Z & Kerrie, Todd Sloane here. I think I may have made some assumptions about your familiarity with the meta-model in NLP. As a result I am currently going "ouch" You see, Z's post to which I responded was poorly -formed and, as a result, unproductive. So much so that I thought he was doing it on purpose so as to demonstrate how NOT to communicate effectively per the fundamental tenets of NLP! I responded with (what I thought would be) a joke... So I did even more of the same to a greater extent! Little did I know (and still don't for sure) that the humor may have been lost in the process. So by way of apology and correction here is a parsing of Z's previous post. This time "straight-up", no humor intended. Some of the challenges to Z's post of: 25/10/2003 13:32:49 "Grinder hates Dilts." - This is mind reading, Z purports to know what Grinder is thinking/feeling/his internal state of mind. He has or cites no source for this mind read. I find it nowhere in WITW. "It seems that way." - Seems that way according to whom and by what criteria. i.e. what is the evidence for this mind read. "It is so freakin obvious" - obvious to whom? and  how do you know it is obvious to them? It is not obvious to me. "How Grinder will respond" - generalization, predicting the future inductively without any eveidence to support a working hypothesis, let alone an agknowledgement that an inductive hypothesis can produce a counter-example any time. "He's like a little boy." - Who's like a litte boy? and how specifically is he like one? Kerrie, I support your interest in modeling. It's a great endeavor. If you would like to learn more about how to uncover what's behind these types of inaccurate/incomplete statements try, "The Structure of Magic" It would also fit well with your interest in modeling as: 1. It goes into greater (and clearer) detail about the kinds of miscommunications identified above. 2. It is one of the first models developed in NLP 3. It is a great example of the outcome of a highly successful modeling project. Please ignore my response to Z. It was a joke and has little substance in it. Unless you want to use it to uncover more of the poorly-formed patterns identified above. It has many. Z- If you are a familiar with Dilt's then you are confusing his very own model of NL levels. My mind read, based specifically on the critique found in WITW, is that the conversation is about ideas (Dilt's beliefs level and strategies as well) not identity. "X hates Y." Where X and Y are people, is an identity statement. It is this very kind of confusion of levels that leads to misunderstanding and conflict. Please DO ask Dilt's about this one. It is a statement I attribute to him. It is also an integral part of the training he does at NLPU. Also, if you think Grinder hates Dilt's, instead of guessing, ask him! He participates in this forum. Maybe your right. If you don't ask, you can continue to pretend you are right. But how can you know you're right if your pretending? If you do you have to risk being wrong, but then you might get it right. Then again, maybe he won't respond and you will definitely NOT KNOW. Or you could play it safe and keep pretending. I am mixing logical levels here on purpose. I am not saying not to trust your intuitions. Rather, trust and then verify. Readers of this thread (who have read this far, and can make productive meaning out the the following): "I once met a man who told me he was a Christian. I assumed he followed the ten commandments, boy did that get me in trouble..." Which is my (yes, humorous) way of saying sorry, not all (my) learning is one-shot :-) Now back to Kerries question about modeling... -T