Hey JG, JG wrote: "Compare this to,...Whispering, page 9" Yep...you're right...and I got the feeling from this (I can send you a model of how I do this kind of mind read if you like 8) ) that it was an "if you really have to use statistics - sigh" type of comment.  Personally I think this pre-planning stage is useful. I'm not suggesting that you don't, and I agree you have in fact stated numerous times through Whispering that the first stage of modelling involves identifying and selecting the extreme behaviour to analyse/model...and I think that statistics at this stage of the methodology would help standardise what's being reported and how...before people go to all the effort of the real modelling per se. JG wrote: 2. Could you amplify your remarks - namely, I can yell if you like 8) JG wrote: "The 3 evolutionary forces of variation, replication and selection work for implicit models too" I get the impression that this statement comes out of some larger tradition - I would appreciate a reference if this is correct. I am particularly riveted by the phase "implicit models" in this context. 8) several larger traditions in fact. General evolutionary theory (Darwin, Crick, Watson, Dawkins, et al) cover these 3 forces in great detail. Then there has been quite a bit of work on developing a Grand Unified (there's that word again) Theory of Evolution (Lazlo et al) that includes Sociocultural development too. And an area that is very relevant to this is memetics.  However I'm loathe to mention this early in a discussion because it has even more credibility problems than NLP 8) However, Susan Blackmore has developed some really interesting ideas on this topic in a book called "The Meme Machine".  In many ways this is the anti-thesis of NLP Modelling - where the focus is not on an agent of change manipulating the models held by one or more people.  In this work the focus is on how these models are replicated from person to person like genes.  While I think they've gone a bit far towards the Mind Virus hype based infection model...I think Blackmore gives it a good run and develops some interesting ideas.  If you get a chance to read this I'd love to hear your critique. JG wrote: "In both genetics and NLP the sequences or models are internal..." I don't think so - the point of the NLP models that I have participated in creating is to explicate the patterning of excellence by some genius mmm...more of me not being accurate enough with my language...mmm If you are explicating the patterning doesn't this infer that it was implicit before you did this.  And I think you also state in Whispering (sorry don't have a copy handy) that the modelling process involves making an implicit model/pattern explicit. To be more precise I meant this in a Cartesian Dualism context based upon the epistemology you have proposed.  You've stated that all we deal with is representations at the FA or f2 level - which I heartily agree with.  Surely this is by its very nature "internal".  Especially since we have no real way of actually accessing the real EM maelstrom that we are situated within. (roBman resists urge to quote Korzybski). I also think that your FA/f2 model is a nice solution for the Cartesian Dualism problem.  Each of these areas present information that is a distinctly different logical type (hence the model in the first place).  They may not be separated in some "supernatural way" as the traditional debate goes...but logically they are very separate. JG wrote: - the sole criterion to determine whether the model is successful... Hey...no fair...I've already quoted you this comment 8) Thanks for your time... roBman