The partial least squares technique (PLS) has been touted as a viable alternative to latent variable structural equation modeling (SEM) for evaluating theoretical models in the differential psychology domain. We bring some balance to the discussion by reviewing the broader methodological literature to highlight: (1) the misleading characterization of PLS as an SEM method; (2) limitations of PLS for global model testing; (3) problems in testing the significance of path coefficients; (4) extremely high false positive rates when using empirical confidence intervals in conjunction with a new "sign change correction" for path coefficients; (5) misconceptions surrounding the supposedly superior ability of PLS to handle small sample sizes and non-normality; and (6) conceptual and statistical problems with formative measurement and the application of PLS to such models. Additionally, we also reanalyze the dataset provided by Willaby et al. (2015; doi:10.1016/j.paid.2014.09.008) to highlight the limitations of PLS. Our broader review and analysis of the available evidence makes it clear that PLS is not useful for statistical estimation and testing.