Take The Course But Bring The Salt Shaker

Summary Opinion

After completing the second 'advanced' portion in a series of three controversial self-help courses I can safely say I've reached a conclusion about them; they are a mixed bag that ultimately requires a good dose of caution.  The sad thing is there is some really useful stuff they teach, however, this stuff seems to be buried among shaky explanations and some highly questionable practices that conflict with what they teach.

There is also a major emphasis on participants promoting the courses to their friends and family, which consumes a lot of time and leaves one feeling more suspicious than inspired.  Lastly, while they purport to be a course designed for everyone I found the speaker to be very biased religiously and politically.  All of these factors impact the trust that participants need to place in what is being taught.

I plan to tell people that I got a lot out of the courses but there is plenty of stuff I'll leave behind.  On the plus side it was a pretty big adventure and I've emerged from it in tact and stronger than when I went in.

Observations / Experiences

Non-rigorous Explanations

The explanations (or lack thereof) for many principles they teach were not believable.  In most cases I would reverse engineer the principle and develop my own reasoning.  That said, I could usually appreciate where they were coming from however, adding 'a pinch of salt' was often required.

I do a LOT of reasoning in my professional life so dealing with these issues was not a problem.  I do wonder at the other participants that were 'swallowing' the lessons at face value, probably because they trusted the speaker more than I did.  Given the other practices going on during the course it seems the speaker was relying on other forces to instil belief in the participants.

God Is Nothing?

As far as I could make out, the speaker promoted a view that everything in the universe was God, which also meant that nothing (or no thing) was God.  In addition to being entirely unnecessary this belief conflicted with my personal belief that God existed before the universe; He created it and can happily exist without it.

For the speaker this view of God seemed critical to her larger goal of bringing about world peace.  It seemed that she wanted to wedge this view of God underneath all other beliefs, potentially 'syncretising' them with a common understanding.  We were allowed to have our faiths and beliefs, but we couldn't really believe them deep down.  The speaker's view that faith did not justify various violent acts like terrorism and war was also somewhat hypocritical (more later).

Licensed Tyranny

The speaker and assistants seemed to have given themselves a license to use a number of undignified methods.  These included discounting any of my objections using course principles, using aggressive language to make me perform certain tasks like make phone calls and not taking no for an answer.  I even witnessed someone hand over their credit card to pay for the next course whilst stating they are spending their rent money, such was the pressure being exerted.

I believe this stems from the facilitators belief that what they are teaching is infallible and for the good of mankind.  Which makes this a very dangerous philosophy that bears a striking resemblance to religious extremism.  Thankfully they indicated a principled disapproval of violence and manipulation (per se).

Word Bondage

At the start of the course there was a distinct process of getting everyone to give their word to 'take a stand' for everyone else in the course to ensure we all learned or 'got' what was being taught.  Even though I was uncomfortable handing over what felt like a 'blank cheque', I didn't feel I could object and instead gave tacit approval.  This opened the door to what felt like a 'guilt trip' whenever I objected to what the speaker was teaching.  Talking about this conflict with my group members was also risky (more later).

Group Pressure

A key method I observed in getting participants to buy into the principles was group pressure.  Having a large room of participants seemingly opposed to your view is pretty hard to resist.  And the pressure would be sustained throughout the breaks within organised small groups with the elected leaders promoting the agenda even throughout meal time.

Another alarming practice was how some team members were happy to 'dob in' other team members that were struggling with some emotional baggage.  To be fair, most everyone appeared to gain some benefit from being 'outed', but it made me think twice about confiding in my fellow group members.

For me use of group pressure amounted to 'duress' and any agreements that result are clearly tainted.  I can't see how anyone would expect to achieve lasting results using this method.

World View Bias

There was more than a little promotion of a particular world view that I found difficult to endure.  On the first night of the advanced course the speaker seemed to zero in on the Christian faith stating that there are many versions of the Bible and that the authors pick and chose which lines and pages to keep.  She also said, with some uncertainty, that the Catholic church had changed it's position on homosexuality.  In reality, the origin of the Bible is a lot more detailed and reliable than this.  And no, the Catholic church had not changed it's doctrine on homosexuality but rather the Pope had recently indicated his reluctance to personally judge homosexuals.

On the last night the speaker spelled out how wrong it was to oppose 'Marriage Equality' (redefinition of marriage).  And all this from someone we participants are supposed to trust.

Faith Conflict

The most disturbing aspect of the course was it's conflict with my religious beliefs.  During the second of three gruelling days I decided that the trouble I was having reconciling my faith with the lessons would be revealed by my fellow group members and I would be subjected to maximum pressure at the front of the room.  I accepted that I would be no match for this emotional meat-grinder scenario and decided instead to attend church and prudently defend my faith.  After the service, the friend who recommended the courses spoke with me and convinced me to resume the course.  He also explained how I should respond to the faith debasing scenario I anticipated in the unlikely event that it should happen.

To cut a long story short, the scenario happened and I ended up using every bit of advise my friend gave me and all of my personal attributes in order to deal with the situation.  The speaker had me up the front and was challenging my faith with the full pressure available from the other participants.  Thankfully she backed down when I wouldn't budge and wouldn't respond to the antagonistic challenges. Although, the audience might have seen that last part differently.


And for me, this is kind of what a lot of the course boils down to:  Denying my own sense of logic and trying really hard to believe the unbelievable.  Which can be very traumatic if and when I realise I am lying to myself.