NLP has more recently been used as a key example of pseudo-science to facilitate the understanding of the importance of rational and critical thinking in a number of academic subjects. Lilienfeld et al (2001), Lum (2001), and Dunn et al (2008) have used NLP as an example of pseudo-science for teaching undergraduates how to identify pseudo-scientific psychological interventions.
According to Witkowski (2010), NLP also appears on “the list of discredited therapies” published in the journal of Professional Psychology: Research and Practice. With reference to work by Carroll (2003), Della Sala (1999), Lilienfeld et al (2003) and Singer and Lalich (1996) on “pseudoscientific, invalidated, or “quack” psychotherapies” within clinical psychology, Norcross et al. included NLP for treatment of mental/behaviour disorders in a survey of the opinions of psychologists who rated NLP between possibly discredited and probably discredited, a rating similar to dolphin assisted therapy, equine therapy, psycho synthesis, scared straight programs, and emotional freedom technique (EFT). Norcross et al. in their Clinician’s Guide to Evidence-based Practices listed “neuro linguistic programming for drug and alcohol dependence” seventh out of their list of the ten most discredited drugs and alcohol interventions, and it is listed as “certainly discredited” in Evidence-based practices in addiction treatment: review and recommendations for public policy (Fala et al. 2008 as cited by Glasner-Edwards and Rawson, 2010).
In the 1980s, shortly after publishing Neuro-Linguistic Programming: Volume I with Robert Dilts and Judith Delozier, Grinder and Bandler fell out. Amidst acrimony and intellectual property lawsuits, the NLP brand was adopted by other training organizations. Some time afterwards, John Grinder collaborated with various people to develop a form of NLP called the New Code of NLP which claimed to restore a whole mind-body systemic approach to NLP New code of Neuro-linguistic programming (New code of NLP) is a revised framework for the teaching and delivery of NLP patterns. It was developed in the early and mid-80’s. Grinder has described the new code as an attempt to address several design flaws that were observed in the classic coding. Richard Bandler also published new processes based on sub modalities and Ericksonian hypnosis.
In July 1996, after many years of legal controversy, Bandler filed a lawsuit against John Grinder and others, claiming retrospective sole ownership of NLP, and also the sole right to use the term under trademark. At the same time, Tony Clarkson (a UK practitioner) successfully asked the UK High Court to revoke Bandler’s UK registered trademark of “NLP”, in order to clarify legally that “NLP” was a generic term rather than intellectual property.