Talk:Human Design

The bodygraph image keeps being removed but it has a non-free-use / fair use rationale: "Screenshot of the program Maia Mechanics Imaging Software (MMI) released by Jovian Archive. Medium-resolution promotional image similar to that obtained from marketing materials on official Jovian Archive website. Screenshot shows the primary use of the application, which is to generate astrological charts called 'bodygraphs.' This particular promotional image is useless because it shows the bodygraph of a sample person, therefore it has no value for potential users of the software, who would only be interested in generating bodygraphs for specific people. For this reason, images of a given bodygraph generated by the software (as shown on their official webpage, and marketing materials) are purely promotional." fissionchips303 (talk) 16:27, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Is it pseudoscience?

The most important word "pseudoscience" (in my opinion) has been removed from the article on August 12, 2020 by Upisupanddownisaround. There was no discussion, although after the word "pseudoscience" there were references to authoritative sources, which were also removed. After that, there were several edits, but no one restored the information about pseudoscience. I don't quite understand: is the opinion that Human Design is not a pseudoscience - is it already a consensus? — JustApex (talk) 11:34, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

• The word "pseudoscience" should be added back in as it cited sources and also groups Human Design with other pseudoscience articles thus helping to categorize it. 2601:8C3:8080:C300:D5F5:FE4C:3EB3:30BC (talk) 22:08, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
• I also noticed the two references (one from Skeptic's Dictionary and another from Morten Tolboll article) were deleted at the same time as the word "pseudoscience." I understand that the term pseudoscience has a negative connotation for some people, and thus they may not want it to be attached to Human Design, but it is simply a technical term and it does apply in this case. Any system which claims to be scientific but does not have scientific validity with citations is pseudoscientific, and it's not simply my opinion, it's two different articles that make this claim. So please stop removing that term and restore it to the old way with references to the two articles. Thanks. 2601:8C3:8080:C300:D5F5:FE4C:3EB3:30BC (talk) 22:12, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I have restored the earlier version. I agree that User:Upisupanddownisaround's unexplained edit was disruptive. Drmies (talk) 22:14, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

The claim that human design is a pseudoscience needs citation. Reason= The Skeptic's Dictionary as of 2021 does not include the term 'Human Design' anywhere on its webpage. The second purported source, on Weebly.com, is a blog post that claims that none of the components of Human Design have or WILL ever undergo any published scientific analysis without giving any citation or detailed explanation for why this is the case; it is a Weebly blog post, cannot be considered a reputable source, and is being removed. In due response to user User:2601:8C3:8080:C300:D5F5:FE4C:3EB3:30BC : you can believe whatever you want, sir. The sources being cited are not reputable and even something as simple as the term pseudoscience needs proper citation because of the substantial and immediate implications of this term. 24.205.45.193 (talk) 00:12, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@24.205.45.193

I think that calling it a pseudoscience is also valid for articles without any citation for it

because the citations listed here only prove the books existence.

every theory who claims to be created in accordance with the scientific process should have to contain citations proving that it was done in accordance with the scientific method.

This article has no scientific publications which passed the peer reviewed and is theirby only claiming to be scientific while actually not being scientific wich fits the definition of the word pseudoscience.

The scientificness of the contents of the book where never cited sufficiently wich validates it deletion wich means their is no need to cite its reverse

its like beeing sued fpr something your didn't do with no prove and beeing told to prove your own innocence

---

Jer.re10542ce (talk) Jer.re10542ce (talk) 12:36, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I have finally found the "newsletter" on Skepdic.com, NOT part of their dictionary itself, where Human Design is mentioned. http://skepdic.com/news/newsletter1103.html. The newsletter simply scoffs at the issue and makes fun of it. It offers no reasoned, cited, or even detailed reason why Human Design is a pseudoscience, and simply plays ad hominem logical fallacy games while pretending to actually find it useful, no less. This newsletter cannot be considered a reputable source on Wikipedia. 24.205.45.193 (talk) 00:16, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

The biggest issue I see here is that it is small enough not to be mentioned as a pseudo science by major medias. The only easily available sources are the one from its proponents, and it’s logical: money is made thanks to this practice. It has all the characteristics of pseudo scientific practice. It uses science jargon to back its results without proving the validity of the results first. The sources to fill this article are at least as dubious as the sources that state it is a pseudo scientific practice. Grandjean.q (talk) 20:45, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Sure it is "It combines astrology, the Chinese I Ching, Judaic Kabbalah, Vedic philosophy and modern physics." All these are pseudo-science. "Combining" with physics is standard procedure for all this new age bullshit. This article is a disgrace. 84.44.235.48 (talk) 16:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Newly published article in scientific journal

Just for the record: There is a new article in the Journal für Gynäkologische Endokrinologie/Schweiz - Journal of Gynaecological Endocrinology/ Switzerland (in German) - about the Human Design System, written by a Professor of gynaecology; maybe this is helpful to find out the current state of the scientific discussion around HDS. https://springermedizin.ch/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/art_10.1007_s41975-021-00182-3.pdf --Tine (talk) 16:07, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Other popular sources like Forbes have also covered it. Yet, when I've looked into the validity of the system, it directly contradicts other things I know (e.g., it claims that if someone is immunocompromized and uses the system and it says they have a defined spleen chakra, the result tells them that they're immunocompromization is actually "social conditioning," even in cases where the person has actually had genetic testing proving otherwise.) This trend seems highly dangerous and it's dangerous it's getting any mainstream coverage at all in my opinion, because unlike normal astrology, there's no Barnum-Forer effect, everything is specific, nor are any of the correlations the kinds of things traditional astrology sometimes actually gets right (e.g., kids being born later in the year getting diagnosed with ADHD more often, but that's just a correlation, not caused by the stars themselves.)

This system really needs much more criticism and negative attention on it in my opinion, because contrary to many people's opinions of it, it's absolutely nothing like getting a tarot reading where it's all just what you see subjectively and you can reflect and not really have any harm happen, it tries to give people individualized concrete advice including medical advice, but that advice is, in literally all cases I've encountered where I have genetic data on people and birthtime data on people as well as knowledge of their medical conditions, apparently diametrically opposed to reality to the point some people would get killed following it and everyone who wouldn't get killed would be miserable, sick, and also have to completely change their personality and cut off all their relationships over it since it also makes concrete personality predictions, career predictions, etc. that are completely opposed to reality. Never mind the extremely disturbing aspects where it tells literally 99.5% of people they're not supposed to be using their minds but just feeling every possible emotion, a state of fear, pride from their ego, or their gut impulse etc. and 91% of people they can't make decisions without deferring to someone else, so people end up acting like lobotomized animals who are fixated on body parts or deferring to supposed authorities (1% of the population has to wait even an entire lunar cycle to make any decisions at all even after they defer) in this cult.

Additionally, the goal of this cult is to bring around basically a "superior race" of zombie children who meet in mental institutions because of how dysfunctional they are, and can only function as a collective consciousness once they meet each other, and "won't be concerned for humanity." It also instructs people to try to worship various types of incorporeal entities such as demons, ghosts, aliens, and mythological deities. I have never seen anything so alarming in all of the New Age and I am deeply concerned about it picking up a lot of traction, including in scientific and business publications, with almost no criticism of it at all, much less criticism from important publications. And the entire Wikipedia article here almost seems to be endorsing it minus the initial sentence having been edited to call it pseudoscience. Coeruleum (talk) 19:40, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Alan Krakower deliberately modified the traditional circle of hexagrams of the Yi-King. Indeed, his hexagram of birth in the traditional circle (highlighted by Yves Thieffry in the 1970s) is not "the awakener" (51) but "the obscuration of the light" (36). He simply reversed the traditional circle in such a way that the two hexagrams exchange places. Well done Mr. Krakower but a little big. Everything ends up being explained over time. The fact remains that ALL Design studies carried out since its invention are IMAGES of its creator, who thus becomes one of the greatest gurus of the 21st century. 2A01:CB10:2EE:8600:DC10:A923:A54D:F9F4 (talk) 09:30, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

History section

I was hoping to find a history section here. I'll keep hoping. — Guarapiranga ☎ 05:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)