Is NLP Pseudoscience

The question above presupposes that only science based things have value. Otherwise this question will not have emerged on different NLP forums, NLP discussions, etc.

Is NLP Pseudoscience a relevant question?

Let’s begin by saying Yes or No as an answer, what does it change for the person looking for an answer? It does not change anything for Richard Bandler, John Grinder, and other co-developers of NLP, and it won’t matter for them to decide which state to choose ~ happy or unhappy depending on Yes or a No as an answer to the above question.

Will it change anything for NLP trainers, NLP Master Practitioners or NLP Practitioners who are using NLP in coaching, sales, influence, self development etc ~ The answer will be no, it won’t change anything. Considering they are using NLP whether it is Pseudoscience or not does not change anything for them.

So who is asking this question, and why are they asking this question. Well, this question is generally asked in forums which are related to personal change work something as an alternative to NLP, and their claim probably will be that they are scientific and NLP is not. Looking at their intention from an NLP lens, yes they have positive intention to showcase their science based personal change work as superior to NLP. If it was so good then the question in their forum would have not been around NLP :-). The very fact that this question is there, which assumes they feel threatened by NLP, and its existence from last 50+ years.

Nevertheless this question will continue to exist in different forums, and the relevancy of the answer does not matter for global NLPers, because they are anyway using NLP and have decided to use NLP.

Those who are looking to get into NLP, what is the significance of this question to you, well, only you can answer that question. Find something scientific, and make it work or stay with NLP, and get to work!