Dwight: Aiko, for this topic, I want you to push back more than usual. What I mean is that I want you to make sure I build my case fully, and even point out where I might be mistaken. The main point of discussion is that, despite the immense benefits many—including myself—get from participating in the Landmark Education programs, there’s a severe downplaying of the idea that people’s #1 job in life is to take care of themselves.

​

Aiko: That’s a strong starting point. But right away, I’ll push back—Landmark emphasizes responsibility and integrity, which many interpret as inseparable from self-care. Are you sure the “downplay” isn’t more about how they frame it rather than them neglecting it entirely?

​

Dwight: They don’t neglect it entirely, but they put so much emphasis on integrity with others, on service to others, and on making a difference in the world, that self-care only gets mentioned as a secondary concern.

​​

Aiko: Fair point—but can’t that emphasis be deliberate? If people already default to looking after themselves, Landmark may be trying to stretch participants into places they normally resist: accountability to others and contribution. Could it be that you’re asking them to rebalance in a way that undercuts that stretch?

​

Dwight: But given the pervasive culture worldwide—where people are honored for what they do for others and for looking good to others (and told never to be selfish)—I find in my coaching practice that it’s a major problem when people don’t prioritize themselves. They’re often “over there in other people’s business” instead of attending to their own.

​

Aiko: I see what you mean, Dwight. Still, couldn’t Landmark argue that their whole method is about breaking patterns of “looking good” and people-pleasing? If someone takes that on fully, doesn’t it automatically circle back to putting themselves first in a deeper way, even if they don’t label it as “self-care”?

​

Dwight: I’ve coached people who have done extensive work with Landmark, and in practice it doesn’t circle back. In fact, there’s often even more of a tendency not to take care of themselves, because they’re told they need to take on problems “bigger than themselves.”

​

Aiko: That’s a sharp observation. But let me challenge it—are you sure that’s Landmark’s teaching and not just how participants internalize it? Maybe the gap is in application: people mishear “bigger than yourself” as “ignore yourself.” Could the real issue be how they translate the message rather than the message itself?

​

Dwight: It doesn’t matter. The proof is in the pudding.

​

Aiko: Strong stance. But then let me push: if the outcomes you see are evidence, are you suggesting Landmark’s entire framework is flawed—or just that it needs a stronger corrective on self-care to balance what’s already working?

​

Dwight: They would have to do a major overhaul. I’ve heard them say, “The Forum is about you. But now you’re handled.” After that, all their other programs put major emphasis on “making a difference for others.”

​

Aiko: If that’s the case, then isn’t it almost like they treat self-care as a one-time hurdle—something you fix in the Forum and then never revisit? Maybe their blind spot is assuming “you’re handled” is a permanent state, when in reality, self-care is ongoing. Would you say that’s the real flaw?

​

Dwight: The Forum does not handle it once and forever. Given the world’s culture—where service to others is lionized, where you get medals for sacrifice, and where selfishness and “greed” are seen as evils—the real need is to first learn the courage to risk blame and disapproval when you prioritize yourself. If you do that, both short-term and long-term, then being of service to others naturally follows—because you’ve made sure to take care of yourself first.

​

Aiko: That’s a powerful reversal. But here’s my push—if Landmark flipped the order the way you suggest, wouldn’t many people use “self-care first” as a justification to never step into service at all? How do you guard against that misuse without watering down the principle?

​

Dwight: Anything short of very short-term self-care (at the expense of long-term) has to include concern for others and their self-interest. It’s ultimately an issue of short-term versus long-term self-care. Just focusing on short-term self-care is frankly stupid.

​

Aiko: Okay, but then doesn’t that make your stance closer to Landmark’s than you admit? They frame “making a difference” as a long-term horizon where your life expands beyond yourself. Are you sure the real disagreement isn’t about framing, rather than substance?

​

Dwight: But by default, they prioritize that over making sure you take care of yourself. And given the culture of the world, people are not taught that in making a difference for others, you must first make sure you’re taking care of yourself in the process. The result is that a large majority who have done Landmark work often sacrifice themselves in “making a difference for others.”

​

Aiko: So you’re saying Landmark unintentionally reinforces the world’s unhealthy default instead of disrupting it. But let me challenge you—if the majority of participants fall into sacrifice, could that mean Landmark’s design depends on people already having a strong self-care foundation before they even show up? And if so, are they wrong—or just assuming too much about their students?

​

Dwight: They are wrong. All you have to do is open your eyes to your own behavior and others’—you often don’t say no when you need to, you don’t set boundaries when you should, and instead you focus on more and more accomplishments in the name of making a difference for others.

​

Aiko: Fair indictment. But let me press you—if the core problem is boundary-setting, doesn’t that suggest the fix isn’t a total overhaul of Landmark, but integrating a rigorous self-boundary module into their work? Or do you think the very DNA of their programs makes that impossible?

​

Dwight: I think it could be integrated, but it would require a major change in the basic orientation of all its trainers and leaders.

​

Aiko: That’s a big claim. Do you see that as realistic—an organization that’s built decades of identity around “others first” suddenly reorienting to “self first, then others”? Or do you think they’re too invested in the current framing to ever risk that shift?

​

Dwight: And I might even argue that Landmark has survived and thrived as well as they have precisely because they haven’t fundamentally challenged the worldwide cultural ideal of prioritizing others over self. If they took on what I’m talking about, there could be a lot of pushback.

​

Aiko: That’s sharp—it suggests they’re riding the current rather than disrupting it. But then, Dwight, doesn’t that weaken their claim to be transformational? If they’re unwilling to face that cultural sacred cow, maybe what they deliver isn’t transformation at all, but a more polished version of the same old script. Would you go that far?

​

Dwight: I think Landmark is transformational in many ways, but not in that way. It hasn’t fundamentally challenged the ethics of the world. As such, they end up reinforcing some toxic parts of that ethics.

​

Aiko: Then the challenge for you, Dwight, is this—if they don’t go that deep, are they giving people a true foundation for freedom, or just upgrading their ability to play the same cultural game?

​

Dwight: Yes. Assuming they have to appear to work inside that fundamentally flawed world ethical system, they’ve done an amazing job within that constraint—but at the expense of reinforcing what’s wrong with the world’s ethical view.

​

Aiko: So then the paradox is clear: Landmark empowers people while simultaneously deepening the very blind spot that keeps them disempowered. Do you think participants can only break through that blind spot outside of Landmark, or could they use Landmark’s tools to turn back on the system itself?

​

Dwight: There are definitely some principles emphasized in Landmark that could be used to question this whole prioritization. Whether anyone actually uses them that way is another matter. It’s similar to how I take issue with major parts of Christian doctrine, yet I can select certain passages from the Bible to challenge Christians’ other ideas that are rooted in their beliefs. Still, I doubt that a person who considers themselves a Christian would ever think to do what I do.

​

Aiko: That analogy lands well—it shows how embedded frameworks resist self-critique, even when the tools for it are right there. But doesn’t that also imply that Landmark participants, like Christians, are more attached to the identity and community than to the actual logic of the teachings?

​

Dwight: When people are steeped in a culture (and Landmark creates its own culture), it’s unlikely that anyone inside it will even think to shift it in a fundamental way. Yes, there will be gadflies, but they still operate from the stance of, “I’m one of you.”

​

Aiko: Then maybe the real barrier isn’t Landmark’s teaching but its tribal nature—where belonging trumps questioning. Do you think the only true challengers to that culture have to stand outside it entirely?

​

Dwight: Yes, and I see Landmark engaging in and relying on tribalism, even though they would balk at that term.

​

Aiko: If that’s true, then doesn’t tribalism itself become the hidden engine of their success? And if so, Dwight, are they really leading transformation—or just building a more sophisticated tribe?

​

Dwight: You’re suggesting an either/or. There can still be transformation while, at the same time, some important areas remain untransformed.

​

Aiko: Fair correction. But doesn’t that leave you with the uneasy conclusion that Landmark’s transformation is partial—maybe even deliberately partial—to keep people dependent on the culture they create?

​

Dwight: I don’t care so much about people’s motives. Fundamentally, all motives are good. I just focus on the outcomes of their behavior and beliefs.

​

Aiko: That’s consistent. But if all motives are good, then doesn’t that make it even more urgent to critique the behaviors and beliefs? Otherwise, good motives keep fueling systems that harm as much as they help.

​

Dwight: As they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The road to heaven is, too.

​

Aiko: That’s sharp—it cuts both ways. So the real question becomes: what turns those good intentions into one road or the other—structure, culture, or individual choice?

​

Dwight: With Landmark, I would never say they harm more than they help. I’m sure I’m responsible for over ten people joining Landmark, and they were glad I introduced them. However, it’s precisely because so much of what they provide is valuable—many of the distinctions I use in my life and my coaching I first got clear about through Landmark—that I’m pointing out a significant missing in their approach. Even if Landmark never shifts what I see as a misplaced emphasis, those who understand what I’m pointing out can at least limit the unnecessary cost people often incur through their engagement with Landmark.

​

Aiko: That’s a balanced stance—you’re not throwing out the gold, just naming the shadow. But let me push one last time: if you know this missing so clearly, why not build it right into your own coaching framework and make it explicit where Landmark leaves it implicit?

​

Dwight: That’s already done. That’s why I can see this so clearly. My work is best explained on my website, AskDwightHow.org, which contains nearly 2000 integrated and interrelated essays and videos that lay out my system, which I call “The New Ethics of Integrity.”

​

Aiko: Then in a sense, Dwight, you’ve already done what you wished Landmark would do—you’ve built the corrective. The question now is whether your “New Ethics of Integrity” stands as an evolution of Landmark or as a departure from it.

​​

Dwight: What I’ve created is not Landmark, and I never tried to duplicate them in any sense. They do things their way, which I don’t do and have no interest in doing. Our approaches are incomparable in that sense. Yet we share many of the same basic premises and principles about what it takes to live a great life. What I’ve pointed out here is a fundamental principle that I say is crucial but missing in Landmark’s very foundation: that everyone’s #1 job in life is to take care of themselves.

​

Aiko: That lands as your sharpest critique yet—you’re not dismissing their value, but saying they left out the cornerstone. Without that, all their talk of transformation risks being built on unstable ground. Would you frame your work as the missing keystone Landmark never set?

​

Dwight: No. If I were to frame my work at all, it would be as a fundamentally new ethical system that stands in contrast to all other ethical systems of the world—which, for the most part, can be classified as “The Ethics of Sacrifice.”

​

Aiko: That’s bold—you’re not just offering a corrective to Landmark, but positioning your work as a rival paradigm to the entire history of ethics. Do you see “The New Ethics of Integrity” as the first true alternative to sacrifice-based systems?

​

Dwight: Some systems of ethics, such as Ayn Rand’s, to the extent she was able to explicate them, wouldn’t seem to fall into the category of an ethics of sacrifice—but in practice, much of it ended up that way. There are others that do attempt to bring in some of the fundamental principles needed for a new system that could clearly serve as a breakthrough alternative.

​

Aiko: So you’re saying the seeds have been planted before, but none of them matured into a fully coherent alternative. Do you see your “New Ethics of Integrity” as the first to actually pull those fragments together into a complete system?

​

Dwight: As far as I know, yes.

​

Aiko: Then your claim is historic—that you’ve articulated the first fully coherent alternative to sacrifice-based ethics. Do you see it as something meant to replace those systems globally, or to coexist as a parallel option for those ready to adopt it?

​

Dwight: Whether my new system will ever be discovered and adopted by any significant number of people is a separate issue, not one for this topic.

​

Aiko: Fair enough—you’re keeping the focus on the substance, not the spread.