NLP Criticism

NLP and criticism is a broad topic. Like with other non-mainstream interests, NLP practitioners often find themselves on the defensive when the conversation turns to their hobby. Some prefer not to engage offensively with NLP and its criticism and omit knowledge of NLP and the associated formats; others do the opposite and describe NLP in such glowing terms that outsiders may initially react with hesitation.

But what is the real state of NLP and its criticism? Often, bias, hasty associations, and negative individual experiences, sometimes even clear ignorance, come together here. This often leads to a rejection that can rival the euphoric enthusiasm of true NLP fans, which critics lament. However, NLP and criticism also have another side, namely the factual.

As varied as the points of criticism against NLP may be, a common direction can be identified, and certain accusations can be discovered that are repeatedly expressed in connection with NLP and criticism.

Scientific criticism of NLP tends to assert that NLP is not scientifically grounded; some critics go so far as to say that scientific studies have disproven NLP. Criticism regarding efficiency targets NLP's claim to achieve sustainable results.
Others base their criticism of NLP on taking the grand promises of loud marketers seriously. Accordingly, one could read minds with the help of NLP, manipulate people at will, and find happiness, wealth, and success in no time. Consequently, accusations accumulate here that NLP is manipulative, invites abuse, and that the NLP community has the characteristics of a cult.
The following addresses NLP and criticism.