gabe wrote:

Oh one more thing.... the whole phobia issue. I do not believe the lady on "The Hypnotist" had a phobia. She often showed to be afraid and not phobic which as anyone experienced knows is not a phobia by definition and therefor won't be cured with a phobia cure. It can help but it won't do the trick.

Interesting at the least imo, that's what Bandler also says on the first vid, so do you know why he decided to take her through a phobia cure? .. TV Show demands? or didn't he know better at that time?

As I said before the reason why what Bandler did in this specific case didn't work out was the symptom level treatment.
(I can't believe that some are even trying to reframe it as great change work, 'ooh what a geniously future paced embedded command...'
c'mon get real)

Now if anyone is still wondering ...

Well Bandler gives it all away. Its at 4:43.

Think about it, and what that implies...

Have fun

Bart

steveandreas wrote:

Gabe/Bart:

Gabe wrote, I've said for years that most NLP techniques are symptom level change work."
Bart wrote, "most if not all NLP applications are symptom level treatments."

Please tell me how you distinguish "symptom level treatment" from "deeper" change (or whatever you call something better) and give me a clear-cut example--preferably specifying alternative treatment approaches in response to the same symptomatic complaint-- so that I can know exactly what you are talking about.
I assume that you are writing about an important distinction, but I don't yet know what it is.
Steve Andreas

"None of us is as smart as all of us." --Japanese proverb

Hey Steve,

I'm sure Gabe and me will differ greatly in how this will be applied, if I get it correctly from early postings,he will be more focused on giving the client or installing in the client a new strategy to use.. I would go for a new filter to use where they look through at the world, which will give the client choice.

Let's give an example I hope most can/will understand.

Nailbiting. (=symptom)

NLP application to solve this can be a simple swish..

Symptom elevated.. great


What I would do is something different and it might go like this:

me :.. what do you want to be able to do...

client ."I don't want to bite my nails anymore.. "

me: '.. that's what you don't want to do.. what do you want to be able to do'

they.. "be relaxed when I work on those projects.. "

me: "well what gets in the way of you being relaxed..."

they ..." hmm well that I feel pressured and left alone when i'm at work..."

me... "what kind of person feels pressured and left alone..

they..'' someone who's weak"

me: " now if you are not weak, would you still bite your nails.."

they: ".. hmm I guess.. no I wouldn't.."

So we easily get to a "belief" they hold true about themselves, which can be changed with a belief change application using natural resources that are available in ones life to balance out the emotions which hold the limiting belief alive..

Now the thing here is that the limiting belief often will show up in different situations or contexts across their life.

So from just knocking out the nailbiting we get to a much more generalizing change.

With this approach there are no secondary gains issues showing up afterwards.

Where in this symptom approach ie: the swish you probably might get the result, great.. but then a hair pulling habit might appear because that filter is still there...

Now this might seem simplistic....well it was meant to be to be easily grasped.

Let me give just one example out of the Get The LIfe You Want book that I see as symptom level work:

p16 Changing Bad Feelings Exec.

Submodality change of an image of another person who annoys you, or intimidates you..

No adressing of the underlying filters .. change those.. and the submodalities will shift with them.


Have fun

Bart

ps: Let me also give credit to Kim McFarland and Tom Vizzini for the above explained format.

Bart,

For NonNLP'rs there doesn't seem to be a problem with understanding that a statement like "the NLP community (gets stuck in symptom level change work)" does not equal "every NLP practitioner (gets..)

We disagree yet once more... perhaps where you live your statement is true. It might be a cultural thing but most people I know when talking about a set (group) they understand every memeber of that set must fulfill whatever characteristics we have given to the set.
And yes I am talking non-NLPers. Perhaps set theory is better taught in the part of Mexico where I grew up.

And believe me I am not taking it too seriosuly. I am explaining further my point since you manage to show me it could be thought of simply as "a bandler follower justifying his behavior". And trust me, that is not the case in the whole "placebo" explanation.

Anyway, I like people not agreeing on everything.

Steve,

To me the whole point of a wish list before a personal change session is to start studying the subjective experience to find out what is in common between ALL the things the person might want to change and the things the person wishes to achieve.

I'll first specify that I don't think the most NLP techniques work on the symptom, but I do believe most of them are often applled just on the symptom. A few techniques are designed just to work on symptoms and still most times can be generalized to more than that.

Symptoms in my opinion are not important when looking for what makes them be there. I do ask why does the person have the problems the person has as I ask what is there holding all together or what is not there that would solve the whole thing.
I may feel afraid and that I will call a symptom (which has a structure - a set of submodalities and perhaps even a contextual belief). That symptom may be a product of a set of beliefs and specific strategies (incl. meta programs) I run in my head as part of who I am and which I might not even bring to the table when asking for help on a specific symptom. If as a solution I spin the feelings the opposite direction (one technique) I may get rid of the symptom... perhaps even get rid of it entirely in that context.... but if what makes the fear appear is what I believe of the world, me and whatever else might be there plus the way I run certain meta-strategies then it will continue to show in other contexts.
Sure some will then suggest ask the unconscious for ecology checks or to preserve whatever or for congruency or whatever. If the person has a problem which he or she didn't consciously created... who created it? That person unconscious, right? So why ask the thief who stolled the goods or for a solution to the problem he created in the first place! Yes heracy from my part but I believe resources and solutions coming from one's unconscious are limited to the present state of one's unconscious... a healthy person great... a mentally sick not so great.

But going further with my attempt to exemplify what I was referring to... many bad feelings, terrifying pictures and annoying internal dialogues often are symptoms which many NLP techniques can get rid of.... but those may be product of a very lousy decision strategy (that involves specifc values, beliefs and even choice of meta programs) just to use one option as an example. But that lousy structure may not only show in the context in which the person finds it problematic. It is often not even considered a problem in decision making. It is often the case the person is ok with how it works at another context and yet not be the best possible option even in the conetxts in which the person is ok with it. Again we ran into a NLP presupposition I don't agree with... the one about picking the best option.

Note: I agree with you that the decision destroyer is a great technique. To me it is so because whatever happened in the past got the person "deciding" that event or certain things mean x and the person also ofetn learns a way of doing certain things which is not optimal.
I would never use it by itself because I think it ends up incomplete or simply treating the symptom and part of the underlying problem BUT I do love that technique.

Back to symptom and a global structure. I find this to be true when many patients come in telling me how much bad luck finding a spouse they have (of course asking to forget him or to forgive him).... and yet when they describe to me more about their life, it is also true on deciding where to work, what house to buy, etc.
The problem in my opinion is on how they decide (which of course includes specific criteria as in beliefs and values) plus how motivated they feel for the wrong thing and not really in forgetting or forgiving or getting rid of a bad feeling they may have. A common belief in clients I've worked with is "if it is too easy is not worth it, it has to b hard"... now they do not mention that right of the bat. And it is not the only thing to work on. Me, I spend up to 4 hours with a client before doing an intervention just because I rather gather as much information and do as many checks before even using a technique.

I do believe the NLP patterns can be used to help people to do more profound changes.... call them core changes... call the adjustment in the "self".... call them designing a new global structure or personality as a product of the DHE process.

I am pretty sure you'll agree with a few things I've written, specially since you complained so much about ecology on Bandler's book

Anyway my baby keeps having me stand from my desk so I hope it makes sense what I wrote. I re-read it but my baby can do a great pattern interrupt. if I need to clarify more just let me know.

Have a good day
Gabe

gabe wrote:

Bart,



We disagree yet once more... perhaps where you live your statement is true. It might be a cultural thing but most people I know when talking about a set (group) they understand every memeber of that set must fulfill whatever characteristics we have given to the set.
And yes I am talking non-NLPers. Perhaps set theory is better taught in the part of Mexico where I grew up.

Well let's then give some other examples..

Mexico has a drug and violence problem,.. I think you can agree that this does not mean or imply that every Mexican has this problem..

Even when we change the above to ... Mexicans have a drug and violence problem... doesn't mean that every Mexican has this problem...

the Bush administration was incongruent.. doesn't mean every one being part of that administration was incongruent.

Now .. when I say the NLP world/community gets stuck in ...

I agree there are people who like to put things in black or white. But in my experience they are one small minority.. the rest will get the differentiation.

Here's a thing... before we all knew any NLP we could all understand what the other person was saying.

Only for NLP'ers this now seems to be difficult, .. as if they unlearn to comprehend...

oh boy there I go again ...:-)

Maybe you're right and it's indeed a culture thing, it might be a language thing as well I guess. Since English is a secondary or rather tertiary language for me.


And let me add to this that that being specific and weeding out the generalisations has its great value in the proper settings of change work, coaching, training, ...

Have fun

Bart

Hahaha

You wote:

Mexico has a drug and violence problem,.. I think you can agree that this does not mean or imply that every Mexican has this problem..

Even when we change the above to ... Mexicans have a drug and violence problem... doesn't mean that every Mexican has this problem...

Well yes EVERY mexican has this problem! We have to live with the problem on everyday basis. And it is a problem for all of us.

Not every mexican is violent or uses/sells drugs which is entirely different. But if you had said "Mexico (the mexican community) uses drugs or is violent" then that would be simply wrong phrasing from your part because it generalizes what some mexicans (members of the mexican community) DO.

But english is my second language... so perhaps there is something lost there too.

BTW I agree in that most NLPers x and y.... I for example was a lot more annoying with generalizations before NLP. When I learned the "always? never? specifically" I hated it and that is why I don't teach to use "specifically" every other phrase or to ask such stupid questions unless entirely necessary.

I was referring to set theory and logic not NLP.

Comprehend and interpret to me are different, most people will resolve ambiguity that is true and yet sometimes they will resolve it the wrong way because of the ambiguity or imprecision of the statement.

Then again culture, language and me having been specially annoying about such things since I was a young kid could be involved here.

Hmm.

Is there an implied determiner, "all?" (in front of "the community")

Here's Pinker on it*.

"A singular count noun like 'pebble' stands for something that is bounded (delineated by a fixed shape), and not made up of individuals. A plural like 'pebbles' stands for something that is unbounded and made up of individuals. A mass noun like 'applesauce' stands for something that is neither bounded nor made up of individuals.

"All this suggests that our basic ideas about matter are not the concepts 'count' and 'mass' but the mini-concepts 'bounded' and 'made up of individuals'. If so, we should see a fourth possibility: things that are both bounded AND composed of individuals.

"We do indeed. These are collective nouns such as 'committee', 'bouquet', 'rock band', and those twee words for groups of animals that schoolchildren are forced to memorize but that no one ever uses, like 'a gaggle of geese' and 'an exultation of larks'."

.. and dare I say, collective nouns such "community" or "the nlp community".

As Pinker goes on to say:

"Within [any given] language, it's often unpredictable whether a kind of matter is referred to with a count noun or a mass noun. We have 'noodles' (count) but 'macaroni' (mass), 'beans' (count) but 'rice' (mass) and both 'hairs' and 'hair' .… The choices differ somewhat from language to language - 'spaghetti' is mass in English and count in Italian - and across historical periods of the same language."

And as Pinker wittily adds: "People who have learned English as adults have terrible trouble with all this … "

So now you know. The Meta Model doesn't cover everything.

And I would add that, for me, there's something terribly French/ Belgique, airily-assumptive, and just plain arrogant of you, Bart, to "just know" that "community" means "some, but not all (of the people)" …

Just as it also seems to me there's something very refreshingly Spanish, clear-cut, and honest to regard "community" as referring to a closed set, and meaning "all of the people".

But that's just my bias, Bart. How continuously are you aware of yours?

Eric.

* The Stuff of Thought, pp167-174.

ericrobbie wrote:

Hmm.

Is there an implied determiner, "all?" (in front of "the community")

Here's Pinker on it*.

"A singular count noun like 'pebble' stands for something that is bounded (delineated by a fixed shape), and not made up of individuals. A plural like 'pebbles' stands for something that is unbounded and made up of individuals. A mass noun like 'applesauce' stands for something that is neither bounded nor made up of individuals.

"All this suggests that our basic ideas about matter are not the concepts 'count' and 'mass' but the mini-concepts 'bounded' and 'made up of individuals'. If so, we should see a fourth possibility: things that are both bounded AND composed of individuals.

"We do indeed. These are collective nouns such as 'committee', 'bouquet', 'rock band', and those twee words for groups of animals that schoolchildren are forced to memorize but that no one ever uses, like 'a gaggle of geese' and 'an exultation of larks'."

.. and dare I say, collective nouns such "community" or "the nlp community".

As Pinker goes on to say:

"Within [any given] language, it's often unpredictable whether a kind of matter is referred to with a count noun or a mass noun. We have 'noodles' (count) but 'macaroni' (mass), 'beans' (count) but 'rice' (mass) and both 'hairs' and 'hair' .… The choices differ somewhat from language to language - 'spaghetti' is mass in English and count in Italian - and across historical periods of the same language."

And as Pinker wittily adds: "People who have learned English as adults have terrible trouble with all this … "

So now you know. The Meta Model doesn't cover everything.

And I would add that, for me, there's something terribly French/ Belgique, airily-assumptive, and just plain arrogant of you, Bart, to "just know" that "community" means "some, but not all (of the people)" …

Just as it also seems to me there's something very refreshingly Spanish, clear-cut, and honest to regard "community" as referring to a closed set, and meaning "all of the people".

But that's just my bias, Bart. How continuously are you aware of yours?

Eric.

* The Stuff of Thought, pp167-174.

Eric,

Interesting you felt the need to reply ...

Here's a thing, .. since I don't care much for academic looking/sounding content but rather for clearly applicable usable content... I wanted to skip your post. Though now I feel I might spent some time digesting it to find out if there's something useable for me.

So thx for the reference and your "biased" view.

The dual reason I'm here, is to learn and to offer...

and the "sometimes" deliberate use of delitions on my part seem to help Gabe, you and others to respond... which helps me in my learning process.

... if some read that as arrogant... they're frickin' right...

Now lighten up.

... I appreciate it.

Have fun

Bart

steveandreas wrote:

Steve Andreas has reviewed Richard Bandler’s new book

Chris Morris enjoyed your review.

I enjoyed the reviews of the review too. And now I am thinking I might do a review of the reviews of the review... or I might have a cup of tea instead.

Except I don't drink tea.

But anyway it's interesting for me to read the different perspectives here, because one of the things I really value about this site is the broad range of people who are passionate about their own way of thinking. And actually all those different and contrasting ways of thinking do make sense to me. Some people have been around for years and some people are on the cutting edge now, and some are in both groups; and it's simply mind blowing for me to read their posts and think about what is presupposed. Because - for me anyway - that's a great way to learn. And all in the warmth of my room, looking out over the glistening snow.

Steve,

In your review you wrote:

"Spinning Feelings. Bandler’s discovery of spinning feelings is a major advance in the field, one of the simplest and fastest change methods in NLP that I know of. "

How is this a major advancement?

Structurally this seems like just a submodality change ...

Have fun

Bart

gabe wrote:

Sure some will then suggest ask the unconscious for ecology checks or to preserve whatever or for congruency or whatever. If the person has a problem which he or she didn't consciously created... who created it? That person unconscious, right?

Euuh NOOO, there ain't no "external" or if you like 'internal' other entity that created it...

gabe wrote:

So why ask the thief who stolled the goods or for a solution to the problem he created in the first place! Yes heracy from my part but I believe resources and solutions coming from one's unconscious are limited to the present state of one's unconscious... a healthy person great... a mentally sick not so great.

Well resources which seem to work really great are resources who are very natural things for a person to do.

Ie: playing with your pet, brushing your teeth, taking a shower, playing the piano, hugging your best friend or child, ...

... you know how that feels, don't ya...

Compare that with...

... Ask your unconscious to remember a time when you felt really really confident...

Which might just be a state that the person has experienced just a few times, and is a rather out of range experience for that person. ...


Have fun

Bart

Bart,

You said you've read my posts so I am surprised you don't know I DON'T believe in the existance of "an unconscious" I believe in doing things either consciously or unconsciously.

I used "the unconscious as an entity" metaphor because is the most likely to be understood and approved by most NLPers.
If it is not an entity as I've always claimed then why ask "it" anything or leave "it" in charge of preserving, protecting or any other stupidty usually left to that metaphor?
The only reason I used it is because even assuming "it" exists and "it" works as it is said "it" does, then it would be stupid to ask "it" to solve it since "it would have created it (non-analyticaly and yet choosing the best option as "it" is said to work)

My opinion: People DO without awareness (consciousness) their problems. No one else is involved and they usually are the least competent to solve the problem.

And regading "resources" I don't think "feelings" are such great resources most times since those tend to be only the product of a more complex process which if unstudied and unmodified simply will continue to work the same way.
The question you suggest about asking the unconscious to remember.... is one I've never never asked in my entire NLP career.

And the natural things for a fucked up person are simply fucked up.... yes I do believe some people are broken (sorry for disagreeing with RB and most NLPers)... that is why DHE appealed to me. Design and create NEW resources and not remain stuck with the existing ones.
Again a healthy person trying to imporve might work well.... a really fucked up person needs to be taught how to think from scratch!

Anyway, you'll find some thing else to disagree with me on (even if just this last statement).

Have fun
Gabe

PS - The spinning feelings is not really just submodalities since it came from energy work (chakras and meridians and what some call the micro-cosmos) and while some people might not believe in such things, it has a lot more to do with energy than simple feelings.

Hi

That's an interesting statement, no doubt bound to create some controversy: " I do believe some people are broken (sorry for disagreeing with RB and most NLPers)"

Bandler is clear about his experience that people are either stupid or ignorant - i.e. they don't know how to do a thing. He also states that he doesn't do therapy, he educates people.

Could it be that he knows a few things you don't, or has a perspective that is more useful and effective than the one you possess right now?

In respect of this statement, i have an observation: "PS - The spinning feelings is not really just submodalities since it came from energy work (chakras and meridians and what some call the micro-cosmos) and while some people might not believe in such things, it has a lot more to do with energy than simple feelings."

Bandler can "prove" his position adequately, and has done so over many years, by achieving results. Yet you fail to "believe" the evidence. The far less tangible issue of "energy", which has less direct evidence going for it, that you state you believe.

Can you state that you have faced issues he has failed to notice in his decades of in-field experience?

To me, that is an interesting, yet also contradictory, contrast. I can only think of the old truism that proof is not persuasion.

Lloyd,

While I respect your points of view and what I think your intentions might be let me offer the following....

Perhaps I know Bandler slightly better than you do and you only get the "official" version of what he claims to believe. Or perhaps not.

BTW, can a teacher have patients? Because it is funny how often Richard refers to "a patient of mine" in his workshops. Could it be that it is illegal in many places to claim to be doing therapy when you have not license?

Lloyd, respectfuly and playfuly I say, could you please tell me how many times you have done personal enhancement workshops along with Bandler? I've done it twice and have done many many follow ups to his demos on stage. Please give me a little bit more credit

I am not sure the rst of your message since I am not saying spinning feelings doesn't work, I am saying it comes from energy work, more precisely Bandler's own practice with energy work.... yet spinning feelings doesn't always work in the long run, believe me, as I said before I've done the follow ups of many demos.

Bandler is a genius no doubt. And many controvertial ideas I have I actually got from private chats with him. Some came from him, some as reactions to what he said and yet a few others I came up with on my own time.

Have a good day
Gabe

You're right... your words have an informed perspective behind them, it gives me greater insight into your initial comments.

I've had a few idle thoughts, not doubts or suspicions, but questions and curiosities lurking in my mind while listening to Bandler sometimes - and your reply is informative.

I'm with you, I'll read up some more on the things you say in older posts. I'm bound to learn a few things along the way. Thanks for the pause for thought.

Lloyd

Your welcome Lloyd! You seem as a very interesting guy with lots of stuff I would love to learn (just reading your profile).

One additional thought.... sometimes Richard will say something to get people to try things or to act in certain ways that will work best for a vast majority while that is not always exactly how he feels about a topic. He is concern many times about what implications and consequences his comments will have so he is careful about a few topics.

Anyway, have a wonderful day. I know I already started earlier today with a couple of hours of my very best golf up to this day (three months into the practice of the sport).

Gabe

Thank you Gabe. I appreciate your comments, and please consult me if there is anything I can offer you by way of advice within my field.

You made it clear that I needed to look beyond the obvious, and I know now there is method to the madness. Thanks again for the insight and explanation.

I don't do golf, but lucky you for getting to play while I'm up to my elbows in databases. It's 10PM here. You're obviously enjoying it and still enthusiastic, so good luck with your game.

I'm heading off to Buddha Bar with colleagues now

gabe wrote:

Bart,

You said you've read my posts so I am surprised you don't know I DON'T believe in the existance of "an unconscious" I believe in doing things either consciously or unconsciously.

You're correct

... Mi knows, that multitasking isn't a good thing... :-) so I missed your "underlying" message/intention

..my bad.

gabe wrote:

And regading "resources" I don't think "feelings" are such great resources most times since those tend to be only the product of a more complex process which if unstudied and unmodified simply will continue to work the same way.

Well seems I wasn't exactly clear..

I didn't say that feelings in it self are such great resources..

It's rather the specific combination of the associated feelings which make up the whole state/experience, that is the resource.

Let's give me an example ...

When I hug my 11 month old girl... there's a combination of a bunch of feelings/ emotions there for me: ie: warmth, connection, caring, peaceful,...

...this combination of feelings is very specific .. and though the labels might not seem that way at first .. each of the different feelings is very clear and distinct...

gabe wrote:

And the natural things for a fucked up person are simply fucked up.... yes I do believe some people are broken (sorry for disagreeing with RB and most NLPers)... that is why DHE appealed to me. Design and create NEW resources and not remain stuck with the existing ones.
Again a healthy person trying to imporve might work well.... a really fucked up person needs to be taught how to think from scratch!

Depends on what you understand under "fucked up".. if somehow they have a brain trauma I tend to agree, .. Though I have no experience and reference point for "mentally sick" so I really don't know.

But I think we can fairly state that most reading this board are using NLP-changework on "healthy person" bodies.

So a natural resource will do amazingly well...

I don't see it as remaining stuck with.. 'the existing ones'...

...you can discover a different already existing resource everyday...

gabe wrote:

PS - The spinning feelings is not really just submodalities since it came from energy work (chakras and meridians and what some call the micro-cosmos) and while some people might not believe in such things, it has a lot more to do with energy than simple feelings.

Now the thing is that the basis of feelings that move through the body in a certain way, might come from energy work... although Candace Pert's book Mocules of Emotion could have been a good resource as well for the body mind connection and how neuropeptides and their receptors move through the body.

but the application as described in Bandlers book, the Hypnotist video and Steve A's review... is submodality change in my humble opinion...

It's structural no different as taking an image and making it bigger, or moving it to another position, or changing the color.

SO it's really no suprise to me that ".. spinning feelings doesn't always work in the long run, believe me, as I said before I've done the follow ups of many demos"

because it' has the same structural fault in application...

first.. symptom level work
second..on top of that...it's overpowering the "symptom"... trying to push the (-) feeling away... complete in contradiction with energy work.. where balance is key.

on a sidenote:

I've been studying energy work for the last 4-5 years, and specifically Donna Eden's Energy Medicine model. I did some Qi Gong years ago, but at that time it didn't connect. Now I started with Tai Chi 5 months ago, which is opening up for me a whole new world.

Also Energy (Medicine) Practitioner's keep falling in the symptom level treatment trap when they try to balance their stress levels by sedating the Tripple Warmer Meridian...which has to be done over and over again... because they fail to address the real issue..

Have fun

Bart

bart wrote:

SO it's really no suprise to me that ".. spinning feelings doesn't always work in the long run, believe me, as I said before I've done the follow ups of many demos"

because it' has the same structural fault in application...

first.. symptom level work
second..on top of that...it's overpowering the "symptom"... trying to push the (-) feeling away... complete in contradiction with energy work.. where balance is key.

Have fun

Bart

Bart
NLP is all flawed in its current approach.
And when someone use spinning feelings/energy my flags go up as its simply fit into the new age and muscle testing stuff.

And your right, the approach as bandlers point been is problem and problem oriented and that isnt needed to do to get effective changework.
Its doable but require to much skill and work from both the client and practitioner.

I find the book, boring, and problemoriented.

Its also funny to note that there is no need to adress the so called problem to get the changes someone would seek or want.
Removing 100% of the NLP techniques is not just possible but doable.
As there is no need to work with current subjective reality.

Now, I got influenced and did some modeling of what Joseph Riggio did which allows a much more direct and elegant solution to define what someone wants by making a bypass of the need to solve problems.
Whats interesting the way to do it is way simpler than whats currently taught in NLP.

Bart,

Respectfully, up to this point it read as your thoughts... this last post read in some portions almost identical to a few I've read from Tom Vizzini.
So sure under his paradygms, you are right only his stuff really works and the rest is simply symptom level change work attempting to just overpower symptoms.

I am not saying he has nothing good to offer, because he has or that his thoughts are not interesting and useful many times. But it always ends up in NLP techniques not being as good as his (even if there is evidence of hundreds of successful interventions plus of similarities in many things).... oh and he also loves his game in forums.

So I see no point in further debating this point about what is or not symptom level change work. I presented my opinion and I've read yours, I rather say you are right than to even attempt to get you to see things from a differnt perspectve (as humble as your humble opinion is not).

Have fun and lets have a new exchange on some other topic. I'll seat back and watch if Steve A wants to debate symptom level change work with you.

Gabe