John, In fairness to NLP trainers -- though I've only experienced 3, and only one in a practioner certification, while the other 2 were shorter seminars -- there are different teaching styles, all offering a different "way in" to the same material, but with quite different approaches.  Some will offer long explanations, note-taking, and very explicit directions to, and meaning of exercises.  Others will use confusion, fascination and overload, and then drill exercises without elaborate explanation.  I've had good results from both ends of the spectrum, though I've often not been sure of what I know and can do and when.  I don't know if all styles work for all people.  I appreciated a cognitive approach at first because I feel I can go back to the material and work with it, perhaps creating my own exercises, because I feel I understand the background intention and theory behind the pieces.  But that bogs some people down, I realize.  Some people want to DO without too much thinking, that's what NLP is about, to a great degree, after all.  I guess we optimally would like to absorb and understand the patterning, but if there needs to be a choice between absorbing and understanding, absorbing is probably better. Anyway, an NLP trainer can't do all the work for you -- you need to do lots of practice on your own, and hopefully have a curiosity that makes it less like work and more of a following of your own desires. I haven't been trained by you or Richard yet, but only by people either or both of you have trained.  These people emphasized calibration and rapport skills above all else, as you have.  And all of them seemed to be extraordinary at it (from my pov at least).  If there's a key to picking or evaluating a trainer, I'd say that would be a good place to start. best, JS