> I'd like to know what you think of this article:
> <http://www.dcn.davis.ca.us/~btcarrol/skeptic/est.html>
Well, I hope you can see the obvious bias in the piece. The author seems
attached to believing that he doesn't need any help and that Erhard's work
is not particularly effective or special. OK, here are some thoughts.
1. From what I know about Scientology, I have no problem believing they are
responsible for smearing Werner.
2. In my experience, the quote from the guy who said "they won't take no" is
inaccurate, or at least was no longer the case when I was involved a couple
years ago. Most people who have the experience "they won't take no" aren't
actually saying "no." LEC takes a clear no quite well, and will not call
again if asked.
3. The following is VERY accurate:
<< one of the arguments presented is that much of our behavior is based on
erroneous assumptions about how people will respond to our actions and what
the "meaning" of past actions of theirs was. Once you recognize the
existence of the assumptions you make (and they are unique to each person),
you can see how they are affecting your perception of events and decide for
yourself whether or not your interpretation is valid. In many cases you will
discover that it is not and then have the choice of whether or not to change
your behavior accordingly. >>
4. Last time I checked, Tony Robbins trainings were more like $500 for a
day, not $30. Landmark is the cheapest course of it's kind that I know of.
This guy is so blind it makes me laugh. He calls a $700 60-hour course
"pricey," yet he lectures at a university where courses cost several times
that per hour!
Makes me sad. Another case of distinguish-and-discard. Jump on in, the
water's fine!
Richard Brodie richard@brodietech.com http://www.brodietech.com/rbrodie
Author, "Virus of the Mind: The New Science of the Meme"
http://www.brodietech.com/rbrodie/votm.htm
Visit Meme Central! http://www.brodietech.com/rbrodie/meme.htm