While browsing the Skeptics Dictionary website last night (an aptly named resource), I came across their perspective on NLP and hypnosis. Their stance? Hypnosis, they claim, cannot be scientifically tested because it is influenced by belief, expectations, suggestibility, and the placebo effect. But isn’t that the very nature of hypnosis? It operates within the framework of human cognition—so why expect it to function separately from how our minds naturally work?
When it comes to NLP, the critique seems to revolve around its eclectic nature. The argument suggests that NLP is an amalgamation of various theories and techniques, chosen based on effectiveness rather than academic rigor. But isn’t this precisely what we should seek—practical methods that yield results, rather than rigid adherence to theoretical constructs? The idea that NLP is “contaminated by subjectivity” is also brought up—as if human perception itself isn’t a fundamental aspect of any psychological discipline.
Interestingly, the author of the critique finds Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) acceptable because its outcomes can be observed through behavioral changes. Yet, NLP often surpasses CBT in effectiveness. Consider phobia treatment: CBT typically requires prolonged exposure therapy, which can be emotionally distressing. In contrast, NLP techniques often produce rapid, painless results—yet are dismissed, perhaps because they don’t fit neatly into the traditional scientific framework.
The Skeptics Dictionary also argues that NLP’s claims about thinking and perception are not substantiated by neuroscience. However, that doesn’t negate their effectiveness. Research in neuroplasticity by experts like Dr. Norman Doidge has demonstrated the brain’s incredible capacity for change. Additionally, modern neuroscience acknowledges the significant role of unconscious and emotional processes in behavior—an idea long embraced by NLP.
The Science of Dismissing Ideas
It’s intriguing how some scientists use tactics reminiscent of the Dark Ages to dismantle ideas they disapprove of—taking statements out of context, twisting meanings, and presenting them as absurd.
For example, two NLP presuppositions were singled out for ridicule:
- There is no failure, only feedback.
The critic sarcastically asks if the Challenger space shuttle disaster was “only feedback.” This deliberately misinterprets the principle. The presupposition serves as a framing tool, not an absolute truth. It encourages adaptability—rather than seeing setbacks as catastrophic failures, one can extract lessons and make adjustments. Thomas Edison, for instance, famously reframed his failed lightbulb experiments as valuable feedback rather than defeat. - If something is possible in the world, it is possible for me.
The skeptic mocks this idea, suggesting NLP implies anyone can become Einstein, Pavarotti, or a world champion weightlifter. But that’s a distortion. This presupposition isn’t about unrealistic guarantees; it’s about modeling excellence. Instead of dismissing a goal as unattainable, NLP encourages breaking down skills into replicable strategies. It’s about learning how successful individuals think, what references they use, and how they structure their experiences.
Limiting beliefs shape reality. If someone believes they can’t succeed because they’re not tall enough, smart enough, or talented enough, that belief becomes a self-imposed barrier. NLP doesn’t claim that everyone can achieve everything—but it does suggest that rigid self-doubt can be just as limiting as any external factor.
In the end, skepticism is healthy—but only when it is fair. Dismissing NLP simply because it doesn’t conform to traditional scientific methods ignores its practical benefits. The mind is complex, and effective tools should be judged by results, not just by their theoretical pedigree.
