Eric Nicely done! May I observe that the logical level (as defined in Whispering) at which the class of generalizations you present is quite abstract as it presupposes that you are capable of extracting the rules that obtain in one context and of mapping them over (presumably, isomorphically) to a distinct content. There are other levels of generalization which are easier to obtain and are likely more familiar to the readers in this thread: as an example that is likely to be available to lots of readers (anyone who has done minimum NLP personal change work) is the generalization that occurs (to some degree or another) in every piece of change work that includes the direct involvement of unconscious processes - a client's presenting problem is that he or she is intimidated by older men/women; a context that represents the set of older men/women is accessed; a high performance state is generated through a new code game (e.g. the alphabet game) and bridged using the auditory and visual stimuli that define the context originally selected. The consequences - the set of positive choices generated - will generalize to older men/women who are NOT explicitly represented in the context selected. That original context is a metaphor for the entire class (with varying degrees of overlap) of situations in which the client is to interact with older men/women and the generalization will spread through the set (including contexts that had not occurred as of the time of the change itself) UNLESS it is made conscious. The trade-off is that the more conscious the targets (the specific man usually called Dad and the specific woman usually called Mom as any respectible psychoanalytically trained or influenced practitioner would discover by conscious probing and free association), the less the generalization secured at the unconscious level - this is one of the meta points secured for NLP by the Ericksonian modeling. All the best, John