2

I've been reading about neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) lately. My understanding is that it's bollocks. However, many sources say that despite it's pseudoscience, it can be really used to manipulate people.

Naturally, we are 'manipulated' all the time, by the TV, by politicians, by friends (you must really come to the pub tonight!), etc... But are NLPers better equipped to manipulate people? Should we be beware of them? One thing that NLPers do, mimicking the subject's body language to earn their trust ('rapport'), even seems reasonable. So at least a little part of NLP seems not to be bollocks.

One article, for instance, implies that while NLP is totally useless, there are ways to defend against it. This seems illogical: if something does not work, why even bother defending?

I would like to see clear.

Thank You!

Ernest Friedman-Hill
  • 438
  • 4
  • 14
Zsolt Szatmari
  • 121
  • 3
  • duplicate here http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/15590/do-people-tend-to-have-a-particular-language-representational-system-visual-au and here http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/74/any-scientific-basis-for-neuro-linguistic-programming – denten Dec 21 '15 at 14:58

0 Answers0