rants and offers.

Now this is too funny NOT to respond to!!  First of all Mr Trash Mouth, Hyde does NOT REFUND TUITION when they kick you out!  They don't refund a dime and in fact I know several people who have had to hire an attorney to get it back!!  I am not sure where you get this insane information, but Hyde is known for kicking people out and keeping their $$$$.

You are right.  Hyde is not a therapy school or a prep school.  Hyde's schooling actually a joke.  If you read all the posts the kids write on Myspace you will see how the graduates of Hyde can't spell or write.  They also talk about how they didn't get an education at Hyde!  

As far as Hyde being for families who aren't "too off track", this is what made me laugh out loud.  Whoever you are, please, please, don't insult anyone's intelligence!!  If Hyde is for people who aren't "too off track" then why do they accept completely messed up kids who usually have drug and alcohol problems as well as bulimia, ADHD, etc.  Hyde is not properly able to deal with this which is why so many families leave!!

You Mr Guest is the one who is completely off track for writing this post which is not even close to the truth

[Ursus]

May God help you should you ever experience even one tiny inkling of the trauma and hell many of the former students and parents here have been through because of Hyde.  Clearly this has not been your lot.  Hopefully someday you will learn to temper some of your dogmatic arrogance with empathy, as such a glaring deficiency is usually associated with an atavistic and undeveloped character.  A mindset, I might add, most assuredly in keeping with the institution you claim to defend.

I suppose I shouldn't be too surprised that you should focus on one select issue, namely that of tuition refund, in lieu of addressing the larger issue, namely that of Hyde's coercive and mind-fucking methods and the damage these wreak on adolescents and their families.  The tuition issue only adds fuel to the fire and serves as a tangible and quantifiable barometer of Hyde's hypocrisy and failure to live up to its promises.  

Hyde holds Teas to educate and offer options to students and families who have no where to turn.

Many families, in the process of entertaining several options, leave these teas believing that they have no where else to turn but to Hyde.

Tuition is not refunded only in some circumstances, where families pull out for no reason.  They've signed a contract that lays all that out.  If a student can't cut it or is a distraction to the rest of the school, they'll get their money back on a pro-rated basis.

This is the most unbelievably stinky pile of bullshit you people have posted here in some time.  Total LIE.  And what, do tell, exactly qualifies as being "a distraction to the rest of the school?"  And who makes that assessment?

The people on this site bitching about the lack of tuition refund are those who left because they didn't want to do the work.

Another stinky LIE.  Who's whining here?

Hyde is a school and a program.  It's not a traditional prep school and dosen't claim to be and it's not a therapy school and doesn't claim to be.  It's a little of both for kids and families who aren't too "off track".

GEEEEZZ LOUISE!!  Somebody didn't bone up on their deductive reasoning skills!  You can't say something isn't something and yet at the same time is something in the same paragraph and expect people to take you seriously.  Oh wait, this must be Hyde's new marketing plan, this way parents won't really know what to sue Hyde for!

[Anonymous]

The Phillips Schools and St. Paul's don't have admission teas because the kids and families are waiting in line to attend.  Do you think if they drop out of one of those schools they will be refunded their tuition...NO WAY!  Many prep schools make their students sign a contract upon entering their school as a Freshman stating that they will attend that school until graduation.  If you pull out before, you're responsible for the tuition through their senior year whether you're there or not.
Hyde holds Teas to educate and offer options to students and families who have no where to turn.  Tuition is not refunded only in some circumstances, where families pull out for no reason.  They've signed a contract that lays all that out.  If a student can't cut it or is a distraction to the rest of the school, they'll get their money back on a pro-rated basis.  The people on this site bitching about the lack of tuition refund are those who left because they didn't want to do the work. Hyde is a school and a program.  It's not a traditional prep school and dosen't claim to be and it's not a therapy school and doesn't claim to be.  It's a little of both for kids and families who aren't too "off track".
I guarantee that the "Tri-State" whiney, baby-boomer attitude is behind many of the complaints you read about on fornits.  Incluing Ass-Kow's passive aggressive rants and offers.

  When I was looking at Phillip Andover, there was no mention of such a contract.  Tri-State is NJ NY Conn ?  
  It bothers you that people are saying bad things about your school.  I think I have vented my spleen on the subject pretty much.  I was bothered at first about the things I read here about Hyde.  I wanted my experience to mean something.  I wanted the time that I spent there to mean something.  It still does. But it is better to look at the truth.  The truth is Hyde is just something that Joe and and a bunch of guys made up.  They pulled it out of their collective ass and made it up as they went along.  Eye of newt and toe of frog. What ever was lying around the kitchen.  They hit on some things that worked by trial and error. Part of what makes it work it the fact that once you get through it you want it to mean something so you say it does. Otherwise it is a reflection on you.  You wasted your time.  In a way it is like the Ramtha rap: It is because we imagine it to be.  There's a Spooky Tooth.   The fact that there are elements that are cultic is no accident. It was either by design or trial and error.  The notion that if you fail you are "off track" has been the mantra from back in the day.  I call it blame the victims.  Hyde says "it works" if it does not then it is your fault.  Imagine a seat belt that helped you in a car crash only if you believe, if it fails it is your fault.   Not a good seat belt.  Why do you accept it from Hyde?  Why doesn't the community stand up and say "it is not acceptable that Hyde fails these students?"  Why do you identify with your keepers rather then your peers?  
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome
Deal with it.  You identify with the power holder not because you have character.  It is actually the converse.  It is because you are weak.  The ones that are strong are the ones that resist.

[Anonymous]

Hyde has been in the business of delivering a product "Character Education" for forty years.  In all those years their has never never never been any attempt to quantify the result.  Establish a metric, a set of metrics and track graduates through their adulthood. There is nothing to substantiate any of their claims except anecdotal evidence  in the form of graduate/parent testimonials.   These are no more believable then the testimony of shills at a medicine show.

Why has this not been done?
1) they are too stupid or lazy
2) they really _are_ that venal and it is all about the money

Pick one

I think you're right.  Hyde's data and evidence are very thin indeed.  They offer lots of anecdotal claims about their successes but few hard numbers.  Here are the questions Hyde should be confronted with and expected to answer:

1.  What percentage of students who apply to Hyde are accepted?
2.  How many students enroll in each grade, 9 through 12?
3.  What percentage of students who enroll in 9th grade actually graduate from Hyde?  10th grade?  11th grade?  12th grade?  That is, what percentage of students leave Hyde without graduating?
4.  What percentage of Hyde graduates (a) enroll in college, and (b) graduate from college?  How do these percentages compare with national figures?
5.  When Hyde publicizes parent satisfaction data, who do they include in the sample?  Do they include parents who enrolled at Hyde but left, or only those who lasted through graduation (who, obviously, are the people most likely to be satisfied with Hyde)?  Does Hyde stack the deck by including only those who stay at Hyde until the end, or do they include everyone who enrolled?  How honest is Hyde about the data they report?

Billy: I notice that you haven't responded to this request for information.  Have you shared these questions with Hyde staff?  Have you received a response?

[Anonymous]

When I was looking at Phillip Andover, there was no mention of such a contract.  Tri-State is NJ NY Conn ?  
  It bothers you that people are saying bad things about your school.  I think I have vented my spleen on the subject pretty much.  I was bothered at first about the things I read here about Hyde.  I wanted my experience to mean something.  I wanted the time that I spent there to mean something.  It still does. But it is better to look at the truth.  The truth is Hyde is just something that Joe and and a bunch of guys made up.  They pulled it out of their collective ass and made it up as they went along.  Eye of newt and toe of frog. What ever was lying around the kitchen.  They hit on some things that worked by trial and error. Part of what makes it work it the fact that once you get through it you want it to mean something so you say it does. Otherwise it is a reflection on you.  You wasted your time.  In a way it is like the Ramtha rap: It is because we imagine it to be.  There's a Spooky Tooth.   The fact that there are elements that are cultic is no accident. It was either by design or trial and error.  The notion that if you fail you are "off track" has been the mantra from back in the day.  I call it blame the victims.  Hyde says "it works" if it does not then it is your fault.  Imagine a seat belt that helped you in a car crash only if you believe, if it fails it is your fault.   Not a good seat belt.  Why do you accept it from Hyde?  Why doesn't the community stand up and say "it is not acceptable that Hyde fails these students?"  Why do you identify with your keepers rather then your peers?  
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome
Deal with it.  You identify with the power holder not because you have character.  It is actually the converse.  It is because you are weak.  The ones that are strong are the ones that resist.

I buy these statements completely. I sang Hyde's praises when I heard it put down --- this despite the fact that I had always had strong reservations about the place. I didn't "fight the good fight" because I was brainwashed; I did it because my ego was on the line. I didn't want to admit that I was from a "bad school," that I made a stupid investment, that I did things that cut against the grain of my conscience.

[Anonymous]

When I was looking at Phillip Andover, there was no mention of such a contract.  Tri-State is NJ NY Conn ?  
  It bothers you that people are saying bad things about your school.  I think I have vented my spleen on the subject pretty much.  I was bothered at first about the things I read here about Hyde.  I wanted my experience to mean something.  I wanted the time that I spent there to mean something.  It still does. But it is better to look at the truth.  The truth is Hyde is just something that Joe and and a bunch of guys made up.  They pulled it out of their collective ass and made it up as they went along.  Eye of newt and toe of frog. What ever was lying around the kitchen.  They hit on some things that worked by trial and error. Part of what makes it work it the fact that once you get through it you want it to mean something so you say it does. Otherwise it is a reflection on you.  You wasted your time.  In a way it is like the Ramtha rap: It is because we imagine it to be.  There's a Spooky Tooth.   The fact that there are elements that are cultic is no accident. It was either by design or trial and error.  The notion that if you fail you are "off track" has been the mantra from back in the day.  I call it blame the victims.  Hyde says "it works" if it does not then it is your fault.  Imagine a seat belt that helped you in a car crash only if you believe, if it fails it is your fault.   Not a good seat belt.  Why do you accept it from Hyde?  Why doesn't the community stand up and say "it is not acceptable that Hyde fails these students?"  Why do you identify with your keepers rather then your peers?  
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome
Deal with it.  You identify with the power holder not because you have character.  It is actually the converse.  It is because you are weak.  The ones that are strong are the ones that resist.

I buy these statements completely. I sang Hyde's praises when I heard it put down --- this despite the fact that I had always had strong reservations about the place. I didn't "fight the good fight" because I was brainwashed; I did it because my ego was on the line. I didn't want to admit that I was from a "bad school," that I made a stupid investment, that I did things that cut against the grain of my conscience.

   I not sure "bad" is exactly right.  Hyde is what it is.  It is a coercive,  cult like closed community.  Is that bad?  Some people seem to do well going forward through life ascribing to hydeism.  Paul M is successful.  You could argue the what he does is "bad'  But he seems happy.  You could argue what I do with my life is bad.

  Even though I resisted Hyde in small ways and to some extent kept my own internal compass,  I did internalize.  I have come to realize that some of the aspects of my personality that Hyde tried to beat out of me are a core part of what I am as a person.   This realization has lead me to a new level in my life for which I am greatful to this board. Like they say the truth will set you free ... free from hyde if that is what you need.

[Anonymous]

When I was looking at Phillip Andover, there was no mention of such a contract.  Tri-State is NJ NY Conn ?  
  It bothers you that people are saying bad things about your school.  I think I have vented my spleen on the subject pretty much.  I was bothered at first about the things I read here about Hyde.  I wanted my experience to mean something.  I wanted the time that I spent there to mean something.  It still does. But it is better to look at the truth.  The truth is Hyde is just something that Joe and and a bunch of guys made up.  They pulled it out of their collective ass and made it up as they went along.  Eye of newt and toe of frog. What ever was lying around the kitchen.  They hit on some things that worked by trial and error. Part of what makes it work it the fact that once you get through it you want it to mean something so you say it does. Otherwise it is a reflection on you.  You wasted your time.  In a way it is like the Ramtha rap: It is because we imagine it to be.  There's a Spooky Tooth.   The fact that there are elements that are cultic is no accident. It was either by design or trial and error.  The notion that if you fail you are "off track" has been the mantra from back in the day.  I call it blame the victims.  Hyde says "it works" if it does not then it is your fault.  Imagine a seat belt that helped you in a car crash only if you believe, if it fails it is your fault.   Not a good seat belt.  Why do you accept it from Hyde?  Why doesn't the community stand up and say "it is not acceptable that Hyde fails these students?"  Why do you identify with your keepers rather then your peers?  
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome
Deal with it.  You identify with the power holder not because you have character.  It is actually the converse.  It is because you are weak.  The ones that are strong are the ones that resist.

I buy these statements completely. I sang Hyde's praises when I heard it put down --- this despite the fact that I had always had strong reservations about the place. I didn't "fight the good fight" because I was brainwashed; I did it because my ego was on the line. I didn't want to admit that I was from a "bad school," that I made a stupid investment, that I did things that cut against the grain of my conscience.

   I not sure "bad" is exactly right.  Hyde is what it is.  It is a coercive,  cult like closed community.  Is that bad?  Some people seem to do well going forward through life ascribing to hydeism.  Paul M is successful.  You could argue the what he does is "bad'  But he seems happy.  You could argue what I do with my life is bad.

Even though I resisted Hyde in small ways and to some extent kept my own internal compass,  I did internalize.  I have come to realize that some of the aspects of my personality that Hyde tried to beat out of me are a core part of what I am as a person.   This realization has lead me to a new level in my life for which I am greatful to this board. Like they say the truth will set you free ... free from hyde if that is what you need.

"Bad" is exactly right and you know it. You're a smart guy and I know you wouldn't defend racketeering, etc. by standards of money or happiness.

As for identity, that is what is not lost at Hyde.

[Anonymous]

Hyde has been in the business of delivering a product "Character Education" for forty years.  In all those years their has never never never been any attempt to quantify the result.  Establish a metric, a set of metrics and track graduates through their adulthood. There is nothing to substantiate any of their claims except anecdotal evidence  in the form of graduate/parent testimonials.   These are no more believable then the testimony of shills at a medicine show.

Why has this not been done?
1) they are too stupid or lazy
2) they really _are_ that venal and it is all about the money

Pick one

I think you're right.  Hyde's data and evidence are very thin indeed.  They offer lots of anecdotal claims about their successes but few hard numbers.  Here are the questions Hyde should be confronted with and expected to answer:

1.  What percentage of students who apply to Hyde are accepted?
2.  How many students enroll in each grade, 9 through 12?
3.  What percentage of students who enroll in 9th grade actually graduate from Hyde?  10th grade?  11th grade?  12th grade?  That is, what percentage of students leave Hyde without graduating?
4.  What percentage of Hyde graduates (a) enroll in college, and (b) graduate from college?  How do these percentages compare with national figures?
5.  When Hyde publicizes parent satisfaction data, who do they include in the sample?  Do they include parents who enrolled at Hyde but left, or only those who lasted through graduation (who, obviously, are the people most likely to be satisfied with Hyde)?  Does Hyde stack the deck by including only those who stay at Hyde until the end, or do they include everyone who enrolled?  How honest is Hyde about the data they report?

Billy: I notice that you haven't responded to this request for information.  Have you shared these questions with Hyde staff?  Have you received a response?

Billy: It's been quite some time since someone asked you to respond to these questions.  I'm curious to know why you haven't responded.

[Ursus]

The truth is Hyde is just something that Joe and and a bunch of guys made up. They pulled it out of their collective ass and made it up as they went along. Eye of newt and toe of frog. What ever was lying around the kitchen.

I totally agree that Joe & Co. made up a lot of things, but I also think that they were influenced by the times, as well as by certain specific experiences that Joe had and influences that he sought out, not to mention certain characteristics of his personality.

I think most everyone has heard Joe refer back to AA, both obliquely as well as direct quotes.  AA was a progenitor of sorts for many cults, many of which distorted AA's format to suit their means, perhaps most notoriously the cult Synanon, begun in California in 1958 or 1959.

I also find some influences from the Human Potential Movement, a time which spawned LGATs.  As you may recall, Landmark Forum is one of these. The following is a huge piece, which covers many types of cults; I have copied a subsection on LGATs here.

Large-Group Awareness Training

Historical Background

The Human Potential Movement bloomed in the 1950's and 1960's. Sensitivity and encounter groups spread rapidly, promising increased communication, intensified experience, and expanded consciousness. Business, educational, and other groups were sold sensitivity training programs, some conducted by psychologists, but most led by non-professionals who used the processes and techniques developed by psychologists. There soon appeared the commercially packaged large-group awareness trainings (LGATs), which combined a number of the encounter and sensitivity techniques with various sales, influence, indoctrination, and behavior control techniques.

Most existing commercial LGATs grew out of a format developed in the early 1960s by William Penn Patrick, who labeled his venture Leadership Dynamics Institute (LDI). This was the first of what has become a smorgasbord of commercially sold LGATs.

Church and Carnes (1972) describe the original LDI program as an encounter group training session costing $1,000 and in which persons "were held virtual prisoners for four days of living hell during which members of the class were beaten, deprived of food and sleep, jammed into coffins, forced to perform degrading sexual acts, and even crucified" (p. 178). Purportedly, this commercial encounter group would make persons "better leaders and executives." The seminar was supposed to rid people of their "hang-ups," teach total obedience, and motivate participants to persuade other persons to take the training. Patrick, who headed Holiday Magic Cosmetics, Mind Dynamics, LDI, and other pyramid sales organizations, decreed that attending an LDI "seminar" was required for anyone wishing a management position with Holiday Magic. Attendees were kept in the dark about what they would experience at these seminars, as "graduates" were pledged not to reveal their experiences. The venture ended amidst multiple law suits in California courts.

Some changes have occurred in subsequent LGATs, while certain features have remained. In most of the new groups, attendees continue to pledge secrecy and push the product on friends and acquaintances within a pyramid sales structure. The status of "graduates" of the LGATs is generally dependent upon the number of recruits they bring in. Eliciting most criticism, however, is the extensive use of deceptive and indirect, and even coercive, techniques of persuasion and control at all levels of the organization, including the training.

Review of the Literature

There is an extensive array of accounts of these "trainings," most notably about est (Erhard Seminars Training). Hundreds of journalistic reports exist. The following are but a sample of articles or books on est: Bartley, 1978; Benziger, 1976; Brewer, 1975; Bry, 1976; Fenwick, 1976; Frederick, 1974; Greene, 1976; Hargrove, 19xx; Hoyt, 1985; Leonard, 1972; Rhinehart, 1976; Tipton, 1982. Descriptions of Lifespring, another well-known LGAT, are found in Haaken and Adams (1983) and Cushman (1986), while Actualizations is described by Martin (1977).

The term training is misleading if the consumer thinks the title refers to skill-building groups (Rudestam, 1932). The LGATs are not skill training events, but instead resemble intense indoctrination programs. In the LGATs an authoritarian leader, now minus the Marine Corps swagger stick of LDI days, persuades the consumers who purchase attendance to believe that their lives are not working, that they have caused every dire event that has happened to them, and that salvation is based upon accepting the belief system being offered, learning to talk in the jargon of the trainer, and remaining connected with the organization by becoming unpaid volunteer helpers recruiting other customers for the organization. The formats, stripped of individual jargon characterizing each particular commercial group, remain essentially as outlined above (Baer & Stolz, 1978; Cinamon & Farson, 1979; Fenwick, 1977; Gross, 1978; Tipton, 1982; Zilbergeld, 1983).

Finkelstein, Wenegrat, and Yalom (1982) consider Lifespring, Actualizations, and est as examples of "intensive large-group awareness trainings." They describe these groups as being characterized by "the commercial, non-professional use of potentially powerful tools for personal growth," which "often evoke powerful emotions" (p. xx). These authors discuss the  "trainer's extraordinary demeanor...(his/her) air of absolute authority ... no affect, even when he excoriates the trainees ... repeatedly referring to them as 'assholes'...devalues their accomplishments with the repeated assertion that their lives 'do not work'" (p.xx).

Finkelstein et al. (1982) report on est's "Truth Process," an event occurring on the second day of the training. During this exercise trainees lie on the floor, eyes closed, meditating on an individual problem they have selected.

At the trainer's command, the trainees imagine a situation in which that problem has occurred and systematically explore the detailed bodily sensations and images associated with the problem itself. As the trainer orders the trainees to examine images from the past and from childhood, powerful affects are released. The room is soon filled with the sound of sobbing, retching, and uncontrolled laughter, punctuated by the exclamations of those remonstrating with figures from their past... Later in the second day, during the so-called "Danger Process," trainees come to the dais in groups of 25 and stand facing the audience. The trainer exhorts those on the dais to "be" themselves, and reprimands those who appear to be posturing or falsely smiling, or who fail to make eye contact with the seated trainees. It is not uncommon, apparently, for trainees to faint or cry when called to the dais in this fashion, and some later recount that they found the experience liberated them from social anxieties. (p. xx)

At a mid-week meeting following the first weekend, "trainees report on their experiences since the weekend, often to tell of dramatic improvements...and occasionally to complain of deterioration in their mood" (Finkelstein et al., 1982, p. 515-521).

Finkelstein et al. (1982) also note that nearly 450,000 persons in the United States have undergone one of the several commercial large-group awareness trainings. Yet the literature on these groups resembles that of the early encounter and human potential groups:

...a few objective outcome studies which exist side by side with highly positive testimonials and anecdotal reports of psychological harm. Reports of testimonials have been compiled by est advocates and suffer from inadequate methodology. More objective and rigorous research reports fail to demonstrate that the positive testimony and evidence of psychological change among est graduates result from specific attributes of est training. Instead, non-specific effects of expectancy and response sets may account for positive outcomes. Reports of psychological harm as the result of est training remain anecdotal, but borderline or psychotic patients would be well advised not to participate. (Finkelstein et al., 1982, p. 538)

The reports of psychological harm resulting from LGATs appear in Fenwick (1976), Glass, Kirsch, and Parris (1977), Kirsch and Glass (1977), Simon (1977, 1978), Higgitt and Murray (1983), and Haaken and Adams (1983). While Fenwick, a psychologist, was a participant observer at an est training, Haaken and Adams, a psychologist and a sociologist respectively, were participant observers at a Lifespring training.

Fenwick called attention to the est training selections-admission forms, in which persons were asked if they had been in therapy, and if in therapy (now or recently), were they "winning." She voiced the opinion that some persons might, intentionally or because of incapacity, misrepresent their psychiatric status on such a form, or might feel "their medical or psychiatric history is not appropriately revealed to a private business offering them an 'educational' service" (p. xx). She concluded:

Trainers in est do not and cannot take the precautions that would be considered appropriate for psychotherapy. They use techniques such as confrontation, which undermines psychological defenses and strips away resistances. They use some techniques whose effect is to increase anxiety and other techniques which encourage regression to developmentally more primitive modes of functioning. There are only two logical possibilities as to the implications of such activities: (1) Based on currently accepted standards of psychotherapeutic practice, est uses techniques indiscriminately which in a certain proportion of the population are known to be harmful and potentially quite dangerous, or (2) based on the use of such techniques in est, if research were to indicate that no harm occurs, some of the most basic tenets of psychotherapy are lacking any basis in evidence. (p. 171-172)

Fenwick further noted that the Lieberman and Yalom studies (19xx) of encounter groups indicated that "the people who experienced negative results in combination with the psychological casualties constituted about 19% ... or for close to one out of five people who participated in these group experiences, the results were harmful" (p. 166).

Haaken and Adams (1983) analyzed Lifespring from a psychoanalytic perspective:

Basing our conclusions on a participant-observation study, we argue that the impact of the training was essentially pathological. First, in the early period of the training, ego functions were systematically undermined and regression was promoted. Second, the ideational or interpretive framework of the training was based upon regressive modes of reasoning. Third, the structure and content of the training tended to stimulate early narcissistic conflicts and defenses, which accounted for the elation and sense of heightened well-being achieved by many participants. (p. 270)

Cushman (1986) termed a number of groups, such as est, Lifespring, Psi World, Transformations, and Summit Workshops, "mass marathon psychology organizations." As had the many writers who described the est trainings, he noted the highly coercive and authoritarian methods of control used in these groups. He called them restrictive groups, because they depended upon strict milieu control, public rewards and punishments, and the pressuring of participants to enroll others and immerse themselves in the organizations as volunteers and companions of other graduates.

Despite the LGATs promoting themselves as educational experiences, the majority of the professionally trained writers (psychologists and psychiatrists) who have published comments on the groups consider them to be psychological in nature (Cushman, 1986; Hoyt, 1985; Fenwick, 1976; Glass, Kirsch, & Paris, 1977; Haaken & Adams, 1983; Higgitt & Murray, 1983; Kirsch & Glass, 1977; Paul & Paul, 1978; Simon, 1977, 1978). Glass et al. (1977) concluded that although est presents its programs as educational, they are in fact "quasi-therapeutic group experiences" (p. xx). Simon (1978) stated that "est has some powerful psychological effects on many of those who take the training... It is apparent from the progressive and regressive responses to est that some powerful change agent is at work here. It may be that... Werner Erhard has discovered an unconventional route to approach these psychotherapeutic goals" (p. 686, 691).  

Conclusions

The preceding literature review suggests that most of the nationally known LGATs and a burgeoning, but as yet undetermined number, of take-offs on them are using powerful psychological techniques capable of stripping individuals of their psychological defenses, inducing behavioral regression, and promoting regressive modes of reasoning. Further, it appears that deceptive sales techniques are involved in promoting the trainings since the secrecy surrounding the programs' sales promotions prevents consumers from obtaining full disclosure. Consumers are persuaded to purchase programs described as educational, while in actuality the programs consist of highly orchestrated, intense indoctrination processes capable of inducing marked psychological experience. Consumers are not fully and adequately informed about the programs' intensity, the new philosophical formulations of reality that they imply, the potentially harmful consequences of some of the exercises to which participants will be exposed, the sometimes lurid psychological upset they will witness, nor the fact that management is aware of at least some of the risks to which they subject participants. Such practices run counter to American Psychological Association recommendations on the running of growth groups (American Psychological Association, 1973).  

From:  Report of the APA Task Force on Deceptive and Indirect Techniques of Persuasion and Control; November 1986
Margaret Thaler Singer, University of California Berkeley; Harold Goldstein, National Institute of Mental Health; Michael D. Langone, American Family Foundation; Jesse S. Miller, San Francisco, California; Maurice K. Temerlin, Clinical Psychology Consultants, Inc.; Louis J. West, University of California Los Angeles
http://www.rickross.com/reference/apolo ... ist23.html

[Anonymous]

.....believe that their lives are not working, that they have caused every dire event that has happened to them, and that salvation is based upon accepting the belief system being offered, learning to talk in the jargon of the trainer, and remaining connected with the organization by becoming unpaid volunteer helpers recruiting other customers for the organization.

  That reminds me of something.

[Ursus]

Most existing commercial LGATs grew out of a format developed in the early 1960s by William Penn Patrick, who labeled his venture Leadership Dynamics Institute (LDI). This was the first of what has become a smorgasbord of commercially sold LGATs.

There was a pamphlet put out by William Penn Patrick, long out of print, that detailed five principles... I can not find my original source at the moment, but this one references it as well:

Leadership Dynamics Institute was formed on the principles outlined in a booklet entitled "Happiness and Success Through Principle" written in 1967 by William Penn Patrick, the founder and corporate king of Holiday Magic, Inc., and apparent co-owner of LDI. The foremost principle set forth by Patrick is honesty, complete and total honesty, both towards yourself and others. Another attribute stressed is courage, courage to stand up and fight for what you believe.

Click Here


LDI eventually went out of business in the early 1970's, partly due to all the lawsuits against Holiday Magic, not to mention Patrick's death in a plane crash.  I've read rumors that LDI has resurfaced, but have not found further references.