User:Abd/Landmark Education/Abd/Criticism of Landmark/Experienced criticism

This is a page where we will link to and examine criticism of Landmark from those who have received advanced training. Some of this could be considered "internal criticism," a sign of a healthy organization that is not a cult, and there is some that is rejection of Landmark.

Criticism of Landmark from journalists and other Forum participants is included in Media accounts and Other accounts. There are millions of people who have done the Forum or the preceding training, and those were introductory courses. They may set up a major transformation for participants, which could be similar to kensho in a Zen student -- and that is remarkable if even only a few participants get that, and it appears to be more than a few (since kensho is expected to take years of study and mediation) but they do not create mastery. That takes, it should be no surprise, much more training.

There is a page on the internet with a complaint from someone who did the Forum, and probably the included free seminar, then enrolled in the Introduction Leader Program, which is allowed, but she was almost certainly not ready for it, as can be seen by her response to the situation. See. There is no sign that this person did the other two courses in the Curriculum, i.e, the Advanced Course and the Self-Expression and Leadership Program.

It is entirely possible to complete the Forum and the Advanced Course and not "get it." And it is more uncommon to get through the SELP in this way, but it does happen.

There are two broad categories to be established for "Advanced Training." First, there are those who have completed the "Curriculum for Living." which is the Forum, the Advanced Course, at least one Seminar, and the Self-Expression and Leadership Program. Someone who began the SELP and dropped out has not yet completed the Curriculum.

Secondly, there are those who have completed the Introduction Leader Program. Someone who has a large number of friends, or who has natural or otherwise trained sales skills, might be readily candidated in that program, without actually embodying the deeper ideals of Landmark, but is not likely to last in the Introduction Leader body.

Another category could be those who have served as coaches in the Self-Expression and Leadership Program. Coaches get more intense coaching than SELP participants, for obvious reasons. All coaches have completed the full Curriculum, that is the only prerequisite.

Finally, there would be those who have served as Program Leaders, the training of which begins with serving as an Introduction Leader. To be an IL, one must complete the ILP, meeting measures, and commit to service as an IL. IL service is a requirement for Program Leader training, and Program Leader includes Forum Leader at the top end, the major difference being that Forum Leaders are paid staff, and commit to major service, they are effectively full-time.

Curriculum for Living
This section is for criticism of Landmark from those who have completed the Curriculum for Living.
 * Jonathan Timar. Criticizes the "sales pressure," and concludes that the Forum is great, but that the quality of content declines in further offerings. Considers that the "volunteers" are incompetent.
 * Comment. This story is authentic, that is, Timar has authentically described his experience. In an SELP when there is some major structural breakdown, his experience would probably not be uncommon. He claims he wasn't inspired at any point in the SELP, and that indicates a major loss of power in coaching and/or leadership. He claims that half the coaches were "missing in action" by the end of the program. That's huge! In both of my prior SELP sessions, no coaches disappeared, all completed. Participants leave, that happens, for lots of reasons. Some coaches are indeed inexperienced. However, coaches make regular reports on participants, and a skilled Leader will notice that something is awry. Timar reports that it was offered to him that he could repeat the SELP (without charge), and I've seen that be done when there was some breakdown that the Leader or the Center Manager took responsibility for. That's consistent with his story of the situation.
 * The comments on this blog post are illuminating. Timar is actually recommending the Forum, and only deprecating further training, based on his experience. His experience is possible, it happens, but it is not normal. His reaction to "sales" is common. I reacted that way. The SELP is the first place in the Curriculum where there is extensive personal coaching, and hidden issues will come up. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 03:26, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * If I were coaching Timar, I'd start looking for a connection between how all this was occurring to him and his general life experience. Timar has a story about incompetent coaching, but the Program Leader announces, in the SELP, that the Leader is available for personal coaching at any time. Obviously, if every participant took regular advantage of that, it would be unworkable. The way the structure is designed is that participants have coaches, coaches have a Head Coach, and the Head Coaches are coached by the Program Leader, who, of course, has his or her own coach, typically a Forum Leader, it seems. Anyone can bypass their direct coach if it isn't working, and one of my participants did just that, last week. She believed I was insensitive to a situation in her life. She was right, I had not handled the situation well. The Head Coach had a conversation with each of us, the Program Leader had a conversation with her, and then my entire coaching group had a conference call, including her, me, and the Head Coach, she fully expressed her upset and was heard, and the result was that the entire mess cleared up, everyone learned something, and this participant is fully on board, working on her project, empowered and recognized and acknowledged by everyone as the powerful woman she can be. The whole coaching group is lit up, inspired and in action.
 * It looks like this kind of personal attention didn't happen in Timar's program. Breakdown.
 * Timar's story also shows the dilemma that many Landmark participants face: he acknowledges that he'd love to have friends and family do the Forum, he sees or believes that this would be valuable for them and for him (it's much easier to communicate with graduates, normally), but he doesn't want to "sell" them, and he thinks that Landmark wants him to do that.
 * It doesn't.
 * In fact, it wants him to become skilled in genuine enrollment and registration conversations, and he apparently never got what the essentials are of these. That a person signs up for a course is never the goal of a registration conversation, as we are trained.
 * My SELP Leader puts it this way: if you approach people with a hidden agenda, such as selling them the Program, they will feel slimed. Here you are, using technology you have learned that can take them into states of inspiration, a kind of intimacy, and then you use this to slip in what you want. Sleazy! And, yes, manipulative. The goal of a registration conversation is to present a possible choice that will occur as an opportunity. The express goal is that the person makes a choice, and is satisfied with their choice. Not that their choice is "Yes." Aside from an unskillful conversation, what can happen, that can appear as pressure, is that people will give an unclear response, socially polite, perhaps, being unwilling to say "No," when "No" is what they really mean. We know from experience that behind this unclarity could be a hidden "Yes" or hidden "No." So we may ask, we may inquire more deeply. Some people experience this as "pushy."
 * My own assessment of myself came to be that I was far too willing to just give up when I didn't get a "Yes." I would lead the conversation by providing a ready reason for the invitee to decline, like, "I know you are busy so I'll understand if you can't, but we are having an Introduction next week. Have I explained to you what the Landmark Forum is?" Do you think that you might possibly like to come, it's okay if you can't?" I did that to avoid sounding pushy. I would put "No" in the space, right from the start.
 * Three people accepted and attended a guest session from my early invitations, and then about seven during the Introduction Leader Program. One of my guests in that latter period registered. I could say that I made it happen.
 * Here is how: at the Introduction, he said, "I'd like to do this but I can't, because I can't afford it." I said to him, "That's not really the question. The question is whether or not you choose to do this work. If you don't choose to do it, the money is irrelevant. If you choose to do it, the money is just logistics. Do you choose to do it?" He thought for a moment, then said, "Yes."
 * I asked him, "Do you want support?" He answered, "Yes."
 * So, for five months I talked with him frequently. His life was full of "can'ts". I began to confront that, because, in every case, he didn't know that he "couldn't," it was all story, made up. I was doing was suggesting that he disappear those words. When he'd said again that he couldn't afford the Forum, I'd asked him to toss a quarter in a jar. And at one point he said to me, "I feel you are pressuring me."
 * For me, that was a victory, because I hated pressure -- most of us do -- and so I was always erring toward being "nice," and taking a weak stand. That he felt pressure meant that I'd gone past the point of balance, so I could now back off.
 * The conversation continued, and he went to Boston for a Special Evening (an Introduction led by a Forum Leader), it took a whole day for the travel, because my ILP partner and I went in early for our Phone Assisting agreement. He was jazzed, he loved it. He was into the game.
 * And then I got the call, an opportunity for someone who was waiting to do the Landmark Forum for only the deposit ($150). That's rare, by the way and I wasn't told how it happened. I called him and he was excited. Then he said, "I only have $50." I told him I'd call in the registration if he promised to pay me back by working it off, I needed help. (I need lots of help!) By the way, I'm on Social Security and am close to the edge myself. It does not always occur that I have $100! But this was important to me. He did pay me back, by work and in cash.
 * He took the Forum, and, no big surprise, he started working more regularly, and he began handling situations that had been upsetting to him. He then took the Advanced Course, putting it on a credit card. He could have done that at any point, he had plenty of credit and no balance. It was never true that he "couldn't." What was so was that he had issues with debt, and that was his choice, fully respectable. "Can't" was a disempowering story that was biting him everywhere. People who have trouble with Landmark pressure mostly don't know how to say "No." That's true for a lot of people. Dealing with this situation so that people do not feel pressured, while, at the same time, taking a strong stand for the future of the guest, is a major part of the ILP training.
 * There was a Communications Course introduction event and my former SELP Program Leader and one very attractive woman were quite assertive about how great it would be for me to register. As an ILP participant, I'd get a discount, and, as it happened, someone else told me they would pay half of whatever was left. I'd like to take the Communications Course, and it did occur to me as an opportunity. I checked my calendar. It was not impossible. Then I got it, it was quite simple. Not now. People who have done the Forum will know: Chocolate or Vanilla. Choose! I went back into the room and told them my choice. The Program Leader didn't accept it, it seemed to me. He gave me more reasons why I should do it. It occurred to me as pressure.
 * In the internal Landmark conversation, it's famous: "Pressure" is a story. That's correct, pressure occurs in the listening. *However*, we are also trained to be "at cause," to take responsibility for the effect of our actions, and if a guest feels pressure, a powerful Leader will take responsibility for this occurring. I had a conversation with my coach, and was encouraged to take this up with the Program Leader. So I called him up. Without any hesitation, he apologized.
 * Bottom line: everyone involved in Landmark is, last I looked, a human being. We do declare perfection, in certain ways, but that's a "stand," not the "truth." A "stand" is a goal, declared as a "real possibility," affirmed, and breakdowns are expected. "From Breakdowns come Breakthroughs."
 * When my friend did the Advanced Course, he went to a job interview with what he'd gotten in the Advanced Course, and got a job that is paying him more than he's ever made before. He quickly paid off the card and all his other debts, and he's now taking the SELP. It takes time to shift the habits of almost 50 years. But he's on his way.
 * Now, what would have happened if I hadn't been "pushy"? I'm pretty sure that it would have been ... nothing. I'd have had a friend who was always complaining about his life, but who was not taking effective action to transform it. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 03:26, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Introduction Leader Program
This section is for criticism of Landmark from those who have completed the Introduction Leader Program (but who have not served as Introduction Leaders).

Program Leader
This section is for criticism of Landmark from those who have served as Program Leaders, which here includes Introduction Leaders.


 * Lars Bergwik claims to have been an Introduction Leader. He has put out many videos.. Here is an index to his posts on the Cult Education Forum: . His first post there gives what courses he completed:.


 * Comment. He was indeed in deep. The Curriculum for Living, current price, is something like $1350 or so, and includes the Seminar that he mentions. But he also did the Communication curriculum, which is another $1100 or so, full price, and the Wisdom course, being roughly the equivalent in course time of six Forums, is a bit under $3000. The Introduction Leader Program is basically free, but some people might pay $400 for the Weekends. Some don't. Complicated. As well, an Introduction Leader (and I suspect all members of the Leader body) gets a major discount, perhaps 50%. So what he paid depends on when he took those courses.
 * He says about his several years as an Introduction Leader that he wasn't "very successful" at it. Reading his account, and unless he somehow "had it and then lost it," there is no wonder. A major part of the IL training is that one must be able to present a coherent and succinct account of personal experience. He doesn't do that in this first post. In order to be candidated, one must, however, be successful in "meeting measures," which includes a certain number of personal registrations. He may have been "lucky." He may have worked his tail off to make up for lack of understanding. I don't recall having read any account of what actually happened to him that led to his leaving Landmark. His first account that I've linked gives no clue, he just gives advice to others. His description of what Landmark supposedly teaches about choice is quite off, an extreme interpretation. He clearly has heard the distinction of choice, but created a version of it in his own mind, which he then followed, which was unworkable or worse, and he blamed Landmark for that. I'd say that Bergwick functioning as an Introduction Leader, holding his ideas about the intended training, would indicate a major breakdown in Landmark. What he is warning people against is what he did. An Introduction Leader might get away with that for years, because there is no monitoring of Home Introductions, unless someone complains. The only sign might be low registration numbers, and he'd probably eventually have been held accountable for that.
 * To be fair, Bergwik had, when he wrote that post, had recently rejected everything that he'd obviously held dear for years. He'd be in confusion, as he reports. Still, I'm puzzled by the incoherence. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 03:26, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * More Lars Bergwik:, Bergwisk says:
 * another example is when landmark leader Darren Mack killed his wife. She wanted a divorce. Darren Mack is serving life in prison.
 * Comment. The story of Mack and his wife is tragic. Bergwik seems to have had an idea that a "Landmark Leader" -- I think he was a Communications Course Leader, as was his wife -- would be a saint, who could never do such a thing. Landmark Leaders are not saints. Something happened. But Bergwik has translated this into something caused by the training, instead of something that was not prevented by the training. There is no pattern of Landmark Leaders becoming murderers. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 04:06, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I myself had to collect 10 enrollenments to the landmark forum to become a leader. The 10th enrollee - Hans Linder hang himself after being subjected to landmark education's so-called education.
 * Comment. Measures have probably changed. The standard in my program was 15 registrations, but only one had to be a "personal registration," as I recall. Certainly not 10. (The bulk of the measures are event registrations, where the basic job is just to fill out paperwork for someone who has already decided to register.) There was a requirement for a single "guest card" registration. Those are hard to get, because they calls made as a follow-up to Guest Cards filled out at events, and these are people who did not register. It can be a matter of luck, but, of course, skill and persistence can also be involved.
 * So he registered someone, perhaps personally, who committed suicide. That would shake him, for sure. He had an understanding of the Landmark ontology that was quite incomplete, and his misunderstanding, practiced, could indeed lead to psychosis, in someone unstable. Was this being conveyed in Sweden? It's not impossible, it could be a meme that wasn't identified and handled by international supervision. It seems unlikely to me, but not impossible. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 04:06, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Emma - a woman that I have met - tried to kill herself after suffering a psychosis during the landmark forum.
 * Comment Landmark originally would not allow people with serious mental issues from taking the Forum or other courses. However, fairly recently, the decision was made to treat this as with other disabilities, and to leave the decision to the person, and to recommend professional consultation. There is an informed consent form signed as part of registration that gives the advice, and recommends against taking the Forum under certain circumstances.
 * There are over two million people who have taken the Forum. In that population, how many attempted or successful suicides would be expected? Bergwik, however, could be reporting a concentration of this in Sweden, and he reports that Landmark shut down there. I'm not surprised. Something may have been off, and corporate may have addressed it in the simplest way. What if Bergwik's account of Landmark teachings was actually being conveyed there, by Staff and other Leaders, instead of only his personal interpretation? All it would take would be some local culture to develop that was going that way. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 04:06, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Mr X - ran around naked on the streets of Stockholm after doing the landmark forum.
 * There are many more examples.
 * Enough is enough. Do everything you can to close down landmark in your country.
 * Comment. Even if we don't have suicides and people running through the streets naked, above statistical expectation? Bergwik is demonstrating that he never understood the distinctions. Something was clearly off in Sweden. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 04:06, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment.' Something is strange about the Bergwik story. In internet discussions, it's out there that Bergwik was responsible for getting Landmark kicked out of Sweden. However, according to Wikipedia, Landmark left Sweden in 2004. Bergwik doesn't seem to have started posting until 2006, see the first post linked above, and the impression created in 2006 was that he was still bouncing. Landmark wasn't forced out of Sweden. There had been negative articles published, but that alone would not affect Landmark such that they would leave. In France, there was also such negative reporting, but Landmark left, it appears likely, over the labor issue. When was Bergwik active? He was asked, and he didn't say. I suspect that he'd become addicted to the "conversation" -- I could certainly understand that! -- and when Landmark pulled out, he went through withdrawal and did not take steps to maintain the real conversation, which doesn't depend on Landmark as an organization. It's about human society. He'd be like an alcoholic without AA, and who doesn't realize that he can create AA, just as the founders did. Not pretty what can happen. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 04:35, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Transformation Reformers
This was an effort to reform Landmark, from those who strongly support the training.
 * Transformation Reformers Petition is Online, reformers.blogspot.com
 * Graduate Led Reform of Landmark, landmarkforum.tribe.net
 * Landmark Participants Working to Reform Landmark, tribes.tribe.net
 * Transformation Reformers, reformers.blogspot.com
 * Message from Landmark CEO Harry Rosenberg to Reformers Yahoo Group, reformers.blogspot.com