Pseudoscience — how true?
Looking at Wikipedia and searching up resources online, neuro-linguistic programming and the techniques are often referred to as “pseudoscience”.
However, in the opening section of Frogs into Princes, the speaker explicitly states “We have no idea about the “real” nature of things, and we’re not particularly interested in what’s “true.” The function of modeling is to arrive at descriptions which are useful.” and “Everything we’re going to tell you here is a lie. All generalizations are lies.”
It feels like there’s a clear distinction that noticing subtle behaviour and indicators of specific types of thought is the main framework, and any individual generalisations may or may not be true. Is this why it’s called “pseudoscience” frequently, because of these generalisations not being scientifically true? Or is a lot of the original NLP model completely outdated, and I should be reading other materials?