Hi MindSonar Professionals!
You are on the forums pages. Here you can exchange ideas with other MindSonar users about Meta Program measurement, NLP (neuro linguistic programming), benchmark profiles, NLP for business, coaching, team building, and so on.

We are also maintaining a FAQ for the general public. If you have a question that you think is of interest to the general public, please post this in the FAQ.

Log in for the forums


Register for BB


Lost password


Starting a new forum
You can start a new forum. You might, for instance, be interested in exchanging business ideas with other MindSonar users internationally. People are doing great things with MindSonar that might be reproduced in other countries. Let’s say, for example, that Belgian MindSonar professionals have been helping a large bank with their marketing, profiling different target groups with MindSonar. This, by the way, they have actually done… MindSonar professionals in other countries could then offer similar services to banks in their countries. They can benefit from the experience and know-how of their Belgian colleagues and, secondly, they can show banks in their country how a MindSonar project had already been done with another bank abroad. So there you have it: synergy. And in terms of marketing: great ideas are great, but tangible reference projects are usually more convincing.


  1. Sudoko is a game that encourages a specific meta-program category, namely matching and mismatching. These two are both important and should be used alternating as a conceptual strategy.

    In a unit of nine boxes (a row, a column or a block) you must find out, which numbers from 1 to 9 are missing (Mi).
    If several numbers in a particular unit are missing, you have to determine in which of the open boxes a certain figure belongs. For this purpose, it is necessary to look at the other two units, whom include the same open boxes, where these figures do occur (Ma). This way you can exclude certain open boxes of the first unit, until there is one left.

    There are more tactics, but they all come down to Ma & Mi!

    • With only Ma & Mi you can´t solve it. I consider Op and It as siginificant metaprograms.

      You need options to decide which box to start with and if you can´t solve that one, to jump to another part of the board.

      You need to be convinced that you place the right number in the right box yourself. There is nobody else to tell you that, so It is also important.

  2. Interesting to see how animals use certain metaprograms.
    A few examples.

    Tw, Vi & KI
    A rattlesnake that is partially hidden in the sand with his tail mimics an insect to lure its prey.
    A stonefish is camouflaged as a rock and remains motionless nearby his prey, until it comes close enough to bite.

    Aw, Vi & Ki
    A young deer that remains motionless in vegetation that matches his camouflage to go unnoticed for a predator.
    A mother duck with camouflage colors that lies still on her nest in order to stay unnoticed for a predator.

    Px & Tw
    Wolves and Lions hunt together, with a task distribution, to capture large prey.

    Tg, & Aw
    A school of fish, such as anchovies and herring, who swim together as a whole (big fish) to deceive predators.
    A herd of wildebeests or elephants, where individuals warn each other in case they notice a predator or even help each other to defend against an attack of a predator.

    Ants and wasps that live in colonies with a very clear division of labor:
    Queen, worker, men, soldiers.

    Anyway animals all have Pa and none of them have Ra as a metaprogram, as we assume that animals can’t think as we people do.

    • What I always find interesting to see, how chimpansees can think in options. You see it how their playing (using boxes, tires, toys in all possible ways) and how they solve little puzzles to get food (turning, using tools, do it together).

    • Amazing! I always wonder about the real difference on animal thinking compared to human thinking, there is much we still don´t know, if we compared what we knew ten years ago there have been big changes. Ra is a human exclusive meta program, but focusing on the animal way of thinking it is amazing to see it and what it calls my attention is that animals can learn at least a part of human language and behaviors which always makes me curious.

    • Hi Elmar,

      I read your post (rather late, ha!) and I really liked the way you made those observations and conclusions based on MPs. More interestingly [and actually not surprising] is that Ra is a typical human MP. I looked at the other MPs and wondered what other MPs could be specific for humans (and not animals).

      I thought about Ex and considered that it could be used in your example of the ants and wasps, whereby the ‘workers’ demonstrate Ex with regards to the values of the ‘queen-bee’!

      Then I thought about Elc. My conclusion is that Elc would be a typical human MP. What’s your take on this?

      Of course, the essence is which MPs animals specifically demonstrate with their behaviour much rather than which is typical human and which is not. However, it is a nice thought:)

      Regards, Richard.

  3. De rapportage van MindSonar ziet er geweldig uit. Mooie grafieken (ook van Graves). Per programma een duidelijke uitleg met een thermometer en een uitleg over de tegengestelden. Wat ik prettig vind is dat je de rapportage in word kunt bewerken (u – je, kleur e.d.) en weer als pdf kunt opslaan.

  4. I liked very much the discussion about how animals use meta programs and we use them all the time, there is always a strategy in everything we do during the day and even when basic things, used to survive can illustrate the use of meta programs it is amazing how on higher demand chores you can see how everything becomes more complex, but it is always the same principle.

  5. Hallo Koos,

    Mooi een antal post op het algemene forum, misschien kan je ze ook op het CT 2013 forum zetten?

  6. I would like to understand better about the metaprogram of external vs internal reference, and particularly in relation to external vs internal locus of control. I find that people commonly are either internal for both, or external for both as they do go more hand in hand. However, I am also seeing where with an group of entrepreneurs that I profiled recently, that there were a handful of people who were higher in being external referenced, and who were also higher in internal locus of control. These people were doing really well with developing their business, except that it was at a more methodical and more steady pace, as they gathered a lot more feedback from others before they moved forward, and tended to be a little more reactive vs practice as they considered their options. The foundation of their business development was more stable, then others who acted quickly (very proactive, internally referred, and internal locus of control.) The combination in this context of the external reference, in relation to the internal locus of control seemed to be a good one. Curious if anyone else has seen this pattern much, and if so,in what context(s), and how it manifested/represented itself? Thanks! Marilyn Carmona

    • Right. ‘It is very important to us what you want, and we can make it happen!’ Sound like a sound business slogan.

  7. I am curious, or is it just me, that I am attracting people to test, who I am profiling in different contexts, who are high in certain metaprograms?

    I am finding a general pattern of proactive, towards, matching, optional, general, internal locus of control, and internally referenced, development, proximity and kinesthetic as the highest scores. I believe that in general the NLP community, which these profiles were not taken from, have a similar pattern, with the exception of maybe the kinesthetic, which was more visual if I remember from our class group profile.

    Curious if others have seen this pattern of like-attracts like?

    Any comments or feedback welcome.


    Marilyn Carmona

    • Yes, I recognize this. BTW if you look at the bars next to the explanatory texts in the report, you can see the actual average over everyone who has ever filled out MindSonar.

  8. Fascinating stuff Marilyn. I came across an interesting take on internal vs external today. The person I profiled said that when think about what others think, it isn’t about them deciding, it is more “Seeking to understand people: people have needs and by providing a willingness to listen and be patient to understand their point of view allows us to learn from each other and create frameworks for optimal solutions.”

    He makes his business decisions based on what is best for the company and employees in the long run and has no problem with making some unpopular decisions when required. (I hope I explained that well).
    What do all of you think about his explanation?

    • Yesterday I heard also an interesting view from a male person I profiled for my teamsession.
      He had a profile with a typical correlation between towards, global, matching etc. The only exception was that the external locus and reference have high scores in stead of the internal locus and references. He explained that it works just the other way around for him. He is sensitive for a good atmosphere. The moment he experiences that his internal references becomes smaller and he opens himself for the the references of others. Do you or someone else have experiences with such kind of profile? And how do you look up towards this or analyse this profile?
      Looking to hear for other perspectives!

  9. Might this have to do with the distinction (focus on) self versus other? A meta program we should start measuring soon…

  10. I have a question: I have probably the opportunity to do a team Mindsonar profile session in a team. So I can practice a teamsession for my Mind Sonar Certification. But it is a big team of 16 people. Can you do a teamsession with a team of that size? And if it is possible, do you have some tips for me how to handle this in a good way?

    • Hello Annet,
      Good question.

      I have done team building with MindSonar in teams of this size. You can do the standard team building program (T-Mobile model) we practice in the certification training, but you will need to plan carefully, since all the individual presentations will be times 16 (16 times 5 minutes is 1:20 hours. 16 times 10 minutes is almost 3 hours). And even 10 minutes is short for the individual presentations, especially if you also want to have some interaction with the team about those presentations.

      One way around this would be to split the group in halves or even thirds for the individual presentations and then have some exchange moment between the groups. For instance if you split the group in thirds, you can have one person from each subgroup tell two thirds from the other two subgroups what happened in their third. Another option for the exchange would be video, filming the individual presentations and then making the video’s available, f.i. on the intranet. I would work with a second trainer.

      Other elements of the team building program can be done in the complete group, like the individual slogans and SWOT with the group profile.

      Another action I recommend in this case, is to do individual interpretation sessions with each team member before the training and to do them live or at least in Skype. That way you can more easily interpret and respond to what’s happening in the training.

      Wishing you great success!

  11. Hi Jaap,

    Thanks for you’re fully answer, that is really helpful.
    I like the different options you offer, so I can choose what’s fit the situation the best
    and what is possible within the available time.

  12. For the Mind Sonar Training I asked 4 people to fill in the Mind Sonar Test and I sent the Mind Sonar Profile. In response of the Profile Profile (Report) I received in all cases the reaction that it was a lot to read (30 pages), and therefore not so inviting specially when people are catched up with their daily work. I had to admit I had personally the same reaction (maybe logical because I score high on general). Therefore I had 2 questions:

    1. I wonder what experiences of others are towards the quantity of the report?

    2. Would it be possible to print the profile/report in two seperate parts for people who prefer that?
    Part 1 the score of the profile itself (preferable per metaprogram one page)
    Part 2 consists then only the interpretatation of the metaprograms?

    • Hi Annet,
      I have more or less the same experience and generally, I ignore it!
      After the test, I always have the session where we discuss the results – this is a 1 to 2 hour session depending on the initial question or the results that came from the test.
      Before that session, I send the report and explain the setup and format of the report. There I already utilise some of the MP’s that the report showed. So, if the person scored high on ‘general’, then I will explain him that the summary shows the outline, et cetera, et cetera. When person scored high on ‘specific’, then I will explain that the details of each individual score is explained separately in the following pages. Usually, I write something that will trigger some of the other MP’s as well, e.g. proactive or reactive, et cetera.

      This works for me and generally for the client as well!

      Alternatively, you can extract one page from the doc and save this as PDF. Now you can only send that particular page.

      Regards, Richard.

  13. Hi Richard,

    Good to hear that you also have this experience.
    And thanks for the suggestions how to deal with it! It is smart adapting the response to their profile.
    I take this right away with me in my approach to the teamsession I am going to do at the end of august.

    Regards, Annet

  14. Interesting to read Micarmona, that you attract people despite different contexts in certain metaprograms. I just profiled for the training Mind Sonar a team of 4 people. Two persons in the team have the metaprogram reactive and 2 persons the metaprogram proactive. Besides this difference they have also the same pattern you described (towards, matching, optinal, general etc.). Do you or someone else have this experience? How can you explain the difference of proactive that is not in line how it is general correlated?

  15. Yesterday I heard also an interesting view from a male person I profiled for my teamsession.
    He had a profile with a typical correlation between towards, global, matching etc. The only exception was that the external locus and reference have high scores in stead of the internal locus and references. He explained that it works just the other way around for him. He is sensitive for a good atmosphere. The moment he experiences that his internal references becomes smaller and he opens himself for the the references of others. Do you or someone else have experiences with such kind of profile? And how do you look up towards this or analyse this profile?
    Looking to hear for other perspectives!

    • I recognize this kind of profile. In my case the person felt dependent on others; the good atmosphere is out of his control.
      The question “what do you do the turn the atmosphere into a good one?” he said that this was impossible for him. So we see a high Elc. Interesting was: who decide that the atmosphere was bad? Answer: “I do” and now we see an It!

      In some context it is possible to have a high score on Ex, to be focused on others and their needs. This choice can be made by somebody who is very Internal referenced.

      In your case I like to know the criteria and the context.

  16. Great to hear that you recognize this profile and to explore it further.

    The context of the person was ‘my contribution as a board member to the development of the organisation’
    The criteria were: Atmosphere of togetherness versus every man for himself, innovation of the organisation versus routine, connection versus individually, quality of work versus only focus on sales, metacriteria: great, relevant work versus boring and repetition. Does this information helps?

    • Hi Annet,
      Does he contribute, as a board member, to the atmosphere of togetherness and to the innovation and to the connection?
      If so, he has a strong Ilc. If not and he becomes a victim of others, than he has probably a strong Elc.

      Suppose his criteria don’t match. Is this because of his strong Internal reference and does he have other ideas about atmosphere, innovation, etc. than the others have? Doesn’t he have any influence or is he a loner?

      Or does the criteria match and is he very happy? From an internal reference he can be very receptive for other ideas and meanings from his colleagues . So on the level of the ideas, he is external referenced and Internal referenced to be receptive!

      Could this be helpful for your interpretation?

  17. It is very helpful to explore this case! He actually do contribute to the atmosphere of togerness and innovation. He founds that very important and takes the initiative to meet other colleagues for reflection. During our conversation he told me that it takes time for him to know what he thinks and wants. So I think you are right that in the phase of making up his own mind he is very receptive for the deas and meanings of his colleagues. Your formulation of ‘he is external referenced and internal referenced to be receptive’ fits him very well. Good to take advantage for the teamsession I have next Tuesday. Did you already did your teamsession? Do have soms good advices / do’s or dont’s ?

    • Hi Anette,

      You can use the presentation of Jaap for the start of the teamsession (“Mensen lezen”). Then you have a repetition of the metaprograms with the advantages and disadvantages. Let the teammembers present their own mindsonar and what/how they can contribute to the team. Discuss about the different criteria they have.

  18. Hi Wouter,

    Thanks for the proposal of the presentation. Good to remind that there is already a presentation I can use.
    That will be a pleasant start of the teamsession and nice to continue to exchange each other profiles.
    All the ingredients are there for a great teamsession!

  19. Hi Wouter,

    Thanks for the proposal of the presentation. Good to remingme that there is already a presentation I can use.
    And pleasant to continue with exhanging each other profiles.
    All the ingredients are there for a great teamsession!

  20. Mindsnar a tool that helps us recognize styles of thoughts of people.
    Thoughts, emotions and hence the behaviour derived from there, linked to the functioning of the brain.
    As to the evolution of the man was advancing, the composition of his brain was more sophisticated. This is how the brains of human beings, is currently composed of the reptilian brain that we share with the crocodiles for example (the oldest and that it has to do with what help the survival of the species). Then appears the limbic brain, where are the emotions (emotions that are also present in higher mammals) and finally and most recently: the neocortex, which is the brain that allows us to think in the way that we do, make abstractions, manage symbols and language in a sophisticated way. The neocortex a while ago up to was considered exclusive of the human species, though studies are underway to see if that hypothesis is correct.
    This makes me have the trial that we share several metaprogrammes with animals. Some metaprogrammes with certain animals and some metaprogrammes with others.
    I want to share with you something that I always remember with emotion. A new Member arrived home in my teens. It was a beautiful dog that my mother picked up from the street. This mascot was very beloved by all the members of my family. After 15 years, when my mother dies and the dog stopped eating. We did in vain attempts so that they feed. The month of death my mother, my dog also died of starvation. The diagnosis of the veterinarian was emphatic, our dog had died of sadness…

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *