{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02227342549923195, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0030721966205837174, 'mean_word_length': 5.294685990338165, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Response To Koch's Assumptions About Group Process

Professor Koch asserts that the image of man implicit in encounter group theory is demeaning and destructive (Koch, 1971). He claims that, because it is based on this image, the entire encounter group movement is self-defeating and doomed to an early demise. Koch’s position derives from some assumptions he makes about the encounter group process. These assumptions add up to his view of participants as essentially brainwashed into performing in ways predetermined by the leader (or by the movement, perhaps, with the leader being similarly brainwashed?). Koch sees leaders using a script that involves contriving an atmosphere of apparent trust among a group of adventitiously assembled strangers; influencing each to expose himself; influencing the others to give feedback to the exposer. In this process, the exposer redefines himself and thereby supposedly realizes his human potential. The core of Koch’s critique is that the encounter group participant is programed to fit a predetermined model, thereby violating his uniqueness as a person. I believe that Koch’s criticism derives largely from his confusion between predetermination and predictability with regard to group process. To illustrate the problem, consider an incident from an en-