I agree wholeheartedly with the last part of what you say but would further add that the only people who wholesaledly agree with scientific evidence simply because it's a "reputable" source can be lumped into that descriptor too.

Neuro-linguistic programming treatment for anxiety: Magic or myth?
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology

This study doesn't debunk NLP as a whole, it in fact only debunks NLP as a cure for anxiety in 1 session. It doesn't claim that NLP can't cure anxiety in public speakers over longer periods and it doesn't claim that NLP does not work. All it proves is not a short term cure for anxiety when public speaking. I feel like I wasted a perfectly good £6 in paying to read it.

Next up:

Brainscams: Neuromythologies of the New Age.
International Journal of Mental Health

Small - and Very Badly Made

That sums this one up very accurately, I didn't pay for this one and don't intend to.


The problem with NLP is that it got itself a bad reputation early in it's life and has never really had any serious scientific study as a result. The only studies actually performed have been undertaken by people who are very clearly attempting to disprove and thus structuring their studies and debates against it. The closest thing to a real study on NLP that I've read so far is the above one published in the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, unfortunately it only tests using a small group in a small area of NLP as a whole.



I've taken courses in NLP and hypnotism, they both lend themselves to each other and are incredibly similar. I agree on the eye cues here, they don't work, in fact I saw Derren Brown discuss this on something, I think it was to do with his russian roulette program. He was talking about how he did it and said that memory cues aren't multi directional. We look in one direction when recollecting something and look in another when creating. He said this was different from person to person and his selection process was based on finding someone that he could read easily and trust his readings of.

Derren has stated before that we each have different brain wiring and we all do things differently, for each person he must learn the tells and access cues before he's able to make assertions about lies or truths. I also recall him saying that he enforces access cues on people too. I've noticed that he does a lot of touch anchoring and various other techniques, interrupt waking hypnotism too.

Anyway, I've gone off on a ramble here but thought people may find these things interesting, pretty much everything Derren does is a combination of advanced NLP and hypnotism. Other things he does simply involve probability.

My personal findings are that NLP works, but it's nothing magical and can't be used much with pick up without going into very immoral ground. The basic stuff is unreliable and the advanced stuff is (in my opinion) a form of waking hypnotism, subconsciously manipulating the brain of another person based on cues and anchors implanted by the practitioner without their knowledge or consent. Most pua forums featuring nlp have gone as far as to ban certain advanced routines from discussion as a result. They're dangerous and legally questionable.

EDIT: I just re-read my post and found it to feel kind of disjointed. I apologise, it's nearly 4am.