I will admit at first that i know very limited information about nero-linguistic programming, simply that those who believe in it think that they understand the 'system' that the brain uses in common occurences and deliberately tries to use this to change yourself or the actions of others. That was actually a pretty awfull deffinition, but no worries because this is mainly to those who already have an understanding of this pseudo-science. What are the common arguments against NLP? is this really as far out an idea as many skeptic comments seem to believe it is? how grounded is it in actual science?

 

Thanks in advance

Grounded enough to be moved to the psychology forum.

I checked into it, and it seems to be like behavior conditioning. Just a different label without alterations, but it has the same principles: behavior conditioning/modification.

The use of the word "programming" in the name is somewhat misleading. NLP has virtually nothing to do with influencing others' behaviour, except by virtue of the fact that they will respond more favourably to the person who uses NLP to improve themselves.

 

I suggest reading about it from authors who are closely associated with the subject, since a lot of the information about NLP on the web is misinformed bunk.