Reviews of empirical research find that NLPs core tenets are poorly supported.
The balance of scientific evidence reveals NLP to be a largely discredited pseudoscience.
Scientific reviews show it contains numerous factual errors, and fails to produce the results asserted by proponents.
According to clinical psychologist Grant Devilly (2005), NLP has had a consequent decline in prevalence since the 1970s.
Criticisms go beyond lack of empirical evidence for effectiveness, saying NLP exhibits pseudoscientific characteristics, title, concepts and terminology as well.
NLP serves as an example of pseudoscience for facilitating the teaching of scientific literacy at the professional and university level.
In research designed to identify the "quack factor" in modern mental health practice, Norcross et al. (2006) list NLP as possibly or probably discredited for treatment of behavioral problems.
Norcross et al. (2010) list NLP in the top ten most discredited interventions and Glasner-Edwards and Rawson (2010) list NLP therapy as "certainly discredited".
After conferring with Wikipedia it becomes obvious that the Neuro-linguistic programming movement, though perhaps initially intuitively honest, lacks any scientific or actual credibility.
Just doesn't make any sense...
............................................
Neuro-linguistic programming has been characterized as a New Age pseudoscience.
Witkowski (2010) writes that "NLP represents pseudoscientific rubbish, which should be mothballed forever."
The name Neuro-linguistic programming has also been criticised. Roderique-Davies (2009) states that "neuro" in NLP is "effectively fraudulent since NLP offers no explanation at a neuronal level and it could be argued that its use fallaciously feeds into the notion of scientific credibility."
Witkowski (2010) also states that at the neuronal level NLP provides no explanation at all and has nothing in common with academic linguistics or programming.
Similarly, experimental psychologist Corballis in his critique of lateralization of brain function (the left/right brain myth), states that "NLP is a thoroughly fake title, designed to give the impression of scientific respectability" and describes NLP as a "cult" activity with "little scientific credibility".
According to psycholinguist Willem Levelt "[NLP] is not informed about the literature, it starts from insights that have been rendered out of date long ago, concepts are not apprehended or are a mere fabrication, conclusions are based upon wrong presumptions.
NLP theory and practice have nothing to do with neuroscientific insights, nor with linguistics, nor with informatics and theory of programming."
Yea...um, other than that, Neuro-linguistic programming seems pretty harmless...
If Neuro-linguistic Programming is as simple as you characterize it to be, I would say in each experiment you are telling yourself lie. Following lies. So yes, the aftermath would be something you would have to deal with, in either of the examples you expressed.
If words can programme your neurons then music can do it even more.
There is a famous song written by the husband of Jane Birkin and Bridget Bardot (if I am not mistaken).
Georges Gainsbourg his name. More or less.
Je t´aime et moi non plus. part of its lyrics.
I try this melody to remove a moment of annoyance when in the street or in public places.
I wonder if this melody could make crying babies quiet or psychiatric patients less nervous and anxious.
If I tell myself "I am not angry any more" this has far lesser effect than the song I have just mentioned.
I play it in my mind and it works, it wipes the anger away. Like by magic.
Talking about something you haven't read or practiced yet again I see.