Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform > Facility Question and Answers
Carlbrook thread Part 2
Charly:
Good assessment of Grant. "Asshole" seems to be the universal descriptor. He does believe in his product and doesn't want anyone to interfere. He is willing to modify it- especially if he sees undercurrents.
irvbulldogs72:
******
psy:
--- Quote from: ""irvbulldogs72"" ---
--- 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.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
Well. Ok. I can get that maybe it was toned down a bit from that (where I was it certainly wasn't...)..
see what these from CEDU have to say about the workshops
Any hypotheses on why nobody remembers?
psy:
http://http://www.rickross.com/reference/est/estpt1.html
--- Quote from: ""the above site"" ---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.
--- End quote ---
Did they play the red/black game at Carlbrook?
irvbulldogs72:
******
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version