My original point in posting this was to point out that:
A) Certain people in the seduction community, who are successful in using these techniques, are behaving in a way that is at best abusive and disrespectful towards their victims, and at worst quite possibly criminal.
B) Certain people in the seduction community are taking advantage of damaged, insecure people (in selling them all the courses etc) and are also quite worryingly using techniques that alter the beliefs and values of those people in a very negative way.
I understand from your posts that you do not believe in NLP. Thats your opinion and fine, but as I mentioned in my original post NLP is merely one of the techniques used by the seduction community.
However to go slightly off topic in defence of NLP (not necessarily the way it is sold or marketted!) What do we mean when we talk about NLP ? NLP by its very nature is a collection of techniques taken from various sources.
Some of those sources are placed well and truly in the realm of Psychotherapy. (Virginia Satir, Fritz Perls, Milton Erickson etc)
Some from linguistics (Chomsky)
Some from systems thinking (Gregory Bateson, Korzybski)
and so it goes on.............
One of the offshoots of NLP known as SHE (Shamanic Human Engineering) takes its material from Amazonian Shamanism!
I think the point I am making is that when someone says "NLP is BS" I would ask "which part of NLP exactly ?"
The various influences that make up NLP all have their own scientific references and you could spend many lifetimes trawling through the data on Gestalt Therapy, Hypnotherapy, Family Centered therapy etc etc.
However thats not all. NLP is now used for so many different areas. Health, Psychotherapy, Sport, Training, Management, Sales, Education.........etc. All of these areas have their own anecdotal and scientific literature...
So yes some of this "NLP stuff" will attract scientific studies that do not support some of the original NLP ideas such as the (Heap (1988)) analysis of Primary Representational Systems and eye accessing cues etc...
There is indeed a problem that there needs to be a lot more scientific investigation of NLP techniques (in all the fields it has been used in). But just because one of the small elements of the original model has had one study that "does not support the hypothesis" does that for a second mean that another study wont come along that supports the original idea? or that the rest of it is not sound ?
You see this in all areas of science but particularly social sciences all the time.
The bottom line is there is not enough evidence either way
I have found that in internet forum discussions, people very often are good at getting on Google and then linking to other sites and Wikkipedia etc.
The problem is that they often dont have the experience or education to be able to critically evaluate what they are looking at.
In the academic world there is an old saying "publish or perish" If you are a professor at a university you would be expected to produce a critically acclaimed article now and again to add to the PR machine of your faculty. If you dont then your tenure might well be at risk.
Its well known in the academic world that if you can't come up with any original research yourself then the next best thing is to attack the work of others.
Often the material of "fringe" science is a soft target for this. A lot of people think that NLP as a body of ideas makes some sort of claim to be "scientific" this is a big missunderstanding. I can see why people might think this because the name sounds scientific (I believe in fact Bandler and Grinder came up with the name while drunk one night trying to think of a catchy title!) and unfortunately there are many books called things like "NLP the new science of XYZ" however in reality it is a collection of presuppositions, attitudes and techniques that come from other sources. Any study of NLP can only really study one small part or technique at a time and then apply the findings to that one small part.
Otherwise it is a bit like saying "An attempt to produce cold fusion failed, therefore all science is BS"
To really evaluate a "study" you need sound training in experimental design, research methods, statistical analysis etc. A lot of people who quote or link to other material on forums like this do not have this.
You would need to read the entire original journal article and look critically at the design.
Is it measuring what it says it is ? Is there a decent sample size ? are all variables accounted for ? what is the raw data ? has it been analysed using the correct statistical analysis ?
Even then when a study is published you will get the sceptical publications that only publish one type of study and the rival publications that publish the other type. It ultimately comes down to academics saying "my peer reviewed journal is better than your peer reviewed journal" a kind of Skeptical Enquirer vs European Journal of Parapsycholgy scenario.
So taking this in to account and admitting that there needs to be more research in to NLP use in various fields, there is a useful database of NLP studies at:
Some very much support the effectiveness of NLP some dont. As I said more reserach should be done but the anecdotal evidence would suggest that a lot of NLP is very effective indeed.
Back on topic:
By saying that you believed the seduction material to be mere marketting hype
[even if you dont give credit to the parts that come from NLP (even though some parts that make up NLP often have sound scientific foundations)]
you are almost saying that this doesnt happen and it doesnt work.
I would suggest you read around the subject of how peoples beliefs and values and behaviour can be changed by these types of technique (which after all is surely one of the underlying presuppositions of the RR forums)
A good starting point would be:
Geary, B.B. (1992). "Seeding In Hypnosis". Unpublished Doctoral
Dissertation, Arizona State University, Tempe.
Gregory, W.L., Cialdini, R.B., & Carpenter, K.M. (1982). "Self-relevant
Scenarios As Mediators Of Liklihood Estimates And Compliance: Does
Imagining It Make It So?" Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology,
Kihlstrom, J.F. (1987). "The Cognitive Unconscious". Science, 237,
Kunst-Wilson, W.R., & Zajonc, R.B. (1980). "Affective Discrimination Of
Stimuli That Cannot Be Recognized". Science, 207, 537-558.
Sherman, S.J. (1988). "Ericksonian Psychotherapy And Social Psychology".
In J.K. Zeig & S.R. Lankton (Eds.), "Developing Ericksonian Therapy". New
LaRue, A. & Olejnick, A.B. (1980). "Cognitive Priming Of Principled Moral
Thought". Personality And Social Psychology Bulletin, 6, 413-416.