2nd reply to John’s question: example of using metaprograms in combination with the “Presentation of Patterning” format.  For me this example demonstrates that meta-programs are a useful set of distinction at the same level as the 4-tuple. Patrick www.merlevede.biz ---------------------------------- An example: “Strategic thinking Pattern for Senior Executives” 1. Description (Behavioral steps): Generate an idea of what your environment will look like in 5 years (meta-program: Chunk Size: Overview) Now decide what you would like to do in that environment, consider various options (metaprogram: Motivation Direction: Towards / Options) Then consider briefly what will be the main roadblocks you will face (metaprogram: Motivation Direction; Away From) Consider which resources (people) you will need to get there? (metaprogram: information filters: filtering for people) etc. 2. Consequence of use of the pattern: getting to a strategic decision 3. Selection Criteria: appropriate when no strategy is available or when changes in the environment indicate that the current strategic plan doesn’t work For me, an important thing about “science” is conventions about notations that are acceptable in the field.  This type of formal notation is especially clear in fields such as match and computer science.  E.g. When I write an expert system application, after writing “pseudo-code”, which is a first description of the “behavior” I expect from the computer”, I refine the description using the language constructs for description the expert system shell has. The fact that apart for writing down strategies in their V-A-K sequences is for me one of the “shoddy” elements in NLP’s epistemology. Thus, the first question becomes: “Do you accept meta-programs” as a notation for describing behavior as is meant in your proposal for “Presentation of patterning”? While it might be useful to figure out which competencies, such as “Strategic Thinking”, we would expect from a senior executive, the description we typically need when, hiring a person only needs to be detailed enough to check whether the person has that competence at the time of hiring.  It has proven to be more useful to figure out whether the candidate is motivated to use these competencies, and that can be predicted by looking at their attitude in the job context, e.g. by examing their meta-program preferences.  (Hence: results at work = competence X attitude For instance, if you examine the meta-program preference in a job context of 25 senior executives using the LAB Profile modeling approach (or using the iWAM questionnaire as offered by jobEQ.com), one will find that there is a significant difference in the meta-programs these executives tend to prefer when compared to an average population (the words “significant difference” in the previous sentence refer to statistical significance, when using the T-test the probability that the average values for a metaprogram pattern as measured by the iWAM questionnaire for both groups are equal is less than 5%). Examples of parameters which would show significant differences are: “Chunk Size: preference for Overview”, High preference on “Towards”, high on “options” These preference correlates with the kind of programs you will want to see from these senior executives (e.g. when they have to apply the Strategic thinking Pattern for Senior Executives” pattern.) PS: one can try out the iWAM questionnaire for free in the public test area on the jobEQ website.