Page "Neuro-linguistic programming" Paragraph 2

Reviews of empirical research on NLP indicate that NLP contains numerous factual errors, and has failed to produce reliable results for the claims for effectiveness made by NLP ’ s originators and proponents.

According to Devilly, NLP is no longer as prevalent as it was in the 1970s and 1980s.

Criticisms go beyond the lack of empirical evidence for effectiveness ; critics say that NLP exhibits pseudoscientific characteristics, title, concepts and terminology.

NLP is used as an example of pseudoscience for facilitating the teaching of scientific literacy at the professional and university level.

NLP also appears on peer reviewed expert-consensus based lists of discredited interventions.

In research designed to identify the " quack factor " in modern mental health practice, Norcross et al.

( 2006 ) list NLP as possibly or probably discredited, and in papers reviewing discredited interventions for substance and alcohol abuse, Norcross et al.

( 2010 ) list NLP in the top ten most discredited, and Glasner-Edwards and Rawson ( 2010 ) list NLP as " certainly discredited ".