Just as it says in the link above to the Greenfield article that is full of rigorous published research

Neurolinguistic programming sounds like pseudoscience from the getgo

People who teach it are charlatans especially after knowing that it lacks conceptual and empirical support. People who lap it up are scientifically illiterate and socially inept.

Which battery of controlled studies and by who? Who where the reviewers? What were the results? What test did NLP fail? Could these studies include the ‘Dillingham‘ and ‘Hogan‘ experiments by any chance?

“Since then a few other studies have been published and as usual the majority indicate the ineffectiveness of NLP.”

Citations please, if you are going to make a claim like that I think you need to be a more specific.

Personally I think there has been a lack of research studies in NLP in the past however there are research projects and conferences in the works for example:

http://www.nlprandr.org/UniversityofSurreyAbstracts/tabid/213/Default.aspx

“Here is a reliable article on the subject.

http://knol.google.com/k/joe-greenfield/neurolinguistic-programming/2j6nlcky7q5vo/2#”

Hmm, reliable? It has a lot in common with this article, an early version of a Wikipedia entry on NLP

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neuro-linguistic_programming&oldid=52593697#Fundamentals

Notice at the top of this version of the entry there is a message from the moderators saying (with understatement that would make any Brit proud) “The neutrality of this article is disputed”

Contrast this article with the current wikipedia entry

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuro-linguistic_programming

Which includes a more thoughtful section on scientific criticisms of NLP

“Its not just the findings of the testing.”

Which findings? Which test?

“Its the actual concepts, plus the actions of NLP adherants.”

Which concepts? Which actions? Which adherents?

“NLP concepts are erroneous from the get-go.”

Which concepts and how are they erroneous?

“NLP is also referred to as a new alternative religion, and some call it a cult.”

Really? Referred to by whom? Who calls it that? This is a (vague) ‘appeal to authority’ – a logical fallacy.

“It has to be, because its followers use nothing but logical fallacies, group pressure, and enemy building in order to survive.”

This sounds like one description of the current American administration. Hmmm, is that a cult? … Now that I think about it that sounds like a description of all political administrations.

Using the words adherents and followers doesn’t make NLP a cult. Given the various opinions within the NLP community about a whole host of issues the logical fallacies and the group pressure doesn’t seem to be working too well, and who is the enemy?

“NLP is used as an example of pseudoscience in university courses on clear thinking and scientific literacy.”

That’s interesting, where?

“Of course occasionally an NLPer will refer to the confirmatory studies and ignore the much larger proportion that show failure.”

They might do that. Of course occasionally a critic of NLP will refer to some critical studies and ignore the fact that very little good research has been done yet – so the effectiveness of NLP, or more accurately the effects of some of the models of NLP (NLP is not a theory in itself) is, as yet, unknown.

“NLP is for the modern carpetbagger.”

NLP could be used by a carpetbagger, morphine could be used by an addict, kitchen knives could be used be a serial killer. The user of an object or idea is responsible for it’s use. NLP could also be well used (and is) by therapists, teachers, managers, etc, etc.

“It is to be ridiculed from a distance, and its victims should be pittied.”

That’s an ‘appeal to spite’ another logical fallacy.

You are clearly unimpressed with NLP and it’s practitioners. I wonder what led you to that opinion.

Since then a few other studies have been published and as usual the majority indicate the ineffectiveness of NLP.

Here is a reliable article on the subject.

http://knol.google.com/k/joe-greenfield/neurolinguistic-programming/2j6nlcky7q5vo/2#

Its not just the findings of the testing. Its the actual concepts, plus the actions of NLP adherants. NLP concepts are erroneous from the get-go. NLP is also referred to as a new alternative religion, and some call it a cult. It has to be, because its followers use nothing but logical fallacies, group pressure, and enemy building in order to survive.

NLP is used as an example of pseudoscience in university courses on clear thinking and scientific literacy.

Of course occasionally an NLPer will refer to the confirmatory studies and ignore the much larger proportion that show failure. NLP is for the modern carpetbagger. It is to be ridiculed from a distance, and its victims should be pittied.

A.Lawrence