Defining meta-programs: here is an attempt for a definition (albeit not completely satisfactory). Meta-programs are “meta” to our specific programs (or strategies in NLP terminology), they predict which type of program a person will use or explain why the same VAKOG sequence may have different consequences. Meta-programs are linked to our criteria and to how we filter “reality” e.g. a person sorting for difference (mismatching) may say that his work hasn’t changed much(even if he just changed jobs), while for a person sorting for sameness (matching) a small change in work organization may lead that person to saying “oh, I hate it, they keep changing things all the time around here.” To paraphrase the example of the meta-program distinction options VS procedures given by Dilts (see his encyclopedia http://nlpuniversitypress.com/html2/MdMe26.html ): When 2 persons use the same “decision strategy” e.g. Vc -> Ki (I construct an image and then evaluate them using feelings) even if they have the same strategy, in the same context with the same content the 2 persons may have completely different results: one person may say “I see several options and choose the one that feels right” while the second may say “I see several options and feel overwhelmed” (same strategy, for me without “content” in both cases, on structure level we note that one person seems to like the meta-program “options”, and the other one doesn’t).  According to Rodger Bailey (in iWAM Profile User Manual, a recent descendant of the IPU profile cited in my last mail), a person with high preference for options needs to create options and other possibilities. They can create procedures for others to follow.  But, if they score low on procedures, they have difficulty following procedures. A person with high Procedures needs procedures to follow. Without functioning procedures, they are lost or stuck. The most important thing for them to achieve is the completion of the procedure. Eliciting meta-programs is done by analyzing at the structure of a person’s thinking: during LAB profile training students learn to a verbatim transcript of what a person says and indicate the meta-program occurrences.  2 students trained in recognizing meta-programs should come to the same conclusion when analyzing a text for its meta-programs. Knowing meta-program preferences can be used as a modeling tool (which is what we do at jobEQ.com): if one knows the meta-program preferences typical for the top performers for a job, and does a contrastive analysis with the mediocre performers, one can then predict potential performance by examining one’s meta-program preferences.  One can also write a job ad using these distinctions, using motivational language which fits the suitable meta-programs and manage persons better by pacing the suitable meta-programs. Of course, the same goes for other contexts: e.g. if you are "away from" in the context of healing from a whiplash, you may be focusing on avoiding pain, in stead of figuring out what to do that could make you better. The examples cited are quite typical of examples and applications one will find in books such as O'Connor's "Introducting NLP" (1993) and in many NLP master practitioner trainings.  Today’s examples of meta-programs in NLP textbooks and the ways that are used to present them didn’t change much from the presentation on can find in the book Tad James & Wyatt Woodsmall wrote in 1988.  I wonder how we got here and wonder whether (and how) meta-program research got started when you were still involved.  Hence the 2 questions I cited in my previous mail. Patrick www.merlevede.biz