What?

Misunderstandings and ignorance of GCTA seem to be quite pervasive, so I've tried to write a Wikipedia article on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GCTA

Which psychological findings have great practical implications, if they are indeed true?

Overjustification comes to mind, as an example.

On a related note: if it is true, does that suggest that, as far as we take the diminishing utility of money for granted, by using extrinsic rewards, we are reducing the number of extreme performers? (in so far as we can't keep giving exponential rewards, and money/tokens/what have you motivates in proportion to their utility) I have seen it argued, that if you are not doing well enough to be expecting a non-interrupted stream of extrinsic rewards, you probably shouldn't be doing that thing. Does that lose any validity in this context?

Still, it seems like whether it's true should have some implications.

A more certain finding seems to be the poor transfer of learning. It SEEMS like this SHOULD have implications for the education system.

What else would? (like, even if stereotype threat existed as a significant force, it seems far less clear to me how that finding could realistically impact any policies or our behaviors)

We can do everything the human mind is capable of experiencing.

That sounds like a wildly overreaching claim. We can do that now / in the near future? I don't think so.

When installing a Death Star power core in the root chakra does exactly what I expect

/blinks. What do you expect installing a Death Star power core in the root chakra to do?

(will it let you shoot death rays out of your ass?)

Our technologies can’t and won’t for a while lead our minds to peaks anywhere near the peaks we found by simply introducing weirdly shaped molecules into our brains. The strangeness of Salvia, the beauty of LSD, the love of MDMA are orders and orders of magnitude beyond what we know how to change from an engineering perspective.

The technology does exist. In hypnosis, we do party tricks including the effects of the weirdly shaped molecules. Think about this redirect. We do lucid dreaming. We do all the cool stuff from eastern meditations and some that probably haven't been done before ("ultra-height"). We can do everything the human mind is capable of experiencing. We produce usable social/dating/relationship advice, sports training, sales training, therapy, anything that involves using your brain better. We can redesign our own personality.

It sounds like magic, but it's just sufficiently advanced. When installing a Death Star power core in the root chakra does exactly what I expect, the only observation of objective reality is that the brain figured out what I'm trying to do and made it happen somehow. It could be a fun research topic to find out the neurology of different techniques, but the current dominant scientific theory says hypnosis is a form of placebo.

If that would be true a person with social anxiety could simply overwrite the beliefs that make them uncomfortable because they think other people are judging them.

Fair point. I agree that "I have a gut feeling about something non-observable" is a possibility. But so is "I have a gut feeling about something that is observable".

Which claim? As for the claim that one's intuition is evidence, I predict that in worlds where someone with a good track record has an intuitive belief, the belief will be true more than it will be false.

The claim is not observable in any way and offers no testable predictions or anything that even remotely sounds like advice. It's unprovable because it doesn't talk about objective reality.

I fail to see how anything you said has an impact on the observation that Andy did not need to return to the mental institute.

Given the current scientific framework you don't change a theory based on anecdotal evidence and single case studies. Especially when it comes to a person who's known to be at least partly lying about the anecdotes he tells.

If whatever Bandler does is producing verifiable results, shouldn't it be at least an explicit goal of science to find out why it works for him, as opposed to whether it works if you throw an NLP manual at an undergrad?

What do you mean with the phrase "explicit goal of science"? The goals that grand funding agencies set when they give out grants? To the extent that you think studying people with high abilities is good approach of advancing science, I wouldn't pick a person who's in the habit of lying and showmanship but a person who values epistemically true beliefs and who's open about what they think they are doing.

I think the term pseudoscience doens't really apply for Bandler. For me the term means a person who's pretending to play with the rules of science but who doesn't. Bandler isn't playing with the rules or pretending to do so. That doesn't mean that he's wrong and what he teaches isn't effective but at the same time it doesn't bring his work into science.

It's typical for New Atheists to reject everything that's not part of the scientific mosaic as useless discredited pseudoscience. I don't think that's useful way of looking at how the world works. If you want to go further into that direction of thought, a nice talk was recently shared on the Facebook LW group: Scientific Pluralism and the Mission of History and Philosophy of Science

For full disclosure, I do have a decent amount of NLP training with Chris Mulzer who attended Bandlers trainer training program every year for a decade. I know multiple people who attended seminars with Bandler.