Masquerading as Science: the Human Design system

New Age spiritual movements often try to appear scientific, claiming that some “research” proves their concepts and luring in those people who look for a system that would explain all their life problems. Human Design is a great example.

Image Credit:

A combination of six systems

Human Design has been gaining great popularity, and the air of mystery that surrounds it can be very attractive. It claims to be an all-encompassing system that will uncover your true identity and purpose in life by merging the deep truth hidden in such different systems of thought as I Ching (the Chinese Book of Change), the Indian chakra system, Kabbalah, astrology… and – rather unexpectedly – quantum physics and astronomy.

What is Human Design?

The system was created by a Canadian called Alan Krakower, who apparently had an eight-day-long “visitation” from a powerful alien Voice in the 80’s during the explosion of a supernova (the first such event to be visible with a naked eye – you can learn more from Krakower himself). The Voice explained Mr. Krakower how humans are really designed and how their destiny is determined by the position of planets (like in astrology), but also by the stream of neutrinos 88 days before birth (when the soul enters the body, according to HD) and at the moment of birth – that’s how quantum physics comes into the picture. Krakower changed his name to Ra Uru Hu, turned the alien revelations into a long textbook and started to teach Human Design. By now, there are hundreds of certified HD analysts, who prepare graphs and reading – and of course, it is not cheap, just like other New Age systems we have written about in the past.

Elements of the system

Human Design is a complex mixture of concepts, but here are some of the basics:

  1.  Four Strategy types – these reflect the person’s proper strategy in life:
    generators – those who build and do most of the work in the society;
    projectors – people who can act as guides and see deeply into others;
    manifestors – those who act as a catalyst, initiating great projects;
    reflectors – the rarest type, with deep vision and understanding.
  2. Nine energy centers – these are the same chakras as used in yoga, etc.
  3. Seven Authority types – these show where the person’s true knowledge and intuition lie. They include Emotional authority (those who should trust their emotions when making decisions), Sacral (instant intuition), and Lunar Cycle (decisions based on the connection with the moon).

What’s the problem with Human Design?

We have already written about some New Age techniques, such as Johrei, that try to present themselves as “science”, and the criticisms directed against them are appliable to HD, too. First of all, there is no research proving any of the system’s claims (in fact, New Age theorists often use the general phrase “research proves that…” without providing any actual references). Of course, there is no established link between neutrinos or planets and a person’s character.

Human Design is not only pseudoscientific – it is expensive. The simplest reading costs circa $250, Level 1 analyst training will cost you $400, and Level 2 is around $1000. As you can see, a certified analyst can quickly cover their training expenses and earn a handsome profit by doing readings – a lucrative investment, certainly!

It’s not all wrong

There is no point paying for HD readings, but the system is correct about one thing: a lot of our problems stem from a lack of understanding of ourselves, from deeply ingrained biases and fears. If you are not successful or happy in what you do, you might indeed find success elsewhere by changing your career or way of life. The thing is, you don’t need a reading of neutrinos and chakras to do that.


The delusion of being “science-based” –
Human Design: Were We Coded at Birth? –

Jovian Archive – Official site


  1. You gave no real ‘basis’ for saying there’s no established link between the neutrino information that does pour through every living thing, and the character and characteristics of a human being. And no actual basis for stating this is “ masquerading as science“. You did state your belief that this is so, and that’s ok. That’s the nature of building a basis one way or another. You’ve said words not quite postulated conclusions, even though the language used indicates you’ve been able to reach a conclusion. But that’s ok too. If you off you or your staff were to allow an analysis to be done, you may change at least your view of your view. I’m sorry, but science needs to exist within the field of “maybe“ before it’s ever concretize. It’s always this way. Your hypothesis that this is in no way a science, would therefore not allow for a science to even emerge. That’s rather closed don’t you think? You didn’t mention that it’s called the science of differentiation, the basis of which has been proven over and over again, namely, the fact that we are all different. But how so, are we all different, and where can one see it, and are there experiments that can be replicated? Your article does not ask this question, leading me to ask you, are you even interested in a new science? Is it in fact science to say something else is not a science? Because those are just words, not science. You claim that it’s expensive and misleading. But with no basis how do you know you yourself are not misleading? Do you come at such a thing with the buyers already? When I first learned of human design I was biased by my scientific upbringing. I’ve since learned otherwise, yet I am aware that that is not necessarily overall proof. And that’s OK too. Ultimately before you finish remaining concluded that this stuff is debunked in your eyes, I would invite you and challenge you and encourage you to pick a control group of any 10 individuals. I’m an expert in human design at this point. I never knew I would find myself here and that’s OK. And, not only do I not charge anywhere near the prices you’re saying, and do many if not most readings for next to nothing because people don’t have a lot of money. But I can work one on one with any control group you’d care to assemble, under any circumstance by any measure, and deliver you a repeatable result. And several studies were done, beyond observational studies. Type for instance has been well established approx 24 years ago with a randomized 5000 person study where type remained consistent over a period of time. And years later it’s still showing up the same over a million people. Is that just a coincidence? Again, experiencing it first hand and saying it’s not valid in any way, from outside of experiencing it, are two very different things, now aren’t they? Well, humbly speaking of put it out there. Just 10 people or hundred or five, the numbers don’t matter. Let’s conduct an experiment… Sincerely Daniel Edwards

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *