> This is a case of correlation, plus (again) totally unsubstantiated anecdotal claims.

I went to a one of the greatest hypnotherapists in the world for help with depression, he put me in a trance and did something, and when I came out of the trance my depression was gone.

Dismissing that as mere "correlation" seems illogical to me.

In re: "unsubstantiated anecdotal claim" well, you got me there. I'm just some rando on the internet, eh? Nevertheless, it's true. (I've detailed the experience before on HN, use algolia if you're curious, eh?)

> Suggesting people use unproven, non-evidence based approaches,

Ah, but I am the living proof. My life is the evidence. This is primary data.

> [Suggesting NLP] is reckless and potentially harmful.

I don't see that at all. In fact, to me this situations seems exactly the opposite. This NLP is a profound breakthrough in human psychology. I feel you're being "potentially harmful" to call it pseudoscience and warn people away from it.

I don't doubt that your motives are good and that you're sincere, it's just that you're on the wrong side of history on this one. NLP will eventually have a scientific grounding, perhaps after today's scientific community ages out, but it's inevitable.

(As an aside, when you say it's "reckless" to talk about how NLP cured my depression, what exactly are you getting at? It's not like NLP is a drug with dangerous side effects, eh? It's just talking, after all.)

> You believe NLP "technology" worked for you -- cool.

No dude, not cool. I want to know what happened to me. I want us to "do science" to NLP! I want to know how and why it works.

This "science has debunked NLP" line of nonsense is not helpful.

> There's plenty of evidence-based methodologies that work for statistically significant portions of the population; and those are administered by doctors, and professionals.

For depression? Really? That's terrific! Still doesn't change the fact that NLP works. Again, like I said, if scientists can't figure out how and why the models and techniques of NLP work that just makes them look incompetent.

> But where you cross the line is when you start telling other people to do this too, and that it will work.

Well, at risk of sounding snarky, I must say it's a good thing you aren't the one who gets to decide whether I can recommend NLP to people or not!

> I firmly believe that you trying to make this sound like a sure thing is immoral and dangerous.

I apologize for that. NLP is not a panacea. There is a wide variance in NLP therapists, and results. It's not a "sure thing".

(That said, for e.g. phobias there is a concrete repeatable algorithm that alleviates them, and my understandingh is that it's pretty much 100% effecitive.)

- - - -

I tell you what, it really is puzzling to me why academics have a hard time with NLP.
You sound like you have read some of these scientific papers that supposedly "debunk" NLP. If you'll cite some I'll look them over and see if I can detect how or why they failed. I mean, I'm not an expert in NLP nor psychology, but perhaps we can salvage something constructive out of this exchange?

- - - -

edit: I saw when I posted this comment that you have replied to the other sub-thread ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34226389 ) meanwhile.

I've got to do some other things for a bit but I'll reply in a few hours.

In any event, well met! :)