Since its emergence in the mid-1970s, NLP has received attention ranging from accolades in national magazines to condemnation from various sources. The central popular critiques of NLP rise from its perception as being variously, a cult, a guru therapy, and that its claims of efficacy in producing quick cures are “impossible.” Some of these critiques have merit. Historically, some NLP practitioners have grossly exaggerated the capabilities of NLP for personal gain. We have the same reaction as the popular critiques to the manner in which NLP has been presented and sold by some. More relevantly, this chapter addresses the academic critiques that include the complaints that NLP is lacking a theory and that it has been disproven by extensive research in the 1980s. Research results from these studies and particularly the interpretation of those findings have discouraged continued empirical examinations of NLP. In many circles NLP has been dismissed as a field not warranting further study. Historically, most practitioners of NLP were not researchers. As a result, not only has limited research been done but little rebuttal has been offered regarding the negative findings in the literature. In this chapter we will systematically examine the reviews in the literature that purported to examine the root concepts of NLP and their validity. Many of the current critiques of NLP, like much material found in scientific journals, rely heavily on historical research. Literature reviews, as a standard element of scientific and psychological research, have their benefit in ensuring that successive generations of researchers do not have to reinvent the wheel. They also, at least in theory, provide a clear conceptual foundation for the material to follow. From the outset, there are two recurring problems that the standard model encounters. First, bad research is promulgated as the received wisdom. Second, there is the tendency to uncritically rely upon the interpretations and conclusions made about the research that has been done, despite significant misinterpretations of the material reviewed and the subsequent misrepresentation of findings. An example of how misrepresentation occurs comes from mainline psychology in the story of Little Albert and John Watson; the bulk of this narrative is derived from Harris (1979).