I find it interesting that when someone calls DHE on the smoke and mirrors that it is apparently made up of they get accused of not having what it takes.

You claim to have gotten benefits and skills from DHE. What are they? Please be specific. I believe that on Michael Hall's website he has an article about dhe where he asks ''where's the beef?'' where are these fabulous generative changes and mind machines that DHE is supposed to develop.

Meanwhile, good luck with your DHE skills.

Lee

It's very interesting to see these exchanges of''it did it for me '' or
'' Nothing happened it's bull'' type comments.

You can read books on enlightenment and intellectually understand it, but you cannot force your self to experience it.

It just happens when the time is right.
When you see from the other side you wonder how you never saw it before.

I find that many things in NLP and other subjects like these on debate are like that. You see what you want to see. Openness is liberating and unfortunately not enough people seem to want to expand their experience of it! Each persons experience is unique and beyond debate, science struggles to contain what in does not understand, some times you can just look to closely and miss the beauty of an oil painting viewed from afar.

Hey Gabe,

I read your last reply with growing amazement. It's suprising that a DHE trainer like yourself is not able (or willing) to explain what DHE is about (besides somewhat vague descriptions)

The only thing you do is reframe, attack and duck just some simple questions asked.

Also the inaccapability to stay on topic and distract by ''attacking'' a messenger ... is simply telling ...

SO :

* What exactly is DHE?

Have fun,

Bart

And before pushing that postbutton, apply that very neath NLP model, most ''NLPers'' almost never or even don't want to use at all on their own thinking and writing but rather turn it into a monster using it onto others, ...

Hi Everybody,

First of all, I would just like to remind everyone of how important it can be to show respect for one another, at least in the context of this forum. In my experience, these kinds of discussions are usually most productive when they focus on the topic at hand and stay away from personalities, or so it seems to me.

If anyone wants to let individuals know that they are or are not wanted at various trainings, perhaps private messaging might be a better place for those sorts of interpersonal communications?

At any rate, mutual respect is something that is highly valued here, so please keep in mind.

I think Peter also raises a valid point. I also find it interesting that people seem to want objective proof of subjective experiences and then argue over criteria and measurement.

Isn't it possible that there are advocates and detractors on for many different paradigms or philosophies because different people have different experiences and then might perhaps generalize them?

The 3-D Mind change work system seems to work quite well for many people, some of whom had little success with DHE. I think that's great.

The DHE change work system seems to work quite well for many others, most of whom have no knowledge of the 3-D Mind system. I think that's great too.

If people want to contrast and compare their experiences, I think that's fine as well.

I'm not sure that arguing about the veracity of various subjective experiences is all that useful, except perhaps as an exercise in learning about cognitive limitations. Just my point of view.

These are all subjective experiences and are therefore subject to all of the advantages and limitations of subjective experience. I beleive that we all hold the point of view that the map is not the territory, unless I am much mistaken (wouldn't be the first time! ).

I don't think that this has to be about whose dad is stronger than who or whether King Kong could beat Godzilla in a fair fight (Godzilla would clearly win as he has a ranged breath weapon, but that's neither here nor there... ).

If anyone has anything else substantive (and perhaps even positive or constructive?) to add to the topic of similarities or differences between the 3-D Mind and DHE, now would be a good time to share them, I think.

Be Well,

Michael Perez

Hi Bart,

Perhaps you can apply some of the same suggested examination to your post as well?

Both the 3D Mind and DHE are the intellectual property of their respective developers. They have not released these creations into the public domain via action or inaction.

Therefore, it is unlikely that Tom, for example, would precisely detail the 3D-Mind model any more than Gabe is likely to do with DHE, out of respect to its creator, putting other reasons aside for moment.

At the same time, I think it can be also useful to keep in mind that the moment that the intellectual property is freely released into the open, the claims of the authors of that intellectual property are weakened and therefore their rights to profit from their own intellectual labour are also weakened, at least in the US, which is the largest market at this time for the two IPs under discussion here.

In my experience, the developers of both of these intellectual properties have often stopped short of providing certain information to their critics for their own reasons. So, perhaps before one takes out the proverbial broad brush, it might be useful to keep in mind that, by that criteria, it seems to me that all sides would be equally tarred by it.

Perhaps we can consider applying the presupposition of positive intention to both sides unless proven otherwise?

The respective creators of these two intellectual properties have the right to divulge as much or as little information in public as they deem fit. The suggestion that the unwillingness to release proprietary information suggests an inability to do so is, I think, a bit of a stretch. However, your decisions about your interpretations of your perception of events are, of course, your own.

Whatever presuppositions you use to guide your own thinking, I only ask that you consider respect for other forum members as a presuppositions for your posting here in the same way that I ask that others consider this as well. This place is provided for us by people who have requested this as part of our social contract for our presence here and I don't think that it's too much to ask, do you?

For those of you are considering whether to any training in a change work technology that is not in the public domain, if you wish to regard how much of or what kind of information is released publicly about that field as one of the criteria for making your choices about training, I think that that certainly can be a valid criteria.

Personally, I would prefer that people profit from their own work in a way that seems reasonable to them. Your own criteria and values with regard to such things will no doubt affect your own decisions. And keep in mind that people who don't get paid for their work in a way that seems adequate to them often find that they lack incentive to produce new work. That's just my experience. Make of it what you will.

Be Well,

Michael Perez

Tom,

What follows are examples of questions and your replies...

re:''Maria stated: ''Seems to me to be a diluted form of NLP just under another name''

OK I will ask again. What do you base your opinion?''

re:''Many times in this thread I have pointed out stark differences that some poeple seem to ignore.

I think some NLPer's are so overly invested emotionally in NLP that they connot consider any other possibilities''

Tom, you already know people have convincer strategies and
whether or not you do it deliberately, you mismatch people who prejudge 3D mind(the ones comparing it to NLP)when you already know that's how they're going to judge it 95% of the time.

It can't be a surprise to you that ''reasonable people'' will (prejudge 3D mind) before trying it on becuase that's the ''only'' way most peole know how determine value. They sort for the frame of reference that's closest to it. while the better/optimum way to compare it is to do it/try it on/get the experience and THEN evaluate it, that means investing their time in it when they're concerned it might not be meet their ''expectations''.

not that you care? yet have you considered other ways to meet their convincer strategies besides mismatching?

Jim

Hi Gabe,
I met you once in Florida at PE 2005, you seemed like a nice cat there. So I have no problem with you as a person however I do disagree with you on some points that you have made. But first I will say this, I don’t really know DHE, and I don’t claim to either. So I won’t speak to that. What I will speak to is that I disagree with your arguments and inferences regarding DHE.

To start though I will agree with you or Richard which ever one of you believes this quote.
“His frustration at the time was too many NLPers caught up in discussing NLP and accumulating information rather than using it.”
I have noticed this phenomena. The phenomena of talking a good game but never actually playing. I think we’ve all seen it before in not just in this particular line of work but in other areas as well.

From there on though it’s a different story.

“Many detractors by coincidence after DHE develop new fields, models, applications and more. I guess it is just a coincidence that in the advertising it says you'll become more creative and will have generative change.”

This is a weak implied inference. Your totally negating any other contributing factors and inferring based more on causation then correlation.

If I hire little ms. suzy rottencrotch to mind my store and then within month of hiring sales sky rocket. You could ask yourself was Ms. Rottencrotch the cause of this? Or is this more of because she was hired during the holiday season?

I was on the 2000 training in
Orlando and Chicago (both times as staff memeber) plua my first contact with Richard was the original DHE tapes. Somehow I noticed the difference. Maybe it was me. Meaning I got the simultaneous elicitation which was different from sequential (step by step) elicitation of NLP. But I also got that many exercises were designed to get us there eventually... call it pace and lead! Maybe that is why in 2000 Richard made me a DHE Trainer, he probably noticed I got consciously what other didn't.”

This is an Argumentum ad Populum, meaning argument to the people but rather then saying everyone is doing it your saying that only the chosen or special are doing it or seeing it.

I know you don't link 3D Mind to DHE or even NLP but just out of curiosity... what year did you came up with it?

Logically speaking this is a weak implication. To me it seems to be based on a Post Hoc form logical fallacy. Essentially what is being said is, “This first event preceded this second event, it must mean this first event caused the later one.”

I think that this is to put it nicely a large leap in logic.

What makes you think we want your interest in DHE? Some people should stay away from DHE! You are definetily one of those.

Again this is an example of the Argumentum ad Populum; what is being done here is that an appeal is being made to people to concur with an argument because it arouses feelings rather than because a logically sound argument has been built.

Typically the argument would be in the form of, “do such and such thing because everybody is doing it.” But in this case the inverse is true, it’s more of, “do such and such because only the chose or only the best people of doing it.”

And when you say 'a lot more' you presuppose a little interest that I think you should get rid off... forget about DHE you don't think it works, you won't get our explanations (maybe because of your own meta programs to examine information or our meta programs to explain it) so it makes no sense to even argue about it. I am NOT small chunking it for you and making it into a linear procedure so that you think you get it. Small chunking it and precedurizing it is the opposite from what we do in DHE.

Another example of Argumentum ad Populum.
You presuppose what you were able to get is all there is to it... well, maybe the rest of us who have gotten much more were just allucinating what was really there! When someone doesn't have what it takes... there is nothing else to say. And YES I am saying the whole 'if it is possible to someone it is possible for the rest' is a bunch of crap. Good luck with your 3D Mind.

You think DHE is sequential, so be it... the less people gets interested the more a few of us will have skills other won't have. LOL

Yet again, Argumentum ad Populum.

In the future I’d be interested in checking out what DHE has to offer. I’m not railing against it. I’m just against being shinned with regard to something using such fallacies.

Chris

P.S.

Also while I’m at it I might as well voice my disdain for one argument I see a lot. Many people say NLP sucks because look at Bandler…blah, blah, blah…this particular argument is called a Tu Quoque essentially what is being done is that the person is arguing a position using certain premises to arrive at an Irrelevant Conclusion or Ignorantio Elenchi. This type of logical fallacy would go a little like, “So and so claims NLP can help you make your life better but how can that be true when so and so’s life is in complete disarray.”

Another example would be, “If NLP can really help you communicate more effectively then how come Richard Bandler and John Grinder aren’t talking to each other anymore.”

Bart,

First let me again reply (copying from my previous post):

''The focus of Design Human Engineering is to begin to engineer in a generative and evolutionary way, by developed understanding of simultaneous models. That is, how all these things fit together to create the performance that is possible given any model of the world.''
What he refers to later on in the text is the simultaneous interaction between such things as timelines, meta programs, beliefs, strategies and states. Of course this is just a brief description of what DHE is about but it may begin to bring clarity.

If this is not a good enough reply to what is DHE and to define it you expect me or anyone to give you the whole detailed description and experience (workshop) then yes I am unwilling and unable since it is not possible to describe sequentially (which is what written form does) something that is not sequential. unless you spend lots of hours building up to the experience.

Just think about the following question. What is life?

Of course you may begin to say what it is but no one phrase will do.

I am surprised how many are happy to accept: NLP is the art and science of excellence or NLP is the study of the structure of subjective experience... yet do not accept a brief reply about what is DHE.

Beef?

Before DHE I was afraid of public speaking, had no girlfriend and didn't play and compose music, didn't write any books, etc, etc. I did have 7 years of NLP trainings with big names but no results!!!!
Sorry most people won't take that as evidence so there is nothing more to say but to me my own changes are evidence.

Of course my results are the combination of many things not only DHE but most people after DHE (as one of the variables) began new stuff that they have never thought of before but won't find any link. Sorry Chris call it what you want to me it is called blindness.

Tom has a history of saying in other forums similar things about DHE or NLP, so I see no point in debating this with him any further.
I participated here because the 3D Mind originator was here but no DHE trainer was, and Richard would never even read the posts. If what I write helps someone know a bit more of what is DHE cool, if it gets people to be upset at me... oh well.

I do believe DHE is not for everyone. It is not about chosen ones or being 'the one', it may be neurological for all I know, maybe genetic or something I do not yet know.
Same thing with many things in life if you ask me. As a tennis player who played some professional tournaments I can say and challenge any NLPer to turn 5 kids into the top 5 in the world using NLP (why 5? so that we verify it was that)... it can't be done!!! Sorry. The belief anything is possible is useful to get into an attitude but it is not real. Some people have what it's requiered and some not. I know many will disagree with me, fine. Show me the beef?

Why is it that Deepak Chopra sells many more books than any NLPer (maybe except Robbins who is one of the most attacked) if NLP knows more about sales and persuasion? Why is it that so many claim they can model anyone and yet no NLPer has created a business as big as microsoft just by modeling?

You can say all you want about my 'logic' and you may say all you want about how you may think 'a trainer' should believe everyone can become a super star... I have always based my life in evidence... and my wife, career, hobbies and life in general are the way they are in many ways because of DHE, not only because of DHE but of course as a very important variable. So there is my beef!

Now, I have given information about DHE that most people didn't know, I have argued this kind of thing with Tom before I got nowhere so I won't reply anymore to people that simply want to prove DHE is no good or that will expect a description that by definition would not be what DHE is. Meaning a smalled chunk, procedurized (step by step) description of what a large chunked options (simulatenous) model is.
Plus if Richard wanted everyone to have detailed information of the systematic approach to teach it then he would be teaching or writting about that himself.

BTW, let the defenders of modeling and 'everyone having the same potential' arise!! LOL

Be well

Gabe

Thanks for the reply.

Tom does seem very fixed in his views and perceives everything as a personal attack against him which IMO is not a great advert for what he is selling

Hi Gabe,

First of all, a quick defense of a useful presupposition in the correct frame.

Does everyone have the same potential? Absolutely yes, no and maybe.

Everyone has the same potential to be the best that they can be and to perform at levels they never thought possible. Yes.

Everyone has the same potential to win the gold medal at women's gymnastics or men's powerlifting in the next Olympic Games. No.

Everyone has the possibility of winning against ostensibly superior competition in their own field of endeavor if they take NLP on board. Maybe. Depends on a number of variables.

Almost none of the NLP presuppositions work once you drag them too far out of their own context. 'The Map Is Not the Territory' is, in my experience, the most nearly universally applicable, but that's only my own map...

I would also mention that Deepak Chopra knows (amongst other things) NLP, so he's not a good example...

Getting back to our exercises in complex equivalences , both you and Tom have at one point or another said something along the lines of 'you're the kind of person that we should not learn (Insert Changework Technique Here)'.

I don't disagree that this is true. The same is also true for NLP, in my experience. I think that this is true of just about any mental or physical discipline. There seemed to be some people who never make the cognitive or kinestetic leap (depending on the requirements of the skillset) required for basic mastery. This may be due to any number of things or even possibly factors that are positives in most circumstances and only negative in a few. For example, Arnold Schwarzenegger's physiology was a tremendous advantage to him and his bodybuilding career. However, that same physiology rendered him incapable of being a best-of-category top gun fighter pilot, F1 race car driver or, to stretch the analogy a bit further, prima ballerina or lingerie model...

Indeed, you and Tom share another thing in common. Both of you apparently took NLP training and had, in your appraisals and in one way or another, either few or no results. Meanwhile, myself and many other people have had a vastly different experience, learning NLP and, as a direct result, has seen to have what could be called amazing results, both personally and professionally; in our own lives and the lives of others. Can this be construed to mean that both of you were too stupid or inept to learn NLP? I don't think so. But I also don't think that I could use that information to make much of a values judgment because I don't know what the unique dynamic was that resulted in those situations.

(As a quick aside, that's why I don't find the X vs. Y paradigm particularly useful in these things as different things work well for different people in different contexts. Again, that's my experience.)

I say that to lead into this. It seems to me that usually this is in relation to an exchange where this might be considered to be somewhat of a pejorative in that context. The context in which something is said often carries the greatest part of the message communicated, whether it was intended to be that message or not.

I think that there's really great material in this thread if one wants to learn more about the 3-D Mind or about DHE before one makes the decision to commit to a training and I want to offer my profound thanks to those who made such positive contributions here. I don't know if the various analysis on linguistic patterns by one side or another (or neither?) is as useful to that end. It seems that way to me, at any rate.

Assuming for a moment that were not going to get someone coming in who has an equal experience of both skill sets (at least not one who develop one of the technologies ), perhaps it might be useful to start wrapping up or summing up rather than going round and round (Clever double bind! Noone will ever suspect! Heh!)? Just a thought.

Thanks again to everyone for all of their positive contributions to this thread.

Be Well,

Michael Perez

Cognative Dissonance

Dear all there is a pychological Theory caled Cognitive Dissonance and could probably be applied to NLP / DHE / 3D Mind and even this group.

A man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point.

We have all experienced the futility of trying to change a strong conviction, especially if the convinced person has some investment in his belief. We are familiar with the variety of ingenious defenses with which people protect their convictions, managing to keep them unscathed through the most devastating attacks.

The research carried out by
Leon Festinger, Henry Riecken, and Stanley Schachter
was based on a cult who believed a UFO would save them on a certain date, however when the UFo failed to materialise they still held on to the belief.

They stated that an individual will continue with this belief even if it has been disconfirmed
These conditions are:

There must be conviction.

There must be commitment to this conviction.

The conviction must be amenable to unequivocal disconfirmation.

Such unequivocal disconfirmation must occur.

Social support must be available subsequent to the disconfirmation.

Now there are criticism's of this theory, but i think we can see how as supporters of NLP etc, how cognative Dissonance could be occuring?

BTW - I like the 3D mind model, I've never done DHE so can't comment. I think the best approach is to investigate and see what works best for you...

Marc
www.persuasion-skills.co.uk

Ian,

Thanks for sharing your opinion. The same thing has been said of both sides in this discussion. True or not true? Dunno. Each of us, to paraphrase one of my favorite lines from the Matrix, will make up our own damn minds... or not.

Be Well,

Michael Perez

I am not sure how NLP, DHE, 3D Mind or this group can have things applied them. It is people that do behaviours.

I believe there is a real danger in these sort of generalisations even when it is apparent that most people in a group do exhibit a particular form of behaviour. The reason is not a lofty moral standing but simply that it doesn’t take you anywhere useful.

The points you make are good ones and presupposes that that there is an attempt going on to “change someone’s mind”.

“A man with a conviction is a hard man to change.” Who says he needs changing?

Is that what people are doing here, trying to change minds? Come on own up whoever you are.

I guess that is for each of us to consider and modify our behaviour accordingly, should we so wish and in the light of new information.

John

The trouble with words is you never know whose mouths they have been in

John

I agree entirely, I thought I'd highlight the theory of cognative dissonace so people (if they choose to)could examine their own thinking process.

As you say it is for each of us to consider and modify our behaviour accordingly, should we so wish and in the light of new information.

All the best
Marc

''What makes you think we want your interest in DHE? Some people should stay away from DHE! You are definetily one of those.''

I always find it interesting when simple questions are avoided. Whenever I see it have to wonder why.

I feel like I've been told that I am not a believer so I am not welcome. To me this is very disturbing and a bit creepy.

''You think DHE is sequential, so be it... the less people gets interested the more a few of us will have skills other won't have. LOL''

Again this is a little creepy. It seems to be more about having secret powers then spreading a technology for change.

Let me say this. When I went to the DHE 2000 training I was very excited. I had the original tapes for years and couldn't wait to participate in the live training.

To say the least I was disappointed.

Even to this day when we have a DHE trainer right here, I cannot get a decent definition of what DHE is.

This is very confusing me.

On one hand you suggest that because of the DHE training everything that I have created to be attributed to that training.

On the other you suggest I don't have what it takes to be successful in DHE.

Which is it?

Then I am told by you that some people should stay away from DHE and when they do that just means fewer people will have skills.

This is a classic cult building technique that truly disturbs me.

When someone is not getting results using 3-D Mind my first response is to ask them what they are doing. I know that technology so it is very easy to troubleshoot.

Your first response was to mount a personal attack.

That is something that I have not done to you. I have not and will not personally attack you in any way.

To me a personal attack is what happens when the person you are discussing something with has run out of answers.

To me this is not a debate about whether the 3-D Mind is better than DHE. I have stated this over and over again in this thread.

To me, they are so different that they are very hard to compare.

I don't believe there is a magic pill that cures everybody. I think there are a variety of things that could work so that people should learn many different things.

If a DHE trainer cannot explain DHE and only confirms my opinion that DHE might be something that they should skip

Tom

www.essential-skills.com

Jim wrote:

''not that you care? yet have you considered other ways to meet their convincer strategies besides mismatching?''

That is an interesting question. When explaining the 3-D Mind that have completely different strategy. I have to get people to set aside everything they know so that they can look at what they're going to be learning with new eyes.

Sometimes this can be difficult since people tend to want to reference new things against what they already know. If I were talking to you one-on-one it would be a completely different type of conversation.

Unfortunately we don't have that luxury on the Internet.

So let me ask you since you are here. What do you think the NLP convincer strategy is?

Tom

Gabe wrote:

''BTW, let the defenders of modeling and 'everyone having the same potential' arise!! LOL''

I find it very interesting that suddenly certain people do not have the potential to understand or use DHE.

Now only the special few who are ''chosen'' can really understand DHE.

I find this attitude condescending and disturbing at the same time.

With excited me about NLP and DHE when I was first learning them was the potential for ALL people.

Somewhere along the line that has changed to potential for only the chosen people.

The parallels to religious cults are beginning to get a little bit disturbing for me. I'm not sure when this change occurred that you had become a believer or chosen to be successful with NLP or DHE.

I think it undermines the credibility of the technology.

Tom

www.essential-skills.com

Hi all,

I would like to think that whatever else, we all share common ground in that we are in the business of helping people change something. As we are told, everyone has their own unique view of the world and their own unique set of circumstances. I think that it really detracts from the wealth of new information becoming available to us to have fighting and bitching amongst ourselves. It is bad enough to have to constantly defend our stand with those outside the changework community never mind with each other.

Why does there have to be petty argument about similarites with this and that, wouldn't it be better to accept that things are different and have benefits. If we want to help our clients, friends, families, selves wouldn't it be better to have many 'different' patterns, programs, techniques, models in our repertoire to do this?

Be Happy

Penny

Hey Gabe,

Alright, where to start, where to start...okay, here I'm probably done whippng out the patterns of logic here for a while. I was more in objection to the structuring of the argument.

I've seen the same types of arguments used for NLP as well.

That's all i'll say about that.

I don't know with that said, I would probably use a different approach to demonstrating the usefulness of modeling, not knowing anything about modeling, I could use submission wrestling as an example. I could take 5 people and train them to be the top in Jiujitsu. But it's more than just training them too though, they got to take time off of work, they have to have money coming in while they train, etc...lots of other factors involved, not to mention which tournaments do we enter them in. Also just because they win a tournament doesn't mean that they are the best there that fought, some times a better opponent can lose on fluke because of points and you end facing a lesser opponent.

So alot of other variables play into it. All modeling is to me is a systematic approach to learning.

I've seen schools that constantly place their students in the top levels of standings.

The school i'm at now, one guy is ranked #1 in the nation for his division and another is ranked #4 in the U.S.

So it is possible without Modeling, i don't find it a large leap in logic to infer that to systematically model what they do to teach would prevent people from attaining similar results. Also take into consideration, that some people that are really good just aren't into 'paying' to go compete for 'medals'. They would rather just fight. I'm in that catergory. I don't see the point to accumulating medals, it just doesn't do anything for me.

With regard to beef, I'll accept your evidence. You know I don't have a whole lot empirical evidence that NLP works but I have overwhelming amounts of ancendotal evidence.

Anyhow, I'm glad u posted it was nice to have a DHE trainer give his piece.

I do respect what your doing with Meta-Programs. And I do like that you question the 'NLP Presupps.' that so many take as truths.

Chris

Anyways gotta go.

Just one quick point I'd like to clarify based on a previous post I made.

There is no skill set that that I'm aware of that can be learned by all people. some people are congenitally deformed. Some people are brain-damaged. Some people have very low cognitive abilities. Some people have emotional disturbances. Some people have other sorts of cognitive dissonance that can prevent the learning of some skills.

Assuming for a moment that we omit those parts of the population, in my opinion, the rest can probably learn the NLP skill set to one extent or another.

I have found that some people seem to have a natural aptitude parts of it or even all that and seem to take to it like a fish to water and others might take a comparatively long time to adapt to the mindset or use a skill functionally. On the other hand, I've known people who seemed to be naturals that plateaued at a certain level and could seemingly go no further well some of those who had a hard time at first went on to be some of the most elegant practitioners that I have experienced.

I think that all NLP modeling can do is make a skill set as easily transferable as possible. Essentially, it creates a uniformity of accessibility in that it offers the diagram of thing that is ideally equally accessible to all mentally nominally-able people. What it cannot do, in my experience, is create an equality of outcome. Natural ability and/or the willingness to put in the study time, practice and lifestyle changes that facilitate mastery are what seem to be the greatest indicators of comparative success that I have seen.

So, to sum up again, a well-designed and properly learned NLP model can help you to achieve the kinds of results that would normally take many years to learn in a much shorter period of time. What those results actually are and how much time that actually takes will vary from person to person based on what they bring to the equation.

On a separate note, referring to cult-like behaviour in things like the areas under discussion is a comparison that seems to be made quite often in these sorts of discussions. What's interesting is that these sorts of comparisons and characterizations actually go back-and-forth which I think just might be indicative of something.

Therefore, I would urge all of you as fellow Scientologists to realize that L. Ron Hubbard would be awfully disappointed were he here to see how his protégés behave!

Sorry, bad Wikipedia joke, couldn't resist...

That's my experience. Yours can and most likely will vary.

Be Well,

Michael Perez

PS: To anticipate what I hallucinate will be more than a couple of messages, No, neither NLP DHE or 3D-Mind is Scientology or anything very much like it. What two consenting adult Humans and Thetans do in the privacy of their own host vessel is no business of mine...