Thanks Robert for clarifying. You said, "the Bandler method article relates to origins" Point taken. It did some include some details about the early days of Bandler and Grinder, but (in my opinion) it was heavy on opinion and story, much the way movie attempts to re-tell the events of a war. Entertainment first, essential info second. You said, "and the article from Scientific American sums up what the scientific community knows about hypnosis" I would suggest that the "article from Scientific American" only "sums up" what one person (MICHAEL R. NASH, associate professor of psychology, University of Tennessee, and editor in chief of the International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis), "knows about hypnosis", and I don't think he represents the entire "scientific community". He certainly doesn't present his ideas as though he has any learnings about NLP, nor any of NLP's major presupositions about hypnosis. So again, I would ask you to please clarify how this second article relates to any of the topics outline on this site? 1. Modeling 2. Application 3. New Code 4. Proposed Solutions to Puzzles and Recomendations 5. Origins and Definitions 6. Epistimology (BTW, Webmaster, could we please have these topics/guidelines posted on the main page, or perhaps have the threads in titled sections to help people stay on topic?, (instead of having to search for in an old post three replies down)) Back to Robert. Perhaps in future, you can set a better frame for any similar post. Letting us know, what specifically your point is, and in which direction you expect it stimulate discussion. You merely posted two links. Take care, Mark.