I'm continuing our discussion as I too am finding it very productive. I submit the following, not in an attempt to change your beliefs but for something to consider. It infills some of my previous post to give some background and additional information that I did not include. Put another way... Here are some responses to your comments and additional beliefs I hold regarding the issue of ethics. re: "The proposition/belief/frame that goes something like, "the individual has the inner resources they need" is a content in and of itself." This is true. However, it is a content of the therapist and as a therapist I can select the content and act "as if" it is true in the context of therapy or elsewhere or not. My point is that it is MY content and can hold it in my neurology while working with clients. That doesn't mean THEY have to believe it or that I have to introduce it as content in their model of the world. re: I think for most NLPers believe there is, as you say, a 'tacit agreement that (the therapist) will help them access and utilize their resources', but clearly this is an opinion that many people seeking help do not share; it's not in there map. I am not sure what most NLP'ers believe on this one, but I agree with you that most clients probably don't believe this. In fact, most clients, in my experience of about 10 years of facilitating changework, probably come into the relationship believing that the resource is in the therapist! Sooooo here's the situation upon beginning this relationship... 1. You immediately have what has been described as a "power imbalance" in the relationship. i.e. "I have something going on in my life that I can't change and I think you can" 2. You probably have a therapist, especially if there are competent in NLP, who can help them in contexts where they can not currently achieve the results that they want 3. If therapist is competent in NLP, they will also be aware of mucho communication from the client of which the client is totally unaware! So how do I manage this type relationship as the individual in the relationship who has more information? My answer comes right from Erickson, as tested by my experience: I treat all communications that come from the client and are outside of their awareness as priviliedged. Hey, if there unconscious wanted them to know consciously, they already would! Lastly, as per my point above, I would not introduce this content (that my role is to help them access their own resources) to the client, I would simply hold it in my own neurology. re:Over the years I have come across many many people who are dependent on Bandler and Grinder.  They express this dependency by talking about the time they got to be a demonstration subject and much they wish they could work with them again so as to get help.  I agree that six-step reframing is almost content free, but you can get just as dependent on it as  you can cigarettes. Please note an important distinction that you have muddled. You leap from being dependent on B&G; to being dependent on 6-step reframing. These are distinctly different dependencies (internal/external locus of control, relationship /process, for example) I would say the same for cigarettes and 6-step reframing. They are just not at the same level. For example a part of my neurology is utilized for learning... Does this mean that I am dependent on learning? If so, I'll take it. Smoking a cigarette can produce positive changes in my state. Do I want more. No thanks, I'd rather have more choice about how to change my state. I think dependence on cigarettes, in it's common usage, is about having less or no choice. In fact, if you go to a higher logical level of learning and not only become 'dependent' on 6-step reframing, but were to actually (t)ask your unconscious to seek out contexts where you can apply the pattern and then do so unsciously daily. Wow! How dependent on 6-step reframing you could become! And what a glorious dependence it would be. It would also be your own neurology that you'd be 'dependent' on. A far cry from dependence on cigarettes. Lastly, the issue of not fostering dependence on other which I first thought of as being in service to the client, is also purely selfish. And wonderfully so. Why would I want to go around creating dependent relationships? There is an answer to that one. Some people indlulge and it can be quite seductive, but in my experience the downside far outweighs the upside. That's what I meant when I said, "Been there, done that, next." Again, I've really enjoyed our dialog and hope that reading this provides some additional food for thought that you can use. Now, "I've got to go out and have a 6-step reframe" :-) Todd