> I don't really know what to make of the idea that it "has been discredited as a pseudoscience by experts" The Wikipedia article actually does a fairly good j

> I don't really know what to make of the idea that it "has been discredited as a pseudoscience by experts" The Wikipedia article actually does a fairly good job of listing the evidence for this claim (further down). In particular, they show polls of the lack of acceptance by experts within the field of psychology. So the best you could say is that it’s a fringe theory. Furthermore, several claims of the original creators very directly contradict established biological facts (treating physiological ailments such as near-sightedness or the common cold). This obviously casts suspicion on the rest of the theory.