Dr. Grinder, When I say that I introduce massive amounts of content in therapy I am thinking of examples that are no different than many of Milton Erickson's patterns.  Have you read some of the stuff that Milton told his patients about processes like grief and depression?  You must have.  I know that I've never come across you speaking about his unethical work. You always only point to his ability to track process, which is, undoubtably, excellent.  But unlike your work with six-step reframing which is almost completely content-free, Milton introduced concepts and practices to his patients that were anything but six-step reframing.  Perhaps you are right and that Milton did destroy many people's lives, but I always get the impression that you consider his therapuetic work as a shining example of excellence as well as ethics. Although, come to think of it, I've never read you saying anything in regards to his ethics.  Maybe you are equally disgusted by his ethics. Look,  if you don't want to say any more about your concept of ethics in therapy, that fine, just tell me that all you want to say is in the book.  I've read it and I have questions. Is that ok? I don't have the book on me, but I remember you briefly mentioning that the ethical guidline you propose does not extend to other disiplines. Am I remembering correctly?  Maybe the reason you didn't spend much time explaining that was because it is self-evident. But then please don't be mean about it; you can tell me why it's obvious or that you don't want to go  into it.  That would be fine. If you are willing, the two points I'd appreciate hearing about are, number one, what is your opinion on Milton's introduction of content.  Considering what you have said about 'beliefs' in other posts, I'd assume that it doesn't matter if the therapist 'believes' in the content or not; it is the introduction of the content, as such, that you oppose. So often Milton 'taught' his clients all about the 'true' nature of feelings, emotions and behaviors.  Like you say, he was positively intended (and very flexible), but it sure as hell wasn't anything like six-step reframing. In fact, whereas in six-step reframing it is vital that the therepist not suggest the content of the solution (leave it to the unconscious), Milton would often tell the patient exactly what to do. And no matter how tricky he was being or how focused he was on deeper process, he seems to be clearly violating your ethical standard. My other question is just what exactly is the difference that makes the difference so that therapy and sales require different ethical standards. If it has somthing to do with the saleperson having 'important' or 'necessary' information (content) that must be a part of the picture, I question this.  Although, at this point I don't think I have any reason to assume that that is the reason you make the distinction.  If I have a problem with my kidney's I want the docter (if I trust her) to introduce whatever content into our relationship that she thinks will help my kidneys. There is no reason to assume that whatever content (medication or procedure)she introduces is the only one or the only type. Hell, in a different culture it could be entirely different, and I'm sure it is.  But the docter has a certain practice that I might be interested in participating in, right?  And in therapy, I can see a similiar analogy. We might not be talking about biological processes, but let's not focus on content, right? I go in with a complaint, X, and the therapist makes a decision as to whether she can help me with whatever her model of X entails.  I agree to the procedure and away we go.  No doubt, that in medicine, sales and therapy the therapist could easily take advantage of the situation, but that seems to exist equally in all cases. But to answer your question; it is not that I, at this point, care to extend your ethical principal into other areas, but I am just trying to learn more about it and one way is to understand better the reason why it is absolute in one context but not in the other.  I'm not trying to upset you and I don't think I necessarily have.  But your response could be taken a few different ways and one of them is that you are, to some degree, annoyed, upset or ....Anyway, I've enjoyed your book and was just looking for the type of conversation you speak of intending to promote via it.  Matt p.s. what does 'get your numbers' mean?