What NLP Is and What It Is Not

There have always been plenty of rumors—both negative and positive—surrounding NLP (Neuro-Linguistic Programming). As someone who works professionally in this field of practical psychology, I’d like to bring some clarity to the question posed in the title. In particular, working in Ukraine, I often see people attending NLP seminars for two main reasons: half want to “learn how to manipulate people,” while the other half want to “protect themselves from manipulation.” Online forums are full of people interested in learning about NLP, but who are afraid of being “brainwashed” or “programmed.” In Russia, where NLP arrived a bit earlier, such questions are less common, but I still often have to explain that NLP has little to do with religion or cults. I hope this article will help clarify these issues and shed light on how NLP can be personally useful—or, if you insist, potentially harmful. So, let’s begin…

NLP: What It Really Is

First, let’s define what “Neuro-Linguistic Programming” actually is. What’s behind this intimidating name? If you ask people involved in NLP, you’ll hear a variety of answers, from “It’s a cool thing that helps with communication and self-understanding,” or “It’s a personal growth tool, like yoga,” to “It’s a new method of psychotherapy,” or even “It’s a PR and political technology that influences the subconscious so powerfully that resistance is impossible.” The last idea is especially popular in the media (especially tabloids), which, for better or worse, has given NLP a somewhat mysterious image.

All these definitions have some merit, but in my view, they only touch on part of the essence. The two best and most comprehensive definitions I’ve heard come from David Gordon and Frank Pucelik, who were among the founders of NLP. But to understand these definitions, let’s briefly look at how NLP originated.

First, a quick story from behavioral psychology in the 1960s: Psychologists put a pigeon in a cage with a pedal that, when pressed, dispensed delicious grain. The idea was to see how the pigeon would find and use the pedal. However, the pigeon was in mating season and, instead of searching, began performing a mating dance. After about 10 minutes, it accidentally hit the pedal with its spur, and the grain appeared. When the experiment was repeated, the pigeon, recognizing the cage, again performed the same dance, eventually hitting the pedal and getting the grain. If other pigeons asked how to get the grain, this pigeon would probably say, “Just dance with all your heart, and after 10 minutes, you’ll be rewarded.” The pigeon had no idea about the pedal—it only knew about the dance.

The point? There are many highly effective, successful people—masters and geniuses in art, science, business, and other fields. What they do often seems like magic compared to the average person. If you ask them how they achieve such results, you’ll likely get an answer like, “Just give yourself fully to the process.” Sometimes, if they’ve thought about it, they might describe some steps, but rarely in a way that allows you to replicate their success. This has led to the belief that “some people are just born with it.” But, as the pigeon story suggests, maybe the master doesn’t even know about the “pedals” that make them effective—they just know about the “dance.”

In the early 1970s, a group of researchers at the University of Santa Cruz challenged the cultural belief that “some people have it, most don’t.” Richard Bandler (a mathematician, musician, and programmer) and John Grinder (a well-known linguistics professor) began studying the work of psychology and psychotherapy geniuses like Fritz Perls (Gestalt therapy), Milton Erickson (revolutionary in hypnosis), and Virginia Satir (family therapy). They focused on what these effective therapists actually did, not just what they said. Through years of analyzing audio and video recordings, they managed to model, describe, and replicate their work, achieving similarly outstanding results. This playful, experimental approach led to the birth of NLP, which has always been about finding the “pedals” that create effectiveness—what really works.

Initially, no one cared why or how these models and techniques worked—just that they did. Later, thanks to the influence of Gregory Bateson and Robert Dilts, NLP gained a strong epistemological foundation and became a legitimate field of psychology. In Austria, for example, an NLP Practitioner course is equivalent to a second higher education degree. But the core and spirit of NLP remain the search for and development of what creates effectiveness—the hidden “pedals” that trigger success in various areas of human activity.

So, Frank Pucelik’s definition: “NLP is the study of human excellence.” David Gordon’s definition: “NLP is the study of the structure of subjective experience.”

This is what NLP is—not just a set of techniques, not just a type of psychotherapy, not just a PR tool, not just a way to communicate effectively, but the study of the structure of subjective experience, or, if you prefer, the study of human excellence. Agreed?

What NLP Is Not

Now, let’s clarify what NLP is not. This is important, especially because of the word “Programming” in its name. This term relates to the structure of subjective experience, which, according to NLP, consists of certain components—many of which are reflected in language structure (hence “linguistic”) and relate to how the brain works (hence “neuro-”). The term “neuro-linguistic” already existed when NLP was created. The “programming” part refers to “a sequence of actions leading to a specific result”—nothing more. Think of two cooks using the same ingredients, but one makes a delicious soup and the other makes something barely edible. The difference is in how they use the same elements. If I could, I’d call NLP “Neuro-Linguistic Cooking”—but “Programming” is just as accurate. The name refers to studying the structure of subjective experience, not to “brainwashing” or “mind control.”

Some people also wonder if NLP is a cult. Let’s look at the typical signs of a cult:

• A community that regularly gathers in a specific place, often giving money to organizers or founders.
• A set of rules (often unwritten) that members must follow, usually with more obligations than rights.
• Members are indoctrinated with beliefs about the world and the role of the organizers, often through lectures, meditation, or sleep deprivation.
• Long-term members are required to recruit newcomers, with specific rules on how to do so.

Let’s see if any of this applies to NLP:

• When you attend an NLP seminar, you join a group in a specific place for a fee—just like any paid language course. The founders of NLP (Grinder, Bandler, Gordon, Pucelik) don’t get a cut of your money. Richard Bandler once tried to get licensing fees for the use of “NLP,” but that didn’t work out.
• There are no special rules in NLP seminars beyond basic etiquette. If you’re told you can’t talk about something or must abstain from certain behaviors, that’s not NLP. NLP doesn’t use directives or punishments—just suggestions and invitations to try things for yourself.
• NLP doesn’t indoctrinate people with beliefs, nor does it use sleep deprivation or other coercive methods. If you’re being forced to do something, that’s a red flag—it’s not NLP. In NLP, beliefs (called “presuppositions”) are offered, not imposed, and the techniques work even if you don’t accept them.
• No one is required to recruit newcomers to NLP courses. If you want to tell your friends, go ahead; if not, that’s fine too. Organizers handle their own advertising.

So, NLP doesn’t fit the definition of a cult. Why, then, do some people associate it with cults? Probably because NLP seminars are more interactive and playful than traditional academic courses, which can seem unusual. But in places like Switzerland, NLP is taught in a more academic style, and no one thinks of it as a cult there.

About Hypnosis and Manipulation

Many people associate hypnosis with commands and loss of will. For centuries, hypnosis was seen as something between slavery and magic. There are two main types: directive and non-directive (Ericksonian). Directive hypnosis involves giving commands, but only about 10–20% of people are highly “hypnotizable.” Even then, people won’t do things that go against their values. Non-directive, Ericksonian hypnosis is about cooperation, not command. In trance, people have access to unconscious resources, including strong self-protection mechanisms. While it’s possible to trick someone once, their unconscious quickly learns and protects them in the future.

Can NLP tools be used for unethical purposes? In theory, yes—at least in the short term. But I don’t agree with those who think NLP should be banned. Most NLP tools improve communication effectiveness, and history shows that new communication tools (writing, printing, the internet) were initially feared but ultimately benefited society. The same will likely happen with NLP, because good people outnumber bad ones.

Is NLP Manipulation?

Many people associate NLP with “manipulation.” As I mentioned earlier, half the people at NLP courses want to learn to manipulate, and the other half want to defend against it. But here’s the truth: communication is manipulation. The word “manipulate” originally means “to skillfully handle something.” In communication, it simply means interacting skillfully. As soon as you communicate, you force others to respond to you—they can’t help but react, even if only nonverbally. Whether you do this skillfully or not, you are “manipulating.” So, learning to “manipulate” (i.e., communicate effectively) makes sense, but “defending against manipulation” (i.e., avoiding communication) is pointless.

I hope this article has helped dispel some myths about NLP. Having accurate information is always better than relying on rumors, and I hope you found this article useful.

Author: A. Leontiev