Robert, You said, "The SIAM article challenges certain NLP assumptions and seems therefore to be relevant to a discipline which employs hypnotic techniques" First, the "article" doesn't challange anything, the writer might be, but again, although I would argue that the opinions expressed, and studys cited, have little to do with "Erisonian Hyponosis", NLP pre-suppositions, and, what is useful, my point was that it doesn't relate (IMO-in my opinion) to these discussions. (Again, no specific relevent topic stated ;) ) In repsonse to your example, ""A person's responsiveness to hypnosis also remains fairly consistent regardless of the characteristics of the hypnotist: the practitioner's gender, age and experience have little or no effect on a subject's ability to be hypnotized."" Fairly consistent? Little or no effect? Which is it? And what's the difference? Carmen and John makes some great arguements about the un/usefulness of statistics in WITW. If you haven't already, you should give it a read. (sorry I don't have the page number handy, that index sure would be useful right about now, ;) ) Nowhere does the writer mention rapport, pacing, leading, yes sets, complince sets, double binds, metaphors, Eriksonian laguage patterns...etc. None of the basis premises that most NLPeers use as useful intention directing devices, while acheiving amazing percieved results. You asked, "As for the Bandler article: Does it not make you think about promises and claims of NLP?" Does it make "ME" think?...um...no...not really. Does it make "YOU" think? Besides, NLP does not make "promises and claims", people do. NLP is not the "truth", nor has it ever claimed to be. It's a toolbox of ideas, that some people (and myself personally) have found useful. Anyone, (Richard Bandler included) can use those skills/techniques however they want. You said, "Is it not worthwhile at all to apply some critical thinking?" To what? Claims and promises? (see above) To Possible effects of using NLP? Ask around. I don't think the portrayed experience of Richard Bandler in that article represents the average NLP experience, nor does that line of thinking acknowledge any of the other factors in Richard's life. I'll make my point again. I think that your post, including these links may, in fact , be "interesting", however, (IMO) they are not relevent to this site, and would probably find a better home, on different NLP discussion board, or news group. Thanks Robert. I look forward to your continued more relavent posts on this site, but to better spend my time, and set the example for relavence, I will no longer be supporting this thread, (unless it takes a huge turn in a more pertinent direction, (again, see the six topics outlined)). Take care, Mark.