Michael 1. You asked, "My question is: how do you model someone who displays a skill that is manifested very differently (at least at the surface structure level) in multiple contexts?" The answer depends very much on what you are hunting in the way of patterning and the level of coding you managed. Note, for example, historically, that the rapport patterns coded by Bandler and I originally were extracted from a therapeutic context. However, the pattern is ubiguitious cross context and more importantly, we got the coding right - that is, the level of coding was entirely indepenant of the content of the various contexts in which rapport occurs. This ensured that the patterning was context-independant. This is, of course, a beautiful example of what you get when you respect the content/process or form distinction in modeling and coding - the key feature that distinguishes NLP (as least as Carmen and I characterized it in Whispering) from other systems that fail to make the distinction consistently. The new code represents an similar situation, but even more advanced in the sense that the manipulation (using physiology as the leverage point) are designed to remain content free - the high performance state will adapt itself to the demands of the context in which it is activated. 2. You then proposed, "For example: someone who is extremely happy." All my alarm bells fire off when I consider this one: I am not entirely explicit about what these alarms represent but here are a couple of comments. a. It strikes me as a content category and so immediately I go - what is the point (read intention) of messing around with a content category?  b. Further the experiences that I have had working with people indicates to me that happiness is a multivariable, highly contextual and strongly state-driven experience and in general functions for many people as a global barometer of the relationship between their dreams (partially or fully unconscious) and their position with respect to those dreams. Someone who was happy all the time would seem to me to be incapable of learning much as there would be something approaching zero motivation to note difference and act effectively to close the gap between dream and present situation.  c. "happy" seems to contain a evaluative element (just as the verb "avoid" contains a negation) - and so my question is: what would the world be like if you operated without evaluative statements and confined yourself (for some period of time) to descriptive and interpretive observations? 3. You wrote, "If I want to model a skill set that is manifested differently in different contexts, do I have to go through each of those contexts “being the model” (ie: Deep trance identified?)." Now subject to the caveats in 2 above, I don't think that you would have to go through... however, I am certain that if you did you would discover amazing things about how to adapt yourself to different contexts and most interestingly, you would discover at the meta level what some of the appropriate variations were context-by-context - this would be most interesting. 3. You wrote, "So, in essence: how did you ensure your modeling of Milton spread usefully into every area of your life you wanted it to? Did you live as Milton for weeks on end in your personal life, business life, etc? Or, even though I doubt this :) , did the useful aspects of Milton’s skills and model of the world only spread into other areas of your life (ie: non therapy) after you had made explicit the patterns Milton used?" Complex issues here, mate!  As you surmised, I did not want Erickson as a total model (I have yet to meet a model that I was willing to swallow wholely) infiltrating areas of my life outside the original context of application - inducing deep change through hypnotic communication with the unconscious. What, in fact, occurred was that I contained the patterning throughout the five phases of modeling. Subsequently, what I had was the option to move smoothly into any portion of the set of hypnotic patterning Dr. Erickson so well represnted - the choice. And indeed, there are no contexts in my life presently where - if I choose (in me, a complex intertwined conscious/unconscious set of processes) - I do not have access to that set of patterns. I remind you that all this is possible (in my opinion) only if the modeling and coding are cleanly focused on the processes. the form of the model's behavior. All the best, John