I know that many NLPers are largely unconcerned by the supposed lack of scientific research into the efficacy of NLP. When your own work proves it time after time, why would you feel the need for approval from the scientific establishment?
However, personally, I do feel that scientific validation would hasten the acceptance of NLP into the mainstream, which I regard as an obvious good.
I recently found an archive of research on the web site of the European Association for Neuro-Linguistic Psychotherapy, which explodes the myth that NLP lacks scientific validation. There are many many studies outlined here showing strong positive effectes for NLP treatment. Perhaps these have been overlooked because they originate mostly in Germany and Denmark, perhaps it’s an example of confirmation bias.
One German study of 55 therapy clients (including some with ‘psychotic’ symptoms) showed extraordinary results: “After treatment 1.9% of clients who had had NLP therapy felt no different, 38.9% felt better and 59.3% felt considerably better. None of those treated felt worse. In the control group meanwhile, 47.5% felt no different, 29.5% felt better and 6.6% felt considerably better. 9.8% of the controls felt worse and 4.9% felt considerably worse. At 6 month followup, 52% of clients who had had therapy felt considerably better, 28% felt better, 12% felt there was no change, and 8% felt worse.”
The archive also references studies proving that NLP can sort out phobias, PTSD, allergies, etc, improve spelling and have even found evidence for eye-accessing cues. These are all things that competent NLPers have already seen for themselves, but the next time some one tells you that there is no scientific validation for NLP you can point them to this archive of research.