Graphology -- Brilliant Or Bunkum?

[Fuddlestack]

  On 8/18/2010 at 2:13 AM, rogerb said:

....

I have seen it claimed that FDR's illness might have been diagnosed sooner, if someone had noted the 'disintegration' of his handwriting, which occurred quite a while before other symptoms became apparent. However, I have no way of confirming this.

 

This is different from graphology, since handwriting, as all other forms of activity requiring coordination, degenerates with loss of muscular control - in other words, it testifies to physical condition as opposed to mental.

 

Something that happens to many people as they get older is that one hand acts faster than the other. In my own case, when I'm typing, both hands will hit the correct keys but the right hand will "fire" faster than the left, so that, even though each individual hand hits the correct letters in the correct order, the odd pair will be inverted on the screen. When this happens to pianists they usually start conducting. At least computer users can resort to hunt and peck.

[rogerb]

  On 8/20/2010 at 8:21 AM, Fuddlestack said:

  On 8/18/2010 at 2:13 AM, rogerb said:

....

I have seen it claimed that FDR's illness might have been diagnosed sooner, if someone had noted the 'disintegration' of his handwriting, which occurred quite a while before other symptoms became apparent. However, I have no way of confirming this.

 

 

This is different from graphology, since handwriting, as all other forms of activity requiring coordination, degenerates with loss of muscular control - in other words, it testifies to physical condition as opposed to mental.

 

Something that happens to many people as they get older is that one hand acts faster than the other. In my own case, when I'm typing, both hands will hit the correct keys but the right hand will "fire" faster than the left, so that, even though each individual hand hits the correct letters in the correct order, the odd pair will be inverted on the screen. When this happens to pianists they usually start conducting. At least computer users can resort to hunt and peck.

But this, unlike the more contentious aspects of 'handwriting analysis', can be, IMO, a very useful application of the process.....when handwriting changes suddenly, it can suggest an underlying physical(or dare i say, mental) problem. I know that Joan Cambridge used her skill as a QDE in many other ways, mostly in forensics and diagnosis....she showed me some of the results.

 

(I await more flames )

Edited August 20, 2010 by rogerb

[KateGladstone]

RogerB, what you've written here doesn't strike me as flameworthy.

In fact, it raises the very interesting and important issue of what graphology can and cannot detect.

 

Today, graphologists (in the USA, at least) typically state that graphology cannot possibly detect (at any level above pure chance) the writer's sex, age, disability, national origin, place of upbringing, religious beliefs, or anything else which (if graphology could detect it) would happen to make it illegal to use graphology for employment decisions under current USA laws against discrimination in employment.

However ...

 

 

/1/ Even though graphologists will tell you that neither they nor anyone else can possibly detect the writer's sex from a writing sample, the founders of graphology -- whose methods the graphologists of today claim to follow and improve -- routinely claimed that they *could* detect precisely these things from a writing samplet(And they did have some -- slight -- success at just one of those things: detecting the sex of a writer. Faced with any sample of writing, graphologists were about 70%-85% accurate -- namely, 20%-35% above chance -- in detecting whether a male or a female had written it. This was much less than the near-infallibility they claimed on the matter, but slightly more than pure random guessing would have yielded.)

 

 

/2/ Today, people untrained in graphology (if they are given a sample of writing and are asked to decide whether a man or a woman wrote it) also achieve the same 70%-85% accuracy as the old-time graphologists achieved (before it became legally important for the profession to *not* be able to achieve that).

 

 

/3/ When both graphologists and non-graphologists, today, are tested on the same samples (and are asked to guess whether a man or a woman wrote each one) the non-graphologists make 70%-85% correct guesses, but the graphologists make only 50%-60% correct guesses. (And the more training and experience the graphologist has, the fewer s/he will get right: the 50% scores come from professional graphologists with long experience as teachers/practitioners in that field, and the 55%-60% scores come from beginners/amateurs.) I cannot find the citation on this, right now, but will post it when I can find it again.

 

 

In other words: graphologists today find it (or claim to find it) impossible to do as well, in one area at least, as graphology's founders -- or even to do as well as the graphologically untrained. This should cause one to think hard before investing in such training or in the professionals who have had such training.

Edited August 20, 2010 by KateGladstone

[Fuddlestack]

  On 8/20/2010 at 9:00 AM, rogerb said:

  On 8/20/2010 at 8:21 AM, Fuddlestack said:

  On 8/18/2010 at 2:13 AM, rogerb said:

....

I have seen it claimed that FDR's illness might have been diagnosed sooner, if someone had noted the 'disintegration' of his handwriting, which occurred quite a while before other symptoms became apparent. However, I have no way of confirming this.

 

 

This is different from graphology, since handwriting, as all other forms of activity requiring coordination, degenerates with loss of muscular control - in other words, it testifies to physical condition as opposed to mental.

 

Something that happens to many people as they get older is that one hand acts faster than the other. In my own case, when I'm typing, both hands will hit the correct keys but the right hand will "fire" faster than the left, so that, even though each individual hand hits the correct letters in the correct order, the odd pair will be inverted on the screen. When this happens to pianists they usually start conducting. At least computer users can resort to hunt and peck.

But this, unlike the more contentious aspects of 'handwriting analysis', can be, IMO, a very useful application of the process.....when handwriting changes suddenly, it can suggest an underlying physical(or dare i say, mental) problem. I know that Joan Cambridge used her skill as a QDE in many other ways, mostly in forensics and diagnosis....she showed me some of the results.

 

(I await more flames )

 

Ah, good sir, if I ever flame you will sizzle. I doubt if you felt even a mild échauffement. I was in fact complementing your earlier point. If you have read, or should you ever read, Mervyn Peake's Gormenghast trilogy, you will see the effects of progressive nervous degeneration as his illustrations decline from masterful to jagged. I believe that one can simulate this by trying to write while under the influence of LSD - certainly, spiders' webs go wawa as the stuff takes effect.

 

In the case of FDR - yes, it might have been diagnosed, but who dares criticize a president's handwriting?

 

Hum. Has a medical man ever become president?

[rogerb]

It wasn't you Fuddlestack, whose fiery wrath I anticipated, as I am sure you are aware.

I don't see why any president's advisers should be reticent about suggesting a check-up in such circumstances....certainly nowadays the health of the president appears to be a matter for public discussion, as it possibly should be, in view of the power he has at his (unsteady?) fingertips.

 

It is (only slightly) interesting to read what some US graphologists 'claim' they can and cannot do, as this is almost entirely at variance with what I was taught by a retired British Army Brigadier, not at all the sort of person likely to make such extravagant 'claims'.

Edited August 20, 2010 by rogerb

[Johnny Appleseed]

  On 8/20/2010 at 1:41 PM, KateGladstone said:

/1/ Even though graphologists will tell you that neither they nor anyone else can possibly detect the writer's sex from a writing sample, the founders of graphology -- whose methods the graphologists of today claim to follow and improve -- routinely claimed that they *could* detect precisely these things from a writing samplet(And they did have some -- slight -- success at just one of those things: detecting the sex of a writer. Faced with any sample of writing, graphologists were about 70%-85% accurate -- namely, 20%-35% above chance -- in detecting whether a male or a female had written it. This was much less than the near-infallibility they claimed on the matter, but slightly more than pure random guessing would have yielded.)

 

This opens up a much more complext set of issues with the founders of graphology, and the cultural context in which it occurs. At the time this research was done, we were coming out of an era where men and women were trained in distinctly different hands. While that practise was out of fashion at the time of the research, cultural hold-overs from the old practises could easily explain those results.

 

Interestingly, this was one area where graphology was accepted by the prevailing US scientific establishment. But this also ties into the pervailing notions in science at the time, and difference between the world-view behind graphology - that of unique individual personality that could be descerned from individual expression - and the prevailing world views of the US scientific community - that of biologically determined groupings of people (by race, sex, etc.) The notion of handwriting being used to detect the sex of a the writer reinforced the prevailing scientific notions of gender at the time - that men and women had innately and immutably different mental capacities and social roles. So a difference that was as likely as not the result of a social convention was used to reinforce the notion of biologically determined gender difference.

 

While science strives to overcome prevailing ideologies and achieve "objectivity," it is useful to keep in mind how often we are unable to get beyond the cultural framework of the human researchers who do science. That is one reason why history of science is so important - another of the late Stephen J. Gould's crusades - because it reminds us to look for the cultural and ideological framework within which existing theories and research results are interpreted.

 

John

Edited August 20, 2010 by Johnny Appleseed

[KateGladstone]

A tradition of teaching men and women to write differently would explain why people 100+ years ago could do better than chance in distinguishing men's and women's writings. However, it wouldn't explain why people today (especially the graphologically untrained) are also able to do about as well on this task as the old-time graphology masters -- see the chapter investigating graphology in this book.

[LisaN]

Well, I am working very hard, and my penmanship is changing a lot. At least so far the letters O, A, C, E, i, and u, and the word "Auuuuu".

I am moving very slowly through a 1918 ZB book.

[Ondina]

Rogerb, I'm very impressed you got to learn from such a relevant graphologist. That combined with your extensive (and sometimes elitist!) experience as en English teacher will take a long lunch, tea and dinner next time we have the pleasure to have you over. I've had the pleasure to have the gentleman at my table; delightful and a pleasure . My knowledge on the filed is restricted to first hand use of handwriting used in clinical diagnoses ( not only neurological ones) and indirectly on its uses in Legal Medicine. Even more indirectly ( I use to take the oral lessons eons ago to a couple Law students in the family; it helped them preparing for the real thing) on QUESTIONED DOCUMENT and FORENSIC handwriting analysis.

 

Edited August 21, 2010 by Ondina

[Ondina]

  On 8/21/2010 at 1:25 AM, LisaN said:

Well, I am working very hard, and my penmanship is changing a lot. At least so far the letters O, A, C, E, i, and u, and the word "Auuuuu".

I am moving very slowly through a 1918 ZB book.

 

Yes, handwriting changes overtime, with practice....the only way to get an accurate impression is the ones done with the usual , non-trained, on-the-fly one. (Taking notes fast, for example, using cursive is that is what you learn to use first to train yourself on any other style). Fuddlestack is correct, a short dictation can be very useful in early neurological disorder diagnoses, as well as to control the progression of the damage. These days many go for a costly SCAN-CAT, but in many parts of the world, paper and pencil is just as good.

[Ondina]

Johnny Appleseed, it is alway a pleasure to read your points of view. I may not completely agree with all of them and rebating some will take us into slippery fields such as the geopolitical influence on Science (and scientist) these days, but I would just like to publicly thank you for the patience shown on exposing reasoned arguments. Science itself has an ample definition and even Exact branches of it such as Math & Physics do evolve overtime, as theories prove to be right or wrong. Freudian Psychiatry these days would offer some parallelism to Graphology; a few parts are valid, most are not. Yet the value of what has proven to be so deserves recognition.

[ImolaS3]

  KateGladstone said:

What do you think about graphology -- and why?

 

As a scientist and academic, my view has to be up there with astrology and homeopathy!

 

My handwriting changed considerably at the start of this year when I studied it for the first time using a book recommended here. I now write cursive, nothing like last year's writing, so a graphologist would no doubt read (guess) me completely differently - and no doubt wrongly

[Fuddlestack]

Interesting videos on the topic:

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=SCQqdpqdKY0&feature=channel

[KateGladstone]

  On 8/21/2010 at 10:34 AM, Ondina said:

Yes, handwriting changes overtime, with practice....the only way to get an accurate impression is the ones done with the usual , non-trained, on-the-fly one.

 

 

There is no "non-trained" handwriting -- no matter how rapidly the writer uses it.

And what of adults like me, who re-trained their handwriting in adulthood and can no longer write their previous handwriting style?

Are we -- even at our fastest -- totally without a "non-trained" style for Ondina or a graphologist to look at?

 

Re:

  On 8/21/2010 at 10:34 AM, Ondina said:

(Taking notes fast, for example, using cursive is that is what you learn to use first to train yourself on any other style).

 

I don't completely understand the grammar of that sentence.

If it means something like

"Look at notes taken fast in cursive, because that is what you learn to use first" --

that is incorrect: (here in North America, at least),

because almost all North Americans learn cursive as their second way of writing (not their first way).

First we learn to write a very different (non-cursive) style, and then at age 7 or 8 we are re-trained to write the cursive style: like learning a second language.

 

Actually, the above is speaking of my own generation -- I am 47 -- and the generations immediately before mine and immediately after mine.

North Americans under 18 have seldom been taught cursive at any time: see this article.

 

So just where is Ondina going to get "notes taken fast in cursive" from the average North American born in 1992 or thereafter --

and just how much sense will it make when Ondina tells them -- or any North American middle-aged or under -- that "cursive ... is what you learn to use first"?

[KateGladstone]

  On 8/21/2010 at 10:59 AM, ImolaS3 said:

My handwriting changed considerably at the start of this year when I studied it for the first time using a book recommended here. I now write cursive, nothing like last year's writing, so a graphologist would no doubt read (guess) me completely differently - and no doubt wrongly

 

I would like to see your previous handwriting and your current handwriting. What book did you use to change your writing?

 

 

 

[KateGladstone]

  On 8/21/2010 at 12:33 PM, Fuddlestack said:

Interesting videos on the topic:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGFFq9CsaXM

 

http://www.youtube.c...feature=channel

 

The second half of that video is here. That second video gets particularly interesting after 1 minute 44 seconds into this second video, for at least the next 4 minutes.

[rogerb]

Just to put things into perspective, are there any truly 'scientific' tests out there which can produce accurate, consistent, reliable analyses of 'personality'?

 

Most of the tests I am aware of seem to come-up with results which are little, if any, better than 'intuition'.

Many companies simply rely on interviewing candidates for employment ...... how reliable is that?

[KateGladstone]

RogerB writes, anecdotally:

 

  On 8/21/2010 at 1:20 PM, rogerb said:

Just to put things into perspective, are there any truly 'scientific' tests out there which can produce accurate, consistent, reliable analyses of 'personality'?

 

Most of the tests I am aware of seem to come-up with results which are little, if any, better than 'intuition'.

Many companies simply rely on interviewing candidates for employment ...... how reliable is that?

 

I don't know, RogerB, but I do know this:

 

/1/

There's a good article here about how to tell effective tests from the others.

 

/2/

When the results of tests/interviews agree with graphology (which happens at about chance expectancy),

the graphologists say that this proves graphology is right.

 

/3/

When the results of tests/interviews disagree with graphology (which is common),

the graphologists say that this proves graphology is right because (in the graphologists' view) it proves that the tests/interviews are wrong.

Edited August 21, 2010 by KateGladstone

[rogerb]

'Anecdotally"....what does that mean? I simply asked a question!! Is it just meant to devalue my contribution in some way?

 

You might just have just as well left it at "I don't know", Kate ...the article linked-to just emphasised the inherent dependence of all such tests upon the subjective judgements of the 'interpreters'...rather than continuing to attack graphology and its practioners. I think we all know where you stand on that.

 

I liked the comment that one of the tests was 'incredibly accurate' ...... 'incredibly' means, I believe, 'to an degree which is hard to believe'

[Fuddlestack]

None of the tests I have seen have compared the results given for the same people by several different graphologists. Shermer's tests went about halfway. Better was the

.