Hi Todd Cloey - don't I wish I were back in Africa. There is no correlation between sequential and simultaneous incongruities and 1st and 2nd order change. Todd, there is a perfectly explicit defintion for 1st order changes - it is the complement set of the 2nd order changes. They can be (partially listed but I certainly couldn't make an exhaustive listing - thus, the intensive definition). The 1st and 2nd order change distinction applies to classic formats not to new code - the new code allows you to ignore the distinction as the responsibility for the selection of the states, resources, new behaviors... are left entirely to the unconscious - the client enters a know nothing state with respect to how specifically he or she will respond the next time that they enter a context like (note the lack of precision in that word) the one selected in step 1 of the 4 step change format in the new code, visited in the 2nd step and re-entered in the 4th step. The story of the development of the distinction is a long and sordid story - clearly not for public comsumption. Think about it this way, Todd. Every NLP prac utilizing the classic formats for change has had the experience of making a change with a client. The change is immediately effective however after some period of time (ranging from hours to years, the client regresses back to the original behavior. This is important evidence of two things. 1. the prac demonstrated that the change pattern worked (although temporarily) 2. that the unconscious of the unconscious is one hell of lot smarter than the prac involved. It determined that the new behavior (typically in the classic code selected by the consciousness of the client) is less satisfactory in satisfying the positive intention behind the original behavior than the original behavior itself - thus, the regression to the original behavior. What is clearly required is for the prac to take into account (through the actions of the client's unconscious) the positive intention of the original behavior so that any proposed substitute behavior must be equal to or superior to the original behavior in satisfying the positive intention behind the original behavior. If such a condition is respected, no regression (and more importantly, no resistance) will be forthcoming. John