[johw]

Yes you are right in the scientific approach.

What's more, NLP was not really developed. The techniques have been copied - or "stolen" - from other approaches, starting with Gestalt therapy. Therefore it's not a simple coincidence that you encounter similar techniques elsewhere.

Also, does NLP really need to bring novel ideas for it to be recognized? It does not promise anything like that, because that is not it's goal. NLP is about stealing what works to extend its "toolbox". That is also one of the points why it is considered being a pseudo science, "copying what works" is not scientific. In my opinion, not focusing on science is a major flaw of NLP. Therefore I hope that the NLP research organisation or others will change that.

Also, like you said, it is also possible that there are flaws in the copies, i.e. by making wrong conclusion from the observations. I would find it interesting to compare the NLP versions with the scientific versions to find the differences and maybe correct one or the other model after running some tests.

Btw. Do you know if depression or PTSD therapy based on the "scientific" psychoanalysis does yield results today?

[dalke]

"does NLP really need to bring novel ideas for it to be recognized?"

Of course not. It could be synonymous with "best practices." But even if it were identical to best practices, it uses set of unique terminology which makes it harder to understand. Why does it do that?

I do not know the answer to your last question.

[johw]

That I do not know. However, that is not always the case. AFAIK Hypnosis after Milton H. Erickson is also part of NLP and similar terminology (if not the same) is used there.