Hi John and Folks, Almost a month ago, I promised a post comparing an experience modeling with old-code methods, and an experience modeling with new-code methods. I had a two page draft of this when my laptop broke. So now, with a new laptop, I will attempt to re-construct that post with a couple new additions. For this modeling experiment I chose to model a theorist in the field of computer science, who's work I've long been impressed by. I chose this model because of his ability to identify interesting systemic opportunities in computer science and the social environment that nobody else in the field seems to notice and he starts projects around them. His personal drawbacks are that he has these great ideas, and then aside from talking publicly about them doesn't formalize them in any way, and just kind of goes around saying "I'm just an artist, I don't need to write books", and people let him get away with that because his work stands alone in that realm as well. His projects tend to be hit-or-miss, and he has a couple business failures based on technology that changed segments of the computer industry. Still his ideas continue to change the field. The first rule I may have violated in this experiment is that I didn't interact with him; I worked via audio and video recordings of him talking or being interviewed that are accessible online. In case there were significant differences with using a live model, I used a second model that I had personal interaction with to see if there was a noticeable difference between modeling the two. In the old code modeling, I familiarized myself with his work, and watched some videos of him interacting with an interviewer. I noticed the visual cues he made, and the representations he gestured to while talking. What I could tell was this: he imagined a complex system, (for example the solar system), and visualized the individual elements each moving separately according to their own schedule... then he identified the most pivotal element in the system, the element which, if varied, would have a threshold effect on the rest of the system, or parts of the system. This is how he chooses what projects to be involved in, by what he thinks is pivotal to the system he’s trying to affect. The day after doing this, I was in a business meeting, and drew out an image of the situation in discussion in such a systemic manner, and described how our team should use such a systemic distinction. It seemed to take our meeting into a productive direction. For the new code modeling, I went into a trance and with involuntary responses asked to be able to identify with this person, except added consideration that any unhelpful traits would not be taken on. Then, I watched him again, this time from his perspective, associating as though I was him. The first difference between the two forms of modeling that I noticed, was that with the second type I identified a couple traits this model has that I didn't identify before, specifically in this case a very effective strategy for public speaking and a good way of dealing with interviews, to ensure that he gets publicity, and gets the ideas he wants into print. The second response was that I was physically uncomfortable with the process. Kinesthetically, my body said that this upset my balance to the degree that I shouldn't do trance identification again without adjusting considerations!!! Certainly, I hadn’t suspend filters correctly, and it might be a comment about the state of affairs of my life at the moment. My experience with the live model (a successful executive I was around at the time), was almost identical, except that the negative response was not as strong. My experience with new-code, or trance identification with filters was that it is far more of an “experience”. I am able to take the principal involved in the old-code modeling and apply it to any number of situations, and it's an excellent creative strategy. I'm not sure if I got the same takeaway with the new-code. My experience (since I'm very aware of my kino system, I'll describe it in those terms) is that I allowed myself to follow the kinesthetic experience and sequences (chains) that he had (in the new-code modeling), and that a huge part of that was extraneous to his creativity. Anyway, I could have gotten this whole thing wrong… Comments would be appreciated. Eric