May 9th, 2025
Are Personality Tests Pseudoscience?
Are Personality Tests Pseudoscience?
A while ago, satirist Arjen Lubach took aim at the world of personality tests on his show. MBTI? Nonsense. DISC? A commercial invention. His conclusion: personality tests are pseudoscience – and we take them far too seriously.
He struck a nerve. Because let’s be honest: many of these tests are poorly grounded.
But is Lubach throwing the baby out with the bathwater?
In this blog, we’ll look at:
- What pseudoscience actually means,
- Why some tests (like MBTI and DISC) deserve that label,
- And why not all personality tests should be dismissed.
What do we mean by pseudoscience?
Pseudoscience:
- Sounds scientific, but lacks testability;
- Gives recognizable outcomes, but no reliable data;
- Avoids critique or improvement.
Many popular tests are designed to feel good, not to be accurate.
And that’s a problem – especially when they’re used in hiring, evaluations, or leadership development.
The usual suspects: MBTI and DISC
Lubach mentioned them both – and not without reason:
- MBTI puts people into types like “INTJ” or “ESFP,” but is barely reproducible, has little predictive value, and is based on outdated theory.
- DISC is appealing because of its simplicity (color-coding), but lacks scientific validation.
But: not all tests are the same
What Lubach didn’t mention is that there are personality tests grounded in robust psychological research.
The most well-known: the Big Five model.
This model:
- Measures personality along five continuous dimensions,
- Is validated globally,
- And produces stable, predictive results.
Our approach: insight and evidence
At our companies – Kode360 and Nine Wisdoms – we use the Enneagram, not as a mystical model, but as a powerful framework for behavior and motivation. And we back it up with data.
Our test:
- Uses the Enneagram as a lens to map inner drivers and pitfalls,
- Combines it with the Big Five under the hood – for solid psychometrics,
- Was developed with a focus on both scientific validity and practical usability,
- And we share our data with researchers – to either strengthen or challenge the foundation. If the latter happens, the model gets updated.
This way, we combine depth with reliability – making personality analysis more than just a good story.
What’s the risk of weak tests?
If a test doesn’t provide a reliable measurement, it shouldn’t be the basis for decisions.
Not in recruitment. Not in leadership. Not in collaboration.
The risk: misapplied labels, distorted self-images, and poor policy decisions.
Conclusion: critical thinking is good – but look at what does work
Lubach raises valid questions.
Many personality tests do deserve the label pseudoscience.
But he oversimplifies: there are scientifically grounded tests that actually work in practice.
Our view:
Don’t use typologies as absolute truths.
But do use them as a starting point for conversation, reflection, and growth – if they’re well-designed.