Eric First of all, well done - you carried through on a committment and have offered us a report on the distinct experiences. I have a couple of comments: 1. Terminology: I bulk at the labels for the simple reason the what you refer to as the new code modeling was precisely the sequence that Bandler and I followed in creating the Classic code - what is in Whispering is a representation of the modeling strategy that created the field of NLP and still to date distinguishes it from other forms of modeling. What you refer to as the old code was never part of NLP until various training institutes began to pretend to do NLP modeling but indeed are using a cognitive approach common to any analytic process (the university, for example). Perhaps you can appreciate my frustration at the terminology issues. Be that as it may, the important point is that you did the experiment. 2. What didn't happen: I detected nowhere in your description of modeling (you referred to it as) ala new code - the meeting of the criterion of being able to reproduce the effects in the world that the original model does. Unless this criterion is met, how can one determine whether you have captured the full patterning that the model offers. You did comment: "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..." This is one of the nearly predicable differences one can anticipate between cognitive modeling and modeling in the NLP mode. The net you cast through unconscious assimilation will capture a much wider and deeper array of organisms then the narrow focus of conscious and cognitive function can achieve. However, if you stop the identification process (the unconscious assimilation) prior to meeting the replication criterion, it is impossible to determine whether you actually did the modeling as defined in Whispering. I regard this as essentially disqualifying the matched exercises in cognitive and NLP modeling. This is not to say that the adventure wasn't worth the effort only that it is an unfinished adventure. 3. You write, "...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!!!" I take this portion of the report to be an invitation from your unconscious to refine your ability to arrange protective filters to ensure that you assimilate nothing problematic for health, balance...  There is also a distinction that may or may not have played a role in this. It is a required distinct (from my point of view) to distinguish between discomfort physiologically due to unfamiliarity with the new posture, qualityh of movement... and discomfort as a report that should you continue to behave physiologically as you are at present, you have been warned that it could have as a consequence injurying yourself or upsetting some physiological balance you have achieved. The first is to be anticipated in entering into new adventure and the second to be greeted with thanks as a warning from your body. I myself (including modeling Erickson who physiology was a diaster) have never experienced such feelings of discomfort. I am very curious about this difference and suspect that there is something in the framing and arrangement of the protective filters that could usefully be tweaked. Eric, consider this an invitation to review with care the procedures you used to arrange the protective filters and the actual micro muscle movement strategy I suspect you employed and offer a more refined report on these. 4. You write, "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…" First of all, you acted and apparently impeccably to the best of your knowledge - congratulations, you couldn't have possibly "gotten the whole thing wrong." as you acted and you learned. I take much of the above quote from your report as pointing to the failure to remain in unconscious identification with the model until you had demonstrated a matching ability to do what he does. This you aborted the operation prematurely from an ideal point of view - this would account for the difference you point at. Readers, please applaud a participant who acted. All the best, John