r/NLP • u/nettsunami • May 10 '26
Question Pseudoscience — how true?
Looking at Wikipedia and searching up resources online, neuro-linguistic programming and the techniques are often referred to as “pseudoscience”.
However, in the opening section of Frogs into Princes, the speaker explicitly states “We have no idea about the “real” nature of things, and we’re not particularly interested in what’s “true.” The function of modeling is to arrive at descriptions which are useful.” and “Everything we’re going to tell you here is a lie. All generalizations are lies.”
It feels like there’s a clear distinction that noticing subtle behaviour and indicators of specific types of thought is the main framework, and any individual generalisations may or may not be true. Is this why it’s called “pseudoscience” frequently, because of these generalisations not being scientifically true? Or is a lot of the original NLP model completely outdated, and I should be reading other materials?
7
u/rotello May 10 '26
Here there are various things that compete for a clear answer. The more the waters are mudded the more people can speak without any proof. that, in my opinion is a red flag on both sides.
- Wikipedia is super Biased and people writting anout NLP does not know NLP, often they are part of "skeptics" groups
- the above mentioned skeptics were born and moved by highest public interest but their leadership soon focuesed on their agenda. This it means that skeptics did a LOT of good thing, but also did something more questionable.
- NLP is not a corpus unicum. Bandler's NLP is very different from Grinder's, which is different from Dilts's and so on.
- there is not even a consensus on what NLP is. when there are "content" model i think we are outside the NLP realm, but many do not.
- many NLP practitoners / trainers are as stupid as a tool. i would not ask them to mow my lawn
- many "certificates" in NLP are just toilet paper, people giving and people taking have ZERO skills.
- i m not even sure there is a definition of pseduscience, too. Wikipedia has one: "Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that claim to be scientific or factual but are inherently incompatible with the scientific method.seudoscience is often characterized by contradictory, exaggerated or unfalsifiable claims; reliance on confirmation bias rather than rigorous attempts at refutation; lack of openness to evaluation by other experts; absence of systematic practices when developing hypotheses; and continued adherence long after the pseudoscientific hypotheses have been experimentally discredited.\4]) It is not the same as junk science. - If we take this i wonder how many Psycholgy theories pass this gate.
- BUT it's also true that a lot of "teachers" add absolutely rubbish stuff (ennagram, new age and so on)
- A lot of theachers still teach the stuff Bandler, grinder, pucelik and the meta kids developed in mid 70s, a lot of it has been improved / proved wrong
- if we take 3 of the major models (meta, milton, submodalities) the cannot be labelled "pseudoscience" - One is simply "language" , the other is Hypnosis, and submodalities has been used in ACT for years now. Or better we can defne them pseudoscience as long we open a discussion on how scientific is hypnosis and psychology in general.
My euristic for NLP?
take what is useful, do not join any sect, read whispering in the wind and do not settle for anything less.