subject: An Insight Into Neuro Linguistic Programming 4 [print this page] Criticism of NLP extends beyond a lack of reliable experimental evidence to support its claimed effectiveness. The title of "neuro-linguistic programming", has been described as pseudo-scientific because the claims, concepts and terminology may appear scientific but are not grounded in scientific research. NLP appeared on a list of discredited psychological interventions in related research that investigates what does not work.
The term "Neuro-linguistic programming" has been characterised as pseudo-scientific. Witkowski (2010) writes that "NLP represents pseudoscientific rubbish, which should be mothballed forever." Roderique-Davies (2009) states that "neuro" in NLP is "effectively fraudulent since NLP offers no explanation at a neuronal level and it could be argued that its use fallaciously feeds into the notion of scientific credibility". Witkowski (2010) also states that at the neuronal level NLP provides no explanation at all and has nothing in common with academic linguistics or programming. Similarly, experimental psychologist Corballis (1999) in his critique of lateralization of brain function (the left/right brain myth), states that "NLP is a thoroughly fake title, designed to give the impression of scientific respectability".
Witkowski (2010) states that NLP uses impressive sounding yet questionable expressions such as pragmagraphics, surface structure, deep structure, accessing cues, non-accessing movement etc. Canadian sceptic and psychologist Barry Beyerstein (1995) also says that NLP contains terms such as, eye accessing cues, the metamodeling, metaprogramming, neurological levels, representational systems, and sub modalities, intended to obfuscate and to give false impression of a scientific discipline. He says "though it claims neuroscience in its pedigree, NLP's outmoded view of the relationship between cognitive style and brain function ultimately boils down to crude analogies." Furthermore Beyerstein (1995) believed that NLP has helped popularize myths about the brain and neurology. He believes that the aphorism, "you create your own reality", promotes a relativistic perspective and only seeks to gain immunity from scientific testing.
Clinical psychologist Grant Devilly (2005) identified NLP as an early example of a power therapy. Devilly claims that these so called power therapies share characteristics of pseudo-science including: the promotion of unobtainable goals, rationalization traps, manufactured credibility, a set of specific beliefs, self generated persuasion, vivid appeals, the use of common misconceptions, and attacks on critics through the use of innuendo.
NLP has been criticized alongside theories and practices characterized as questionable, pseudoscience and/or discredited practices in therapy. Sources within therapy and psychology include books such as Crazy Therapies What Are They? Do They Work? (1997), Science and Pseudo-science in Clinical Psychology (2002), and Tall Tales about the Mind and Brain (2007). Articles critical of NLP also appear in the Encyclopaedia of Pseudoscience (2000), and The Skeptic's Dictionary (2003).
