Hi Gene There is what we detect to be a significant difference between your general statements about modeling and what we attempted to describe in Whispering. You state, "Successful modelling of excellence of our human species relies on the core ability to explicitly chunk as many forms of perception as possible in the modeller of the modelled. In order to establish a well-formed outcome, we must start with what chunk or piece of behavior we are stalking in another's functioning. Then reverse engineer the pieces that we suspect might combine to achieve that outcome. When we don't reach the outcome we want with those utilized suspicions, we have the acuity to change the suspicion until we do achieve the result." Our concern centers around the phrases "relies on the core ability to explicitly chunk as many forms of perception as possible" and   "reverse engineer the pieces". The number of explicitly chunked forms of perception is irrelevant to the endeavor of modeling - this is the point of using transferability as an evaluation metric. Along with the succeeding phrase, this also seems to suggest conscious process - which we expressly argued to be inappropriate until the point where the modeler can reproduce the same consequences in the world as the original model. For us (and this may not be congruent with your intention) there is an implication of conscious analytic process involved whereas we argue strongly that the suspension of all such filters/transforms is essential to assimulate the patterning unconsciously prior to attempting to codify it. You raise interesting issues on the intersection between perceptual position (more explicitly, triple description) and modeling. For us, modeling, and in particular, the unconscious assimulation phase is an extended and profound example of 2nd positioning. You formulate a number of specific questions: 1.  "isn't 2PP actually responsible explicitly for reflexivity in consciousness." Self awareness or reflexivity is clearly a product of 3rd position to our way of thinking. It might be interesting to consider how this characteristic of our species arises but it seems quite clear that anyone with a third also has reflexivity while it is perfectly possible to have a 2nd without reflexivity. 2. which representational system(s) is responsible for 2PP or 3PP? In a well-trained practitioner, ideally all representational systems are operative in all three position of triple description 3. Can we really have 3PP without a visual disassociation involved? Yes, although as we propose in the response immediately above, ideally all three positions is triple description have all three major representational systems activated, it is possible. Each and every client who is unable (at the particular point in their development at which we encounter them who is unable to visualize (in consciousness) and for whom we automatically adjust the format to emphasize tactile and auditory disassociations in order to achieve a 3rd position is such an example. All the best, Carmen and John