Hello, Ms. Ogdin. In this post, I use the ellipsis symbol, "...", to show a deleted portion in my quotes from your post titled "Law of Requisite Variety in NLP", and posted to the WITW forum on 28/07/2002 at 17:26:39. In the post that this post replies to, you wrote: "Ashby describes the LRV in 'An Introduction to Cybernetics,' (W Ross Ashby, Metheun, London, 1956 [my edition is dated 1979], pp 202-213), in a mere twelve pages, readable and comprehensible to anyone with a rudimentary grasp of algebra.  Of course, he posits the law in the context of a closed system (in which all variables are accounted for; how Cartesian can you get?), but that makes it no less applicable to open systems.  It's just that the proofs are harder  (analogous to the flaw in Adam Smith's simplistic formulation so elegantly generalized by John Nash's Equilibrium)." A PDF version of Dr. Ashby's "An Introduction To Cybernetics" is available online, at: http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/books/IntroCyb.pdf In the post that this post replies to, you wrote: "Of course, he posits the law in the context of a closed system (in which all variables are accounted for; how Cartesian can you get?), but that makes it no less applicable to open systems.  It's just that the proofs are harder..."  I interpret your statement to mean: "Ashby's law of Requisite Variety applies to human interactions." Would you (or anyone else?) attempt to prove how Ashby's law of Requisite Variety applies in any way to human interactions? In the post that this post replies to, you wrote: "But the real value for me was personal.  As I understood, in my shortest paraphrase, that 'systems reward variety,' it made clear why 'flexibility drills' were so important, why having more choice is preferable, and why my enduring persistence in trying to identify 'the right way' was less useful than finding as many ways as possible to do something.  I'm still working hard at trying to find ways to expand my repertoire.  While rep systems and calibration and meta-model, etc. were all important learnings, for me the real 'eye-openers' were the power of presuppositions and the Law of Requisite Variety." and I can't easily interpret it.  To help me understand what you wrote, you could respond back to this post with descriptions of: one or more systems that can reward variety (or variety as a property of a person, thing, process, or event); one or more events of a system rewarding someone or something; one or more system-rewarded varieties (or varieties as properties of people, things, processes, or events). -nj