JPG Nice posting - the point I want to comment on is your discussion about self-modeling. Following the sequence Carmen and I propose in Whispering, it is clear enough that by the time our modeler(s) satisfy the criterion of being competent to replicate the model's behavior (known solely by feedback since there is, as yet, no explicit or conscious understanding of what is occurring), our modeler has two data points: the behavior of the original model and their own behavior. So when (s)he throws the internal state switch and re-activates all the formal, meaning making patterning (mapping from FA through f2 filters to an explicit model or representation), (s)he can draw upon these two sources (in fact, in the case of Bandler and I modeling Erickson, we had three sources. There are several ways of taking advantage of these data points - I mention two: 1. the competence achieved at the unconscious level and verified by the modeler's actual replication of the original model's behavior creates a strong base for intuitions that is simply not available to anyone who is not capable of actually doing the patterning which is the focus of the modeling. 2. in the process of coding (mapping the tacit internally available knowledge onto an explicit model) the patterning, should a question, an ambiguity... arise, the modeler, now fully competent to replicate the model's behavior, simply answers the question, clarifies the ambiguity... by acting again in the world to determine how to code the the patterning in question. By the way, the induction that Bandler and I created (and delivered to Erickson on the phone) was a rote exercise in which we simply extracted the phrases and syntactic structures of published Ericksonian induction, replaced the embedded suggestions in the original inductions with the suggestions (described in Whispering - make time, make time now...) which carried the message that if Erickson responded to it would have the effect we were seeking and then and guessed at the non-verbal portions of the published inductions and did it - in this particular case, successfully. This is possible without any real appreciation of the patterning behind the rote exercise - as you know from reading Whispering, Erickson hear enough to accept our faltering initial efforst and drew us into to his sphere of influence with consequences that run stronly in my daily experience. Second BTW, what in Whispering did you find difficult? All the best, John