Please excuse a newbie coming in and suggesting that a well-established member might be mistaken, because I'm afraid Kowolski's comments are consistently misinformed and misleading.

Neither Bandler nor Grinder have ever said that the eye accessing cues don't work.

Amongst the "scientific" studies of the "NLP eye accessuing cues", I can't find a single one that shows any accurate understanding of what the authors call "NLP eye accessing cues".

In fact, from what I've read on sites that get their facts straight, there are NO "NLP eye accessing cues" because, according to Andy Bradbury, quoting John Grinder, NLP is a modelling technique and nothing else. The eye accessing cues model is something that came along as part of the development of what Bradbury calls the field of NLP, which is NLP plus all the related concepts and techniques.

Kowolski was kind enough to post a link to Donald Clark's web site, where the author lists various supposedly "scientific" studies of "NLP". Andy Bradbury has taken Clark's list, and other similar lists such as those on Knol, Wikipedia and so on and actually read the research. It shows three things:

1. The people who did the experiments in the 1970s and 1980s that most criticisms of "NLP" are based on didn't understand the material they claimed they were investigating.

2. The people who reviewed the actual experiments were as ignorant - on the subject of the field of NLP - as the people whose work they reviewed

3. The people who post these lists of critical reports - Clark, Joe Greenhill (sp?) and so on very likely haven't read a word of the material they quote except the quotes themselves which they have cut and pasted from somewhere else. In fact the guy who wrote the Knol article has now admitted that this is exactly what he does.

For some genuine information about this stuff, without the misrepresentations, misinformation and juvenile insults you can read some more of the material on one of the web sites Kowolski has already mentioned

Cargo Cult Criticism

(it shows accurate details of more than 12 of these so-called "scientific" studies)

FAQ 32 - Did Bandler and Grinder Really Understand NLP?

(gives an explanation of why the NLP-related technique most experimenters have supposedly tackled can't be investigated using the genuine scientific method. As described by two genuine social psychologists at Harvard University.)

And Kowolski, please understand that this is simply a question of getting the facts right , I certainly don't want to show any disrespect for you personally.