Graphology -- Brilliant Or Bunkum?

[KateGladstone]

  On 8/21/2010 at 3:39 PM, Fuddlestack said:

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

.

 

There have actually been quite a few tests of "inter-rater reliability" (the results of different people giving the same test to the same people) for graphology.

The results haven't been favorable to graphology -- one such study is here.

 

 

 

[Fuddlestack]

  On 8/21/2010 at 3:52 PM, KateGladstone said:

  On 8/21/2010 at 3:39 PM, Fuddlestack said:

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

.

 

There have actually been quite a few tests of "inter-rater reliability" (the results of different people giving the same test to the same people) for graphology.

The results haven't been favorable to graphology -- one such study is here.

 

Now that's more like it. I quite enjoy Shermer and Randi (probably because their views and mine are similar most of the time) but they both have a touch of the showman that detracts somewhat from their credibility. However, I found that the graphologist in Shermer's test even less credible - that bit about assigning different areas of significance to ascenders and descenders was just too arbitrary to swallow.

 

Incidentally, graphology is no longer popular in France: I believe that people who are refused a job because of it can sue and win. However, because it was so popular, prospective employers expect applicants to submit a handwritten "letter of motivation" with their CVs, and can be a bit miffed if they don't.

 

Now, concerning phrenology...

[LisaN]

The thing is that when an adult re-learns cursive, not only do the letter forms change, but in many cases also the pen hold and the muscular movement of the arm. Unlike when taught as a child, the adult will seek out good instruction (children have no choice in the matter), and actually practice (children generally only do enough to avoid negative consequences) and retrain the muscles. My squash serve, or someone else's golf swing will change drastically on proper teaching (with a pro) and proper practice. With coaching, I have changed my running gait, and this has changed my walking gait.

 

Fact is, I no longer hold the pen resting on my ring finger. This one small change totally altered my hand. I am not likely to revert to the old way. Within a year, I expect that my hand will be completely different from what it was six months ago. My writing is beginning actually to feel more natural, just as my swimming strokes are feeling more natural.

 

Why did I embark on relearning penmanship? Because I bought some pretty pens.

 

Before practice, my writing would go up and down on unlined paper and change size.

Now it is more even. Why? because I am using whole arm movement and not resting the heel of my hand on the paper.

I am pretty sure my personality did not change in a month. Or maybe the practice is changing my personality.

[KateGladstone]

Well, Randi's background is in show-biz -- he was a professional stage-magician for years before specializing in debunkery.

[KateGladstone]

Re handwriting changing personality -- if that happened, LisaN, I think you'd have noticed by now.

There are some graphologists who specialize in changing personality by changing handwriting -- they're called "graphotherapists" -- but the evidence for that is as weak as the evidence for other uses of graphology. (In any case, none of my own students over the decade have reported or demonstrated any personality changes as a result of the handwriting changes.)

 

And if changing handwriting really did change personality -- wouldn't the personalities of most North Americans who attended school in the mid-20th century have changed very vastly and suddenly, sometime in second or third grade?

[LisaN]

Wow I just looked at some graphology videos.

 

It reminds me of when I used to read cards for money. I knew how to spin the seeming random draw of cards into a coherent story that would resonate strongly with the person. All I had to do was start with some general traits and clues and amplify when I got feedback. Everything was general enough so that it would be close for anybody, and things that I would stress would cause the subject to unconsciously or consciously agree ("You've lost someone or some pet who was very dear to you.... or maybe a relationship went bad??? Duh, who hasn't?)

 

All you have to do is speak as though from authority, and sound as though you believe what you are saying. The ability to spin a coherent story from random elements goes a long way in developing credulity in the subject. If you are really good at it, you might fool yourself, too.

 

One of my favorite things to do is to read the daily horoscope to people who believe in them- but I always read the wrong sign. Sometimes I tell them I am reading yesterday's horoscope, and they will confirm that their day was accurately predicted.

 

Psychologists call this subjective bias or subjective validation. It's what makes people believe that most times when they walk under a certain street light it turns on or off, because they don't notice the times that nothing happens- giving undue weight to random occurrences.

[Johnny Appleseed]

One additional comment in light of my earlier comments on Science and it's limitations.

 

Science is a discourse and a method of inquiry into the physical world. It has rigerous methods of examining data, determening the validity of data, etc., which, while often limited by artifacts of the available tools (eg. Rogerb's comments regarding personality tests), are solid and consistant. The overall rules of science are probably the best tools for the investigation of the physical world. The methods of scientific inquiry should not be corrupted by non-scientific methods of inquiry such as metaphysical, spiritual, etc.

 

Science, and the empirical materialism that underlies it, is not the only method of inquiry nor the only path to wisdom - this is the place where a variety of philisophical, metaphysical, spiritual and religous methods of inquiry and understanding have their place.

 

To put it another way - if Graphologists claim scientific accuracy, then they had better have the double-blind research to back it up, and I have not problems with "de-bunking" claims to scientific accuracy in psuedo-science. It is the claim that a scientific/empiricle materialist world view is the only legitimate one that I strenuously object to.

 

  On 8/21/2010 at 10:50 AM, Ondina said:

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.

 

Thanks Ondina. I would love to explore some of those slippery fields of geopolitical influence on Science, etc. though this is perhaps not the best place for that conversation (got a book list?)

 

  On 8/21/2010 at 7:16 PM, KateGladstone said:

Re handwriting changing personality -- if that happened, LisaN, I think you'd have noticed by now.

There are some graphologists who specialize in changing personality by changing handwriting -- they're called "graphotherapists" -- but the evidence for that is as weak as the evidence for other uses of graphology. (In any case, none of my own students over the decade have reported or demonstrated any personality changes as a result of the handwriting changes.)

 

And if changing handwriting really did change personality -- wouldn't the personalities of most North Americans who attended school in the mid-20th century have changed very vastly and suddenly, sometime in second or third grade?

 

Actually, I think this is a potentially interesting question, and perhaps has more to do with chicken-and-egg causality. I am extremely dubious of the idea that teaching a particular style of writing will bring about personality changes. The school example you cite is potentially one bit of evidence (though there are notable developmental changes that come about at that time, so it would be hard to isolate the impact of writing style, and the potential changes may not be the ones that come about from learning a particular hand as much as changing specific aspects that could apply to many hands).

 

What I suspect may be true is that people who are interested in changing aspect of their life, and focus on changing something like their handwriting, may find that the act of self-development in any particular area has effects on other aspects of their personality. I think this is true of many acts of self-development, be they physical or intellectual. If adopting a particular style of handwriting/graphotherapy is the type of self-development that resonates most for you, go for it, just don't assume it will work for everyone.

 

  On 8/22/2010 at 1:01 AM, LisaN said:

It reminds me of when I used to read cards for money. I knew how to spin the seeming random draw of cards into a coherent story that would resonate strongly with the person. All I had to do was start with some general traits and clues and amplify when I got feedback. Everything was general enough so that it would be close for anybody, and things that I would stress would cause the subject to unconsciously or consciously agree ("You've lost someone or some pet who was very dear to you.... or maybe a relationship went bad??? Duh, who hasn't?)

 

That fits a lot with what I've experienced from really "good" astrologers - except that the ones I am thinking of deeply believed in what they were doing, so it didn't have the hucksterist quality. They were very skilled at digging out what resonated with the individual and exploring that. I can remember one friend of mine comparing my chart with my partner's chart and exploring a lot of questions about how we fight and what we fight over, based on a particular relationship with Mars in our two charts. I am not sure I buy the idea that Mars had anything to do with it, but she asked some very good, probing questions (and this was just a casual conversation over dinner, not any kind of formal reading). I could see how she used astrology, not to try to pretend it gave her any power or "secret knowledge" over anyone, but as a tool to help people understand themselves.

 

On a tangentially related note, I happened to work on a completely unrelated project with the founder of astro-cartography, a particular approach to astrology. He was world-famous in astrology circles, but largely unknown outside (we all assumed he was an accountant or something and were totally surprised to learn what he did for a living). He once shared a story about getting called by one of the major tabloid papers for his "Predictions" for the coming year. He launched into a long spiel about Jungian archetypes and celestial forces, etc. After a couple of minutes the reporter said "we don't want any of that, what predictions do you have about movie stars?" When he said he didn't make predictions about movie stars, and wouldn't share them if he did, the conversation quickly ended. Even some of those who take it seriously have no tolerance for the hucksters.

 

 

John

[KateGladstone]

Re:

 

  On 8/24/2010 at 5:37 PM, Johnny Appleseed said:

The school example you cite is potentially one bit of evidence (though there are notable developmental changes that come about at that time, so it would be hard to isolate the impact of writing style ...

 

Maybe not all *that* hard to isolate -- among schools/schoolteachers imposing such a change, about 45% of schoolteachers impose the change in second grade, another 45% impose it in third grade, and there are occasional teachers who impose it in late 1st grade or early 4th grade. Even within one school-district or one school, teachers teaching different classes in the second grade or in the third grade will have different notions on when to do it (which of course makes life maddening when a student -- whose second-grade teacher thought it would/should be done in third grade -- is sent to have third grade with a teacher who thought it would/should have been done in second grade, and who therefore cannot be bothered to teach the skill although she will expect all her new students to read & write cursive nonetheless ... )

 

Anyway, given that the same school or district often has different classes being changed over to cursive at different times, it should be possible to do a study that will separate any effects of this process from any developmental effects.

 

Re:

 

>On a tangentially related note, I happened to work on a completely unrelated project with the founder of astro-cartography, a particular approach to astrology. He was world-famous in >astrology circles, but largely unknown outside (we all assumed he was an accountant or something and were totally surprised to learn what he did for a living). He once shared a story >about getting called by one of the major tabloid papers for his "Predictions" for the coming year. He launched into a long spiel about Jungian archetypes and celestial forces, etc. After >a couple of minutes the reporter said "we don't want any of that, what predictions do you have about movie stars?" When he said he didn't make predictions about movie stars, and >wouldn't share them if he did, the conversation quickly ended. Even some of those who take it seriously have no tolerance for the hucksters.

 

This reminds me, just a little, of CONNECTICUT YANKEE IN KING ARTHUR'S COURT -- the part where the hero confronts a famous, and phony, wizard. The wizard makes his living through a sort of party-act where he tells the admiring crowd what the Pope -- or the Emperor, or King Arthur, or some other celebrity -- is doing at this very moment: "The Pope is saying his prayers." "Aaaaaaah!" ... "The Emperor is planning a crusade against the heathen." "Ooooooooh!": then the time-traveling Yankee asks: "If you can really see across thousands of miles, can you see what gesture I am making with my hand behind my back, which the people behind me quite clearly?" The phony wizard can't see this, of course, just as he really couldn't see the far-away Pope and Emperor and everyone else whose doings he reported so confidently (because those reports could not be shown false, so he could say anything he wanted), so at this point he resorts to vague mystical generalities about how his powers are not meant to report on the mundane doings of lowly (and checkable) individuals, but only on the great and powerful (who are too far away to prove him wrong).

 

 

[Johnny Appleseed]

  On 8/24/2010 at 6:33 PM, KateGladstone said:

Re:

 

  On 8/24/2010 at 5:37 PM, Johnny Appleseed said:

The school example you cite is potentially one bit of evidence (though there are notable developmental changes that come about at that time, so it would be hard to isolate the impact of writing style ...

 

Maybe not all *that* hard to isolate -- among schools/schoolteachers imposing such a change, about 45% of schoolteachers impose the change in second grade, another 45% impose it in third grade, and there are occasional teachers who impose it in late 1st grade or early 4th grade. Even within one school-district or one school, teachers teaching different classes in the second grade or in the third grade will have different notions on when to do it (which of course makes life maddening when a student -- whose second-grade teacher thought it would/should be done in third grade -- is sent to have third grade with a teacher who thought it would/should have been done in second grade, and who therefore cannot be bothered to teach the skill although she will expect all her new students to read & write cursive nonetheless ... )

 

Anyway, given that the same school or district often has different classes being changed over to cursive at different times, it should be possible to do a study that will separate any effects of this process from any developmental effects.

 

The problem is you are dealing with children, whose personalities are constantly developing and in-flux. That is one of the reasons why personality disorders generally cannot be diagnosed until after adolescence (though increasingly there is a move to diagnose developing "tendancies" at an earlier age). Even then, it is an area fraught with issues - eg. anxiety disorders and ADHD tend to present in the classroom the same way. Such an experiment also assumes that a switch between a particular style of print and cursive is the operant issue, rather than variations in writing that may transfer from print to cursive (eg. a cramped writing style). Personally I am skeptical about the idea of handwriting changing personality, but I also recognize it is a really difficult area to meaningfully measure.

 

 

  On 8/24/2010 at 6:33 PM, KateGladstone said:

This reminds me, just a little, of CONNECTICUT YANKEE IN KING ARTHUR'S COURT -- the part where the hero confronts a famous, and phony, wizard. The wizard makes his living through a sort of party-act where he tells the admiring crowd what the Pope -- or the Emperor, or King Arthur, or some other celebrity -- is doing at this very moment: "The Pope is saying his prayers." "Aaaaaaah!" ... "The Emperor is planning a crusade against the heathen." "Ooooooooh!": then the time-traveling Yankee asks: "If you can really see across thousands of miles, can you see what gesture I am making with my hand behind my back, which the people behind me quite clearly?" The phony wizard can't see this, of course, just as he really couldn't see the far-away Pope and Emperor and everyone else whose doings he reported so confidently (because those reports could not be shown false, so he could say anything he wanted), so at this point he resorts to vague mystical generalities about how his powers are not meant to report on the mundane doings of lowly (and checkable) individuals, but only on the great and powerful (who are too far away to prove him wrong).

 

One could see the similarity to that, but I think, knowing the person, it was more about the spiritual nature of the investigation. A better parallel would be the minister who say that God always listens to our prayers, but that doesn't mean that we always get what we want when we pray.

 

Edit to add: I should also clarify that when he said he wouldn't share predictions on movie stars if he did make them, that was an issue of his ethics. The only reason he would have made any sort of personal reading on any "star" was if they were a client, and he would not share his client's personal information with the press.

 

John

Edited August 24, 2010 by Johnny Appleseed

[KateGladstone]

Re:

 

  On 8/24/2010 at 8:31 PM, Johnny Appleseed said:

The problem is you are dealing with children, whose personalities are constantly developing and in-flux.

 

That's why such a study would involve groups of children, in different grades and so on: to make it possible to control for personality and other variables.

For example: let's say that a school has 6 classrooms in each grade, 30 students in each classroom, with students randomly assigned to classrooms. Second-grade classrooms #1, #2, and #3 teach cursive and so do third-grade classrooms #4, #5, and #6 -- the others do not. Since the kids are assigned to classrooms randomly, each classroom will contain a random representative sample of personalities/maturation rates/etc. -- therefore, it is possible to give personality-tests and look at the *average* of each group's personalities ...

 

or you can get more sophisticated and match each kid in a cursive-learning class with a similar kid in a non-cursive-learning class who has about the same age/educational background/maturation rate/etc. -- and collect and examine the statistics for the cursive-learning kid and the non-cursive-learning kid in each pair: then average the statistics for "all the grade-2 kids in cursive classrooms" vs. "all the grade-2 kids in non-cursive classrooms" and so on: dealing with groups, to iron out the individual differences and variables *except* for the one that you focus on.

 

Re:

  On 8/24/2010 at 8:31 PM, Johnny Appleseed said:

Such an experiment also assumes that a switch between a particular style of print and cursive is the operant issue, rather than variations in writing that may transfer from print to cursive (eg. a cramped writing style).

 

That's one of the things that large-group studies and statistics can rule out: put an equal number of cramped writers in the "cursive-learning" and "not-cursive-learning" classrooms at each grade-level, if you want to control for the effects of writer's cramp.

 

Re:

  On 8/24/2010 at 8:31 PM, Johnny Appleseed said:

One could see the similarity to that, but I think, knowing the person, it was more about the spiritual nature of the investigation. A better parallel would be the minister who say that God always listens to our prayers, but that doesn't mean that we always get what we want when we pray.

A matter admirably addressed by

Edited August 25, 2010 by KateGladstone

[Johnny Appleseed]

  On 8/24/2010 at 11:50 PM, KateGladstone said:

  On 8/24/2010 at 8:31 PM, Johnny Appleseed said:

One could see the similarity to that, but I think, knowing the person, it was more about the spiritual nature of the investigation. A better parallel would be the minister who say that God always listens to our prayers, but that doesn't mean that we always get what we want when we pray.

A matter admirably addressed by

 

Come now - thousands of years of theology and someone think that a simple milk-jug analogy is an disproof? Really - "God answers prayers with yes, no or wait"? That kind of simplistic straw-man assertions are what give athiests a bad name. There are far more sophisticated and thoughtful athiest arguments - we do not need to denigrate a noble humanistic enterprise with this sort of childish oversimplifications.

 

Yes, I can see how this might apply to some branches of Christianity that really believe there is a simple one-to-one relationship between prayer and result, and that God sits around waiting to stop the rain or send us checks from the IRS. And yes, there is that kind of thinking out there. I have known of people who prayed because their church was too hot, and when it got cooler, called that a miracle and answer to their prayers (uhm, it was an evening service, and doesn't it normally get cooler in the evening?)

 

But the majority of the mainstream Christian and Jewish denominations do not teach or believe that kind of simplistic tit-for-tat thinking, even those that do believe in miracles. Really, "God answers prayers with yes, no or wait"? Who teaches that? There are so many more answers to a prayer for $1000, such as "don't be a selfish pig" or "get off your butt and work for it if you want money." Or that the answer to prayers comes from the spiritual wisdom we recieve in praying, not in any golden present that comes down from heaven (and didn't Jesus say "You can not serve both God and Mammon" so why are we praying for $1000 anyway?) Augustine argued that prayer was a means by which we maintain the strength to follow Gods will. Paul Tillich, argues that "God's directing creativity is the answer to the question of the meaning of prayer", but God does not interfeare with the existential human condition. Moses Maimonidies argues that God does not intercede in human affairs because to do so would be a rejection of human free will, and without the free will to choose wrong, their can be no rightous acts. That is just a few samples of the diversity of though in regard to prayer and divine intercession.

 

There are more sophisticated answers to that milk-jug strawman than I can count. If someone thinks that sort of analysis offers a disproof of God, it shows their own limited thinking. Yes, that is a strong opinion, and I apologize if it offends some, but human spiritual experience is not an area where I will tolerate simplistic and one-sided arguments, theistic, atheistic or otherwise.

 

This is the thing that always bothers me about the "Skeptical" worldview. Much of human thought is about a spiritual understanding of the universe, not a physical one, and cannot be understood in material terms. If you reject a spiritual approach, please do so having endeavered to understand the spiritual experience behind it. If you have not had that spiritual experience, or do not understand it, try to understand it before criticizing it. A sophisticated critique is fine, but don't condemn what you don't understand because you don't want to try. If it isn't your cup of tea, that's fine, but don't try to impose one way of thinking on the rest of humanity. We get enough of that already.

 

John

Edited August 25, 2010 by Johnny Appleseed

[ethernautrix]

I really enjoy your discourse, John.

 

Wanted to throw that out there.

[KateGladstone]

I'll admit i posted the "milk jug" thing primarily because of the kind of uncritical thinking (if it's thinking) that John mentions: like praying as the sun sets for the church to cool down.

 

 

(Another example: there is a religious sect which sincerely believes that God always gives the sect's members-in-good-standing the power to speak/understand languages they have not actually studied, and that God's purposes in doing so include enabling the sect-members to spread God's word. However, this does not stop the sect's missionary-schools from asking members to contribute money for -- among other things -- foreign-language training for the missionaries ... )

[beak]

  On 8/24/2010 at 8:31 PM, Johnny Appleseed said:

This is the thing that always bothers me about the "Skeptical" worldview. Much of human thought is about a spiritual understanding of the universe, not a physical one, and cannot be understood in material terms. If you reject a spiritual approach, please do so having endeavered to understand the spiritual experience behind it. If you have not had that spiritual experience, or do not understand it, try to understand it before criticizing it. A sophisticated critique is fine, but don't condemn what you don't understand because you don't want to try. If it isn't your cup of tea, that's fine, but don't try to impose one way of thinking on the rest of humanity. We get enough of that already.

 

John

 

Phew. I came to this thread for a quick look at how many people, if any, gave credit to graphology and find myself ploughing through tons of heated debate on the 'spiritual' and various wide-ranging related topics. I must be brief..

 

I realize that this is not the best place for the argument I wish to make, but must attempt some confrontation. I'm going to try this...

 

Please examine the above paragraph and make a list of the assumptions and unstated premisses used to imply the existence of things for which there is no proof whatever.

Please examine the above paragraph and identify - - aaaaaaaaaarrrggggghhhhhh -- I just can't do it tonight - where do you start and where do you end! Look - I don't wish to cause this writer particular offence, but please examine the words in detail rather than take impressions from the overall atmosphere of the writing.

Might we get to graphology soon? beak.