<p>We have quite a few questions on this site about <a href="https://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/neuro-linguistic-prog">Neuro-linguistic-programming</a>. In general I think it is more productive to talk about a particular scientific claim or a particular treatment rather than an entire paradigm. Paradigms that are not grounded in the scientific method may incidentally reflect the truth when studied relative to scientific standards.</p>

<p>In general, <a href="https://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/3788/is-neurolinguistic-programming-effective-in-influenceing-sales-processes">this question on NLP and sales effectiveness has mostly been answered in a general sense</a>. In particular, <a href="https://cogsci.stackexchange.com/a/3793/52">@what's answer</a> makes reference to the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuro-linguistic_programming#Scientific_evaluation" rel="nofollow noreferrer">scientific evaluation</a> section on Wikipedia which basically states that NLP is not scientifically based or validated.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-03-24T09:18:26.970Z
Interesting.. it seemed to me a bit "invented", even if I'd like to wait before classifying it as completely ineffective. Sometimes scientific discoveries starts from intuition and a scientific approach is really time-demanding. For example, as far as I know, Dale Carnegie is also missing of scientific evidence.. but it's really intuitive that it works in many many cases.
Revious
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-03-24T06:40:43.307Z
2014-03-24T06:48:24.217Z
2017-04-13T12:56:16.417Z
Jeromy Anglim
<p><strong>Are there some branches of NLP which are considered scientific?</strong></p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Bandler and Grinder also claim that NLP can treat problems such as
  phobias, depression, habit disorder, psychosomatic illnesses,
  myopia,<sup>[8]</sup> allergy, common cold<sup>[9]</sup> and learning disorders, often in a
  single session.<sup>[10]</sup><sup>[11]</sup><sup>[12]</sup><sup>[13]</sup> NLP has been adopted by some
  hypnotherapists and in seminars marketed to business and
  government.<sup>[14]</sup><sup>[15]</sup> Reviews of empirical research find that NLP's core
  tenets are poorly supported.<sup>[16]</sup> The balance of scientific evidence
  reveals NLP to be a largely discredited pseudoscience. Scientific
  reviews show it contains numerous factual errors,<sup>[14]</sup><sup>[17]</sup> and fails to
  produce the results asserted by proponents.<sup>[16]</sup><sup>[18]</sup> According to
  Devilly (2005),<sup>[19]</sup> NLP has had a consequent decline in prevalence
  since the 1970s. Criticisms go beyond lack of empirical evidence for
  effectiveness, saying NLP exhibits pseudoscientific
  characteristics,<sup>[19]</sup> title,<sup>[20]</sup> concepts and terminology as
  well.<sup>[21]</sup><sup>[22]</sup> NLP is cited as an example of pseudoscience when
  teaching scientific literacy at the professional and university
  level.<sup>[23]</sup><sup>[24]</sup><sup>[25]</sup><sup>[26]</sup><sup>[27]</sup><sup>[28]</sup><sup>[29]</sup><sup>[30]</sup><sup>[31]</sup><sup>[32]</sup> NLP also appears on
  peer reviewed expert-consensus based lists of discredited
  interventions.<sup>[16]</sup></p>
</blockquote>

<p>Source: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuro-linguistic_programming" rel="nofollow">Wikipedia</a>. I've made a fast search on Wikipedia, but I cannot access the papers. Also, going deep into this topic would be really demanding. </p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-03-24T00:16:47.027Z
Please, if you choose to downvote I would really appreciate an explanation, to avoid the same error the next time.
Revious
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-03-24T00:25:01.127Z
Please read the tag wiki, the tag `nlp` is not for neurolinguistic programming.
Chuck Sherrington
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-03-24T00:37:22.547Z
That's okay.  Mousing over the tag will give you the excerpt.  Clicking on it (and then clicking "learn more...") will take you to the actual wiki.
Chuck Sherrington
<neuro-linguistic-prog>
Is Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) a science or pseudoscience?
Revious
# Is Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) a science or pseudoscience?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2014-03-24)

**Are there some branches of NLP which are considered scientific?**

> Bandler and Grinder also claim that NLP can treat problems such as
> phobias, depression, habit disorder, psychosomatic illnesses,
> myopia,[8] allergy, common cold[9] and learning disorders, often in a
> single session.[10][11][12][13] NLP has been adopted by some
> hypnotherapists and in seminars marketed to business and
> government.[14][15] Reviews of empirical research find that NLP's core
> tenets are poorly supported.[16] The balance of scientific evidence
> reveals NLP to be a largely discredited pseudoscience. Scientific
> reviews show it contains numerous factual errors,[14][17] and fails to
> produce the results asserted by proponents.[16][18] According to
> Devilly (2005),[19] NLP has had a consequent decline in prevalence
> since the 1970s. Criticisms go beyond lack of empirical evidence for
> effectiveness, saying NLP exhibits pseudoscientific
> characteristics,[19] title,[20] concepts and terminology as
> well.[21][22] NLP is cited as an example of pseudoscience when
> teaching scientific literacy at the professional and university
> level.[23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32] NLP also appears on
> peer reviewed expert-consensus based lists of discredited
> interventions.[16]

Source: [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuro-linguistic_programming). I've made a fast search on Wikipedia, but I cannot access the papers. Also, going deep into this topic would be really demanding.

**Tags:** neuro-linguistic-prog

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Please, if you choose to downvote I would really appreciate an explanation, to avoid the same error the next time.  
> **username_1**: Please read the tag wiki, the tag `nlp` is not for neurolinguistic programming.  
> **username_1**: That's okay.  Mousing over the tag will give you the excerpt.  Clicking on it (and then clicking "learn more...") will take you to the actual wiki.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2014-03-24. Score: 4 | Accepted answer

We have quite a few questions on this site about [Neuro-linguistic-programming](https://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/neuro-linguistic-prog). In general I think it is more productive to talk about a particular scientific claim or a particular treatment rather than an entire paradigm. Paradigms that are not grounded in the scientific method may incidentally reflect the truth when studied relative to scientific standards.

In general, [this question on NLP and sales effectiveness has mostly been answered in a general sense](https://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/3788/is-neurolinguistic-programming-effective-in-influenceing-sales-processes). In particular, [@what's answer](https://cogsci.stackexchange.com/a/3793/52) makes reference to the [scientific evaluation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuro-linguistic_programming#Scientific_evaluation) section on Wikipedia which basically states that NLP is not scientifically based or validated.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Interesting.. it seemed to me a bit "invented", even if I'd like to wait before classifying it as completely ineffective. Sometimes scientific discoveries starts from intuition and a scientific approach is really time-demanding. For example, as far as I know, Dale Carnegie is also missing of scientific evidence.. but it's really intuitive that it works in many many cases.  

---

