Graphology -- Brilliant Or Bunkum?

[Kabe]

The good thing is that we can still rely on phrenology

[txinsk]

The good thing is that we can still rely on phrenology

 

yeah, because if this keeps up there may be some new bumps on the heads!

 

Rick

[rogerb]

To say "You have your opinions on this, and I have mine.... can we please leave it there?" is, I think, a perfectly courteous request, which makes no 'imposition' on the other party, who is still free to express such opinions to others.

 

To continue to bombard the requestor with further argument, after such a request, is, on the other hand, DIScourteous, and appears like an attempt to impose one's opinions on another.

 

I have made such a request and now I am done with it.

[KateGladstone]

To say "You have your opinions on this, and I have mine.... can we please leave it there?" is, I think, a perfectly courteous request,

 

Such a request is, I think, a way of saying "It can't matter which opinion does or doesn't fit the facts."

 

[KateGladstone]

To view it as a means of silencing is an interesting way of approaching interpersonal interactions.

 

 

In my observation and experience, people who beg others to "agree to disagree" are usually people who like agreement better than accuracy.

[mstone]

To say "You have your opinions on this, and I have mine.... can we please leave it there?" is, I think, a perfectly courteous request,

 

Such a request is, I think, a way of saying "It can't matter which opinion does or doesn't fit the facts."

In a conversation like this, which depends on anecdote more than on fact, it's a way of preventing the conversation from descending to mere acrimony.

[KateGladstone]

... a conversation like this ... depends on anecdote more than on fact ...

Would you like to see facts (other than personal experiences) brought into play?

[KateGladstone]

From another thread --

 

 

Asthe original poster here, I think that the graphology thread would bethe logical place to go [for a story of an encounter with graphologists, leaving this thread to its original topic.

 

caliken

 

Okay --

 

Six or seven years ago, I was doing a handwriting workshop in Massachusetts (not at a pen show -- at an event sponsored by the company that publishes the lined paper I designed) and the guests included two women who -- as I later discovered -- were the president and vice-president of the Massachusetts chapter of the International Graphoanalysis Society: graphoanalysis is a school of handwriting analysis a/k/a graphology (although its practitioners don't like the name "graphology" because they believe that they are more scientific than other people in the business). Before the workshop, I'd been talking with the president of that group by e-mail, and had invited her to come because she'd asked me some questions about what I do -- although, when she and her subordinate did arrive, I did not know who they were because I had never seen them.

 

During the workshop, audience volunteers took part in blackboard exercises to improve particular aspects of their handwritng, with an eye to improving legibility and speed, while the rest of the audience followed along in their seats or (if they preferred) just watched the blackboard volunteers' new handwritings unfold.

 

As this happened, the behavior of these two audience members (whose identities I did not yet know) caught my eye. One of them was constantly, excitedly turning to the other, pointing at the blackboard volunteers and their writing, while helf-whispering repeated remarks like "Why aren't we taught about this in our training?" and "The books say this shouldn't be able to happen! We need to learn about how this is possible!"), and the other one kept frowning at the excited one and jabbing her with an elbow, while muttering some comments back in reply. I assumed initially that the elbow-jabber was just asking her friend to be quiet, but the elbow-jabber's comments grew gradually louder and louder, as her excited companion's comments got quieter and fewer and her face became sadder and sadder -- until I could eventually hear what the elbow-jabber (who I later learned was the president of the handwriting analysis club) was saying to her companion (the vice-president) ... and the very first comment I could hear from the elbow-jabber was this: "All that stuff they're doing down there [on the auditorium floor with the blackboard] -- that is NOT something to pay attention to, because according to the science of handwriting analysis it DOES NOT EXIST!" The president kept on like that -- comments that "this is NOT in handwriting analysis and needs to be ignored because IT DOES NOT HAPPEN!" interspersed with elbow-jabs whenever the vice-president still tried to say something (which was less and less often, but was always something on the order of "but WHY isn't this being dealt with in our handwriting analysis training?" or "WHY do the books say that this can't be done, when they ARE doing it?") -- at the end of the workshop, the two introduced themselves to me: the president said how upsetting this had been for both of them, the vice-president started to say something ... and the president jabbed the vice-president with her elbow until the vice-president said "Sorry, I meant to say that _____ [the president of her group] was right.

(I did later get a little time to talk to them both individually, about their reactions, but I don't know if their reactions would really interest others here

 

The whole thing would have been a little funnier if it hadn't led to the workshop sponsor (who'd overheard the conversation) telling me that the behavior of these two guests (the first graphologists that the workshop sponsor had ever met) had been SO annoying that the workshop sponsor would have to make me promise never, ever, again to invite any graphologists to any public workshop that the sponsor was going to be involved with helping to produce. Of course I promised -- but I have to tell you, as I told the sponsor, that never in my wildest nightmares would I have imagined that any graphologist's response to samples of handwriting could be "Those samples don't exist."

[Johnny Appleseed]

... a conversation like this ... depends on anecdote more than on fact ...

Would you like to see facts (other than personal experiences) brought into play?

 

I think that a conversation like this would do better if we had more facts and less anecdotes. The problem with many of the anecdotes is that they involve the alleged statements by other people - statements that we have no ability to verify, and incidents where we have no opportunity to hear the other side. We have no opportunity to hear the alleged statements in context, nor to know if they are representative of the bulk of the field or simply cherry-picked examples (which one begins to suspect). It would be more useful, if one wanted to attack outlandish statements of Graphologists, to stick to referencable public statements (which is not hard - they have websites and journals where they make many of these same claims).

 

While personal experience does have an important place in a discussion like this, it becomes tedious to hear the same basic set of anectodes over and over again - particularly when they are all framed as the teller being the ardent defender of the truth against obviously reality-denying graphologists (or cursive advocates, or handwriting companies, or whatever). The teller is always reasonable, the other side always blatently unreasonable. When I hear the same type of one-sided anecdote over and over again, I tend to suspect the validity of the reporting - even if I agree with the position being taken.

 

A debate and discussion requires a certain amount of give-and-take, and respect for the opionions of others. When one enters into the discussion convinced they already have the truth and their sole goal is to move others to their position, then it becomes diatribe, not discussion. Diatribe has its place, but as often as not it has the effect of alienating the very people it tries to reach - a more nuanced approach that acknowledges one own potential fallability, and is more respectful of other viewpoints, is often more effective.

 

More importantly, this is a discussion board that is open to people of diverse viewpoints. Believing that one posesses the truth does not give one the right to be consistantly rude and dismissive of other viewpoints.

 

John

Edited August 19, 2010 by Johnny Appleseed

[KateGladstone]

I don't see what made it rude to post any experiences.

Those who have experienced other things doubtless have their own stories (cherry-picked or not) to post, and should post them.

 

Or would you prefer that I pretend some event turned out less disconcertingly than I saw it turn out,

so that I can thereby mention it without hurting anyone else's feelings?

 

But let's stick to "referenc[e]able public statements" -- as John asks. Some of those are cited in this piece (admittedly by a non-graphologist) on the subject.

 

Since referenceable public statements include newspaper articles, this (examining why people believe in graphology) may hold some interest:

 

" ...more than 200 objective scientific studies into graphology have failed to establish associations between personality and handwriting of any practical value. ... in 17 studies investigating the use of graphology in personnel selection, the evidence is that graphologists cannot accurately predict job performance from handwriting.

"However, a recent study by psychologists Roy King and Derek Koehler of the University of Waterloo in Ontario, published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology, appears to have resolved the paradox whereby the public and even large corporations believe in graphology, while science consistently fails to support it.

" ... the fact that the public tends to agree with professional graphologists in itself probably renders the method invalid. As one study has already shown, it means job applicants know how to alter their handwriting to convey a false impression of orderliness and originality.

"King and Koehler tested their theory, that the public already hold intuitive ideas about handwriting before being exposed to graphology theories, by asking undergraduates to inspect handwriting samples and compare them with personality profiles obtained from the writers. Although the undergraduate raters didn't know this, in fact the handwriting samples were paired randomly with the personality descriptions. Yet, the raters 'saw' associations between handwriting and personality ...

"In a follow-up experiment, King and Koehler arranged the data so that handwriting was paired with the opposite profile than would be predicted from graphology, eg fast handwriting with cautious people. Even so, the raters still 'saw' that fast handwriting was associated with impulsiveness. ... "

[ethernautrix]

Did anyone explain to them that their deductions were supposed to come from the handwriting, not from information they already know or think they know about the writer?

Actually, I think there may be validity in using a combination of deductions from handwriting and other sources. It is not unusual in a mental health setting for multiple diagnostic tools to be used in developing an overall diagnosis, nor in using ongoing diagnostic tools to further refine the diagnosis and treatment methods. In fact, I think it would be atypical to use a single test to generate a full diagnosis. The fact that a graphologist will try to gather as much background knowledge about the individual as possible does not invalidate the use of graphology as a means of learning something about the individuals personality. In a mental health assessment that would be called a good intake interview and case history.

 

Now if the purpose of doing a handwriting analysis is to wow the individual with how "accurate" the assessment is, (and thus attempt to separate them from hard-earned money), than the gathering of additional information is tantamount to fraud. But if it is approached with a more nuanced approach to examining what handwriting may tell an individual about themselves, then additional background information may be appropriate.

 

John

 

Ah! (I'm just getting caught up with this thread.) You're right, John. I was perceiving graphology as a kind of palm reading. That was my own limitation. Cheers!

[KateGladstone]

I wonder what ethernautrix would make of this.

[Bluecloud]

I agree with my own opinion that fanatic people scare me

Edited August 19, 2010 by Bluecloud

[Johnny Appleseed]

 

Ah! (I'm just getting caught up with this thread.) You're right, John. I was perceiving graphology as a kind of palm reading. That was my own limitation. Cheers!

Well, for many it is - and for those the above criticism is valid. I think it's use in employment screening is equally "bunkum", and the data is pretty clear on that as well.

 

And excuse me for using this as a jumping-off point for a (too?) long philisophical rant about "bunkum" methods of understanding people. .

 

One of the realities of human beings is that we relate to many different symbolic world views, and that the understanding of human psyche is nowhere near the place where we can prescribe solutions for psycho/emotional issues like we can proscribe anti-biotics. That is a problem that plagues attempts to impose scientific methods on psychology. There are some conditions like Bipolar disorder where you can do double-blind studies of a treatment protocol like CBT, and show results. But how do you define a persons search for meaning in life? How do you systematize a father's interactions with his children to help them relate in a more personal and deeply connected way?

 

One of the interesting things that has come out of some of the research in therapeutic techniques is that the quality of the therapeutic relationship is often more important than the actual techniques used. It is the therapists skill in relating to their client and achieving an understand with their client that makes the difference.

 

So even non-traditional approaches can work in the hands of a skilled counselor. Clergy and ministerial counseling is one area where we see this, and it has been around for ages. We cannot scientifically prove or disprove the existence of God, but that does not mean that people don't find guidance and healing rooted in a religious framework. Likewise, many of the new-age therapies, while perhaps not rooted in a "provable" or scientific framework, can be effective for similar reasons.

 

I had a friend who is a professional astrologer and psychic. Now, I don't believe for one moment that the position of the planets when I was born, or anytime, has one whit of actual impact on my life. But I have to say that she could be an incredibly down-to-earth and emotionally attuned individual. When she talked about astrology and how she used astrology with clients, you could see that she was actually a very skilled therapist, she just used the symbolic language of astrology instead of some other therapeutic method. The fact that an astrology reading can be extremely broad and applied in many different ways was one of the strengths of it - she could interpret the chart in a way that applied to what was going on with her client, and ignore the parts that didn't fit. It may not be scientific, but it helped her clients. And it wasn't just feel-good stuff either - she would actively challenge people to work on issues and shortcomings. Her clients were people who believed in astrology, and the result for them was probably more effective than a traditional non-spiritual approach would have been.

 

One of my problems with a lot of the "skeptic" community is that it defines truth as uni-dimensional and materially provable, and defines as pathological or "dangerously irrational" anything that isn't. In other words, it defines as pathological any philosophical system different than empirical materialism. Unfortunately, empirical materialism has proven a very poor foundation as a guide to human interactions. As Stephen J Gould has argued, science is the appropriate tool to understanding the material world we live in, but it provides very little guidance for how we should treat each other, or for how we find spiritual fulfillment. Religion, on the other hand, provides ethical and spiritual guidance, but is a lousy method of understanding the physical world.

 

Personally I tend to lean toward scientific and materialist view in interpreting the world - but I respect that there are many, many other ways that are also valid. And I recognize that human beings are deeply irrational creatures - the "rational" portions of our brain are actually a fairly limited part of cognition, and to deny the "irrational" processing and experiences we have (which encompass things like art, spirituality, love, and all of that) is to deny much of what makes us human.

 

So while I don't want graphologists screening my next job application, I don't have a problem with people finding value in an "irrational" and "unproven" art, if it provides some meaning in their lives.

 

John

[Ann Finley]

Very well said, John.

 

Best, Ann

[ethernautrix]

John, you make very good points. Thank you.

[donwinn]

To view it as a means of silencing is an interesting way of approaching interpersonal interactions.

 

 

In my observation and experience, people who beg others to "agree to disagree" are usually people who like agreement better than accuracy.

 

Or, possibly, people who do not desire to end a friendship over a difference of opinion. If an issue is not a "hill worth dying for", I have made the choice to value a friendship more than I valued convincing my friend of his faulty opinion, defined as an opinion which is based on information which is verifiably not correct or true. If the opinion does not threaten life, liberty, or financial ruin, and a friend is not amenable to changing his mind, I have less problem with "agreeing to disagree" than with calling a valued friend a fool, and ending a friendship over something trivial.

 

Donnie

[KateGladstone]

For the record: I haven't called anyone here a fool (despite my disagreement with the premise that some virtue inheres in "agreement to disagree.")

[Johnny Appleseed]

If the opinion does not threaten life, liberty, or financial ruin, and a friend is not amenable to changing his mind, I have less problem with "agreeing to disagree" than with calling a valued friend a fool, and ending a friendship over something trivial.

 

Donnie

 

Agreed - or if not "calling a friend a fool", then pushing my position to the point that it denegrates another.

 

I think the phrase "I respectfully disagree" is woefully underused.

 

John

[KateGladstone]

Finances -- if not liberty or life -- can be affected when graphology, astrology, or other pleasing non-science is used to influence hiring/firing decisions.

(Though what, I wonder, prevents the job applicant from buying a few graphology books, and training him/herself to write in a manner that graphologically suggests the proper personality and aptitudes for the job pursued? What, for that matter, would prevent a sufficiently unscrupulous personnel graphologist from operating in a double capacity: scrutinizing handwritten applications during the day, then spending the evenings discreetly teaching job-applicants how to beat the system by altering their handwriting?)

 

For graphological conclusions' possible impact on liberty or life -- note some legal implications of graphology.

And here are some further concerns re graphology's impact on civil rights.

Edited August 20, 2010 by KateGladstone