Is Handwriting Analysis valid?

[Varda]

[This post kicked off the following discussion about the validity of handwriting analysis that led to an enlightening discussion of the value of similar beliefs (ie astrology) vis-à-vis science. It's gotten rather lengthy, but generally very interesting and well written! Well worth a longish read! - Barry]

A Mistake or Murder?

The prosecution in South Africa's "Trial of The Century" starting 3/3/2014 claim Oscar Pistorius, the iconic and admired disabled athlete, premeditated the shots that killed his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp on Valentine's, 2013 in his home. He claims it was a devastating accident, as he mistook her for an intruder. Examining his handwriting, I would say - neither might be the case!

Here is a sample of his writing. What can we learn from it that can help us understand this tragedy?

The way Oscar Pistorius places his writing on the page is unusual, he writes diagonally, he also ignores left margin, wide spaces all around and between words and lines, some falling letters (more acute slant than others), inkiness, middle zone letters vary in size, some squashed, some larger, blunt endings of words, writing is slow, punctuation is strong, exclamation marks, signature is large and resembles his blade prosthetics. All is all - he does things his way, can be controlling, has a temper and can be explosive, feels isolated, has trouble trusting and getting close, bonding, tends to be cold, not a giver, strong ego needs, can manipulate and lie.

I don't doubt that Oscar Pistorius had strong feelings for Reeva, I doubt that he went to bed contemplating murdering her! what seems likely in view of his writing - is that they got into a heated argument, he lost his temper and acted out in impulsive rage, especially if what they argued about made him feel insecure, slighted or betrayed. So, his writing does not inspire trust in his version of what happened. Seems like a tragedy to me, and I am sure he is heart broken and sorry for what happened, with his strong ego needs, not surprised it's hard for him to give up his dreams and take responsibility for his actions enough to spend the rest of his life behind bars. I would not be surprised, though, if he breaks down in court. Let's see how this case unfolds!

Varda
Certified Handwriting Analyst

[Dixon]

The idea that we would ever consider unsupported, pseudoscientific practices as relevant to determining someone's guilt or innocence is really, really creepy. :bs:

https://www.skepdic.com/graphol.html

[Varda]

Hi,

Had a lengthy exchange with Dixon yesterday and emailed him an exhaustive list of research info about handwriting analysis, including a list of universities around the world which offer programs in graphology. In the Library of congress graphology is listed under psychology, not the occult.

Hope that settles some inquiring minds here that graphology has nothing to do with superstition or divination, handwriting is really brain writing and reflects on the writer's behavior and personality.

I would also like to mention here as I did to Dixon last night, that the sample of Pistorius was not a signed confession, it has no information whatsoever as to his guilt or innocence, my analysis of his handwriting was just an attempt to understand him and in view of that express my opinion as to what seems reasonable to me that happened. It was just my opinion, not a forensic report of what happened. Will make sure to mention that next time I voice my insights.

Following the trial to see how it all unfolds.

Take care,

Varda

The idea that we would ever consider superstitious divination practices as relevant to determining someone's guilt or innocence is really, really creepy. :bs:

https://www.skepdic.com/graphol.html

[Dixon]

Had a lengthy exchange with Dixon yesterday and emailed him an exhaustive list of research info about handwriting analysis, including a list of universities around the world which offer programs in graphology. In the Library of congress graphology is listed under psychology, not the occult.
Hope that settles some inquiring minds here that graphology has nothing to do with superstition or divination, handwriting is really brain writing and reflects on the writer's behavior and personality.

Allow me to clarify something here: I misused the words "superstitious" and "divination" in my initial post on this thread. (I'll go back and correct that.) I didn't realize that both of those terms implied a supernatural source for the divined information. I do understand that few if any graphologists are making supernatural claims for graphology; instead they consider handwriting a behavior sample from which they believe they can infer some useful info about the writer's traits. This is not occultism. I apologize to Varda and anyone else who may have been confused by my misuse of the terms "supernatural" and "divination".

Having said that, I do think that graphology is pseudoscience, because, to my knowledge, the claims involved have not been proven, and there is some research that failed to find the claimed correlations between features of handwriting and personality traits (see the Skeptic's Dictionary article here). I will try to find time to glean through the extensive list of research Varda sent me soon and see if there's anything there that changes my mind. Stay tuned.

I'm a little surprised that Varda opened her latest post by citing the facts that graphology is taught in universities and that it's listed in the Library of Congress under Psychology as if they constitute some evidence for graphology's validity. I thought I made it clear to her in our private emails that neither of those facts constitutes any evidence of validity.

Re: graphology's being taught in universities, I wrote to her: "The fact that it's taught in universities isn't evidence of validity. All kinds of wacky shit is taught in universities. There used to be whole colleges devoted to the study of the thoroughly discredited "science" of phrenology (reading the bumps on someone's head). Nowadays we have college classes in totally discredited topics like "Therapeutic Touch" and astrology. LOL!"

Re: the Library of Congress listing under Psychology, I wrote to her: "The Library of Congress is not in the business of validating "scientific" claims, psychological or otherwise. Their choice to put graphology in the Psychology section is based on graphology's own claim to be valid psychology; it doesn't constitute any validation of the claim, and it's no evidence at all for graphology's efficacy."

So, again, I'm confused as to why Varda continues to cite these facts as if they have some relevance.

[Sara S]

Dixon, would you consider use of the I Ching to be an "unsupported, pseudoscientific" practice?

The idea that we would ever consider unsupported, pseudoscientific practices as relevant to determining someone's guilt or innocence is really, really creepy. :bs:

https://www.skepdic.com/graphol.html

[Dixon]

Dixon, would you consider use of the I Ching to be an "unsupported, pseudoscientific" practice?

I used to use the I Ching to help me decide what to write about when I was supposed to write papers for college classes. It helped kick-start my writing process. I used the coin toss technique to arrive at the hexagrams, but of course it would have worked just as well if I'd just randomly opened the book to a random hexagram. For that matter, opening any book to any random picture or word, then free-associating on the picture or word, would work just as well. At the time, the ritual and traditional aspects of the I Ching gave it an extra cachet, so that's what I used (I was young and naive).

Note that none of what I've said indicates any endorsement of any supernatural claims about the I Ching. It is a good way to kick-start one's creative process, but it's not a magical source of information, any more than astrology, palm reading or any of those silly practices are.

Regarding your question--the answer depends on what claims are being made about the I Ching. If you're talking about the underlying philosophy, which is akin to Taoism, much of which I happen to agree with--well, that's probably a lengthy philosophical discussion. But I infer that you're really asking about the I Ching as a divination system. If someone is claiming that it gives information (as opposed to just images to kick-start one's creative process) and positing a scientific basis for its purported effectiveness, then yes, that'd be unsupported pseudoscience (assuming they don't adduce good scientific evidence for it--which they won't).

But I doubt anyone's couching their claims for the I Ching's divinatory efficacy in scientific terms. I think believers are assuming some sort of supernatural source of info being accessed--messages from "Spirit", the Universe, or whatever. Such claims would fall under the category of superstition.

[meherc]

You don't have to be a skeptic to think this is an "odd" -read nutty- way to defend or prosecute someone on trial.
It might be an interesting way of looking at the case but to take it seriously is over the line even for me, the ultimate anti-skeptic.

The idea that we would ever consider unsupported, pseudoscientific practices as relevant to determining someone's guilt or innocence is really, really creepy. :bs:

https://www.skepdic.com/graphol.html

[Varda]

Glad that there is a flare up in interest in handwriting analysis! it serves to remind me to communicate a lot clearer next time!

Hi Marilyn,

Please read my clarification below, yesterday to Dixon - my take on Pistorius writing was an attempt to understand him and based on that understanding, express my opinion as to what would be reasonable (to me), and consistent with his behavioral potential to have happened. It was not meant to substitute for a trial.

Dixon asked me privately, and would like to answer here, if I am "open to the possibility that I am mistaken about graphology", that, Dixon, is the wrong question! if you asked me if there is a possibility that I was wrong in my take about Pistorius or anyone else for that matter, yes, of course I could be mistaken. However, graphology as a tool for understanding behavior is accurate and valid! any graphological analysis is as good as the graphologist who is offering it, think about psychologists or doctors for example - psychology and medicine are valid, but a particular psychologist or doctor can be great or awful or anything in between.

Now, I welcome any questions about graphology - as it has been a passion of mine for many years, and have certificates for my training, peer reviews and clients feedback - for display soon on my coming website - but there is one thing I will not deal with or tolerate - and that is contempt stemming from ignorance! when I asked Dixon if he read any book or spent any time investigating graphology - the answer was no in so many words, I also sent him a long long list of research material about graphology, so, Dixon, first get some information, read a basic book or two about the topic, know what you are talking about, and then, would love to discuss it further with you.

till then, be well

Varda

You don't have to be a skeptic to think this is an "odd" -read nutty- way to defend or prosecute someone on trial.
It might be an interesting way of looking at the case but to take it seriously is over the line even for me, the ultimate anti-skeptic.

[meherc]

Varda, thanks for taking the time to tell me a little about graphology and not using it as a decision maker but as part of a whole bank of input.

Glad that there is a flare up in interest in handwriting analysis! it serves to remind me to communicate a lot clearer next time!

Hi Marilyn,...

[Dixon]

Dixon asked me privately, and would like to answer here, if I am "open to the possibility that I am mistaken about graphology", that, Dixon, is the wrong question!

Varda, just because you don't want to answer that question doesn't mean there's anything wrong with it. It is, in fact, a crucial question in conversations like this, especially since you've been impugning my open-mindedness while not yet showing any sign whatsoever of being open to my position.

...graphology as a tool for understanding behavior is accurate and valid!

It's a bit hard to decipher your response, as it's not a clear answer to my simple and reasonable question, but it sounds like you feel quite certain you are right about graphology, with no openness to the possibility that your belief may be based on fallacious interpretations of your experience. Is that a fair characterization of your position? Do you feel you couldn't possibly be wrong about graphology's validity?

Now, I welcome any questions about graphology - as it has been a passion of mine for many years, and have certificates for my training, peer reviews and clients feedback...

If you think any of those things constitute evidence for the efficacy of graphology, you're showing once again that your ignorance of what constitutes good evidence is near-total. The Pope has been passionate about Catholicism for longer than you've been about graphology, and he has way more certification, peer reviews, and satisfied customers than you do. Do those facts constitute evidence for the validity of Catholicism? Are you prepared to become Catholic on the basis of that sort of "evidence"?

...there is one thing I will not deal with or tolerate - and that is contempt stemming from ignorance! when I asked Dixon if he read any book or spent any time investigating graphology - the answer was no in so many words, I also sent him a long long list of research material about graphology, so, Dixon, first get some information, read a basic book or two about the topic, know what you are talking about, and then, would love to discuss it further with you.

Varda, you are right to be concerned about making judgments based on ignorance. Let's talk about ignorance. Have you taken my advice to educate yourself about factors that could lead us to believe that something like graphology works even if it doesn't--factors like subjective validation, the confirmation bias, the Forer Effect, and the Barnum Effect? If you haven't taken a little time to learn about these things, then you are too ignorant to come to any solid conclusions about the validity of graphology, as you're likely to mistake fallacious interpretations of your experience for good evidence. You've been hammering on me to read whole books about graphology; have you taken even half an hour to read a little about these crucially relevant topics I've mentioned? If not, aren't you a hypocrite? Here, I'll make it really easy for you: direct links to short articles about subjective validation, the confirmation bias, the Forer Effect, and the Barnum Effect.

One reason I mention this is because years ago someone (wasn't it you?) sent me a graphological interpretation of a sample of my writing. There was nothing at all in that interpretation that indicated any validity in graphology. It was a mixture of Barnum statements and other similar stuff--a typical example of the kind of empty crap that satisfies your unsophisticated clients. That was my experience with graphology.

I asked you to give me some guidance as to what are the four or five best sources in the long list of research on graphology you sent me, since I don't have a zillion hours to pore through it all. You haven't done so. Have you even looked at any of that stuff yourself? Until such time as you expend a few minutes of your time educating yourself about what's really good evidence of something like graphology and what isn't, I don't want to hear your hypocritical bullshit about how I should read whole books about graphology, especially if they're filled with the sort of useless "evidence" you've been adducing in this conversation. Fair enough?

Understand--if you can't point to a few examples of good research (and I don't mean just sending a long list you copied-and-pasted of studies you haven't even read), rather than invoking useless "evidence" like your peer reviews, client feedback, and the fact that the Library of Congress classifies graphology under Psychology, you have no good reason to believe, much less expect anyone else to accept your claims, and certainly no justification to charge anyone money for your "services".

Varda, I eagerly await your directing me to a couple or a few properly designed studies, so that I can see your best evidence instead of having more of my time wasted with pointless fallacious arguments. I am open to good evidence, just not to hours more of time-wasting, fallacious arguments. Okay?

[Sara S]

Dixon, you've been demonstrating "contempt prior to investigation" lately; you critiqued the book "Proof of Heaven" on the basis of a couple of negative reviews of the book without having read the book, and here you're doing it again....

[Dixon]

Dixon, you've been demonstrating "contempt prior to investigation" lately; you critiqued the book "Proof of Heaven" on the basis of a couple of negative reviews of the book without having read the book, and here you're doing it again....

Sara, I don't have time to read even one whole book each on all the topics I get drawn into discussions about, do you? In the Proof of Heaven discussion, I gleaned what appeared to be the author's main arguments from a couple of articles, at least one of which was friendly to his beliefs, and critiqued those arguments. If you think his arguments were different from what I thought they were, or that he has other, better arguments, or that my critique wasn't reasonable, go ahead, make your case; I could always be wrong. But what I did was not "contempt prior to investigation".

Re; the current graphology discussion--from my experience that I recounted with a graphological analysis of my handwriting and from the fallacious arguments Varda has employed thus far, I see zero reason to accept the validity of graphology. If Varda can point me to her best examples of good, solid research, I'll read it and--who knows?--maybe change my mind. Do you think I should put more hours than I already have into research on something that thus far has shown no sign of validity? Would you? And yet, I am willing to do so if Varda can direct me to her best evidence.

Sara, are you clear on the fact that assessing the validity of things like graphology cannot be done properly without some study of what's good evidence and what isn't? I've practically been begging Varda to take a few minutes to look at that crucial info; I even provided her with handy links. Her rhetoric so far indicates that she hasn't taken the time to educate herself about that stuff. So doesn't her obvious contempt for my position constitute "contempt prior to investigation"? Have you complained to her about that yet?

Also, please note that, while I've expressed skepticism toward graphology, and have pointed out that none of Varda's arguments in favor of it are compelling, I haven't concluded for sure that there's nothing to it. I'm still willing to look at real evidence if she can point it out to me. My contempt for her contemptible arguments is not "prior to investigation"; I've studied the logic of such things for years. If those are her best arguments, then she truly has no good evidence to offer in support of graphology. If they aren't, let her supply good, compelling arguments and I'll accept them--if they exist. "Contempt prior to investigation?" My investigation is ongoing, and I haven't decided for sure what's true yet.

[Varda]

Hey, Dixon,

Relax, take a deep breath! you are too hostile and toxic for your own good! am really concerned about you!

I am perfectly comfortable in what I know and proven to myself many times in the last 38 years of studying, researching and doing graphology, and have no need or desire to convince you of anything, you are welcome to believe whatever it is that you want!

The proof of the pudding is in the eating, so let me quote here a couple of recent clients of mine, let them speak for me, as using graphology for healing, is really what I am passionate about!

1. "I really enjoyed your handwriting analysis and you were so on target with it. You have such empathy and great advice. I do look forward to returning to you for more support in moving forward.", Nikki, Sebastopol

2. "Varda is a maestro at her craft. I remain stunned over Varda's rapid ability and insight to reveal ones' character and soul - utilizing merely the simple tool of a handwriting sample.I grant Varda's services a 5-star rating. A wise investment, which I highly recommend". Nicole S.

Would like to take this opportunity to invite anyone who has been following this exchange to have a FREE healing session with me, using your handwriting, in Peace in Medicine in Sebastopol 1-3, this Monday 3/9 Please call 823 4206 to reserve your spot, new clients only. Required - an open mind, personal accountability, a desire to move forward and your favorite pen!

Peace and blessings,

Varda

Varda, just because you don't want to answer that question doesn't mean there's anything wrong with it. ...

[Dr Pam]

Varda, just because you don't want to answer that question doesn't mean there's anything wrong with it. It is, in fact, a crucial question in conversationis like this, especially since you've been impugning my open-mindedness while not yet showing any sign whatsoever of being open to my position.

Varda, I eagerly await your directing me to a couple or a few properly designed studies, so that I can see your best evidence instead of having more of my time wasted with pointless fallacious arguments. I am open to good evidence, just not to hours more of time-wasting, fallacious arguments. Okay?

There's no question that there is a complete and utter lack of scientific support for the efficacy of graphology. Here's a coyly named article cited in the Wikipedia article on graphology.

Driver, Russell H (April, 1996) Should we write off graphology? International Journal of Selection and Assessment. 78-86. Sounds like some military journal.

And another with a more straightforward name, Furnham, Adrian; Barrie, Gunter (1987) Graphology and Personality: Another failure to validate graphological analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 8 (3), 433-435.

I'm sure there are others but why look for them?

Varda will not change her mind about a moneymaker she has practiced for 38 years. Doing so would be tantamount to admitting she was wrong all that time. Dixon will not surrender his commitment to scientific validation as the only reasonable avenue for truth for the same reason, even though he hasn't made much money off that belief.

I say, So What? Let's move on. I'd rather talk about discount grocers who rip off old people. Let's hang some motion-activated cameras!

The discussion reminds me of the first day I walked into the Psychology Department where I was to get my first Master's and saw all these books on graphology on the shelves. "Horrors" I thought, "Am I in the wrong place?" Later I asked one of the faculty about them. He said they had been donated by a professor emeritus 25 years earlier and no one had ever thrown them away. The most recent was dated 1926. By the time I left two years later, the books were gone.

Pam VA
Present Stockton and future Guerneville resident

[podfish]

Hey, Dixon,

Relax, take a deep breath! you are too hostile and toxic for your own good

????? seems pretty reasonable to me, but he usually does. I guess I'm probably farther along the hostile and toxic spectrum so that must taint my view. Whether you're not interested in or whether you're unable to follow the thread of his argument I can't tell - but his writing seems to define a point of view pretty clearly to me.

[Shandi]

I see handwriting analysis much the same as Rorshach tests, face reading, art therapy, etc. which all seem to provide some clues to subconscious beliefs, traumas, habits, etc. If we see deep lines in someone's forehead, we may assume that these show frequent worry, concern, or even deep concentration. If someone's mouth is turned down most of the time, it may seem that they're not smiling much, and may be stressed, angry, depressed, or unhappy. (or they may just have had too many Botox treatments)

Anyway, I know that I've seen handwriting analysis used in some detective shows, and of course we know that psychics have been used by police or FBI to find missing persons or animals. If these things can be done without even having contact with a person, it's very possible that more can be gleaned by actual contact with that person, or their writing.

I myself don't visit psychics or have any kind of readings done. Mostly my reason is that I'm not sure how I benefit by having someone validate what I already know about myself. And I don't look to horoscopes to predict my day.

I did venture out on a psychic limb about 30 years ago, and got a 15 minute reading. She said I would soon be involved in music. This seemed very unrealistic, since at the time I was in the print/advertising business. I believed she was incorrect about this, even though fairly correct about other things. Only two weeks later, I was approached by a new company who was in the business of teaching people to play the piano via the computer. I ended up naming the company and designing a logo for them. So, her prediction was fulfilled.

The most accurate reading I've ever had was given to me several years ago by Margaret Stack, who lives in Sebastopol. I'd never heard of what she offered to me, as a potential tenant. It's called Human Design. She may have done this as a way to discover a little more about people who she might be living in close proximity to. I didn't move in, for personal reasons, but over the years, we've become good friends. She makes observations, and comments on my activities or certain behavior styles, indicating that it's typical of my Human Design. Only yesterday she was saying that she's seen my particular way of being in many people with similar elements in their Design. It's really a fascinating tool that I think would be especially helpful for couples to have.

I appreciate that Varda has offered a sample of her craft on Monday at Peace in Medicine, between 1-3pm, and will give her a call to schedule a session. I can report back if there's interest.

Anyway, back to Handwriting Analysis, here's something I found in my search.

This conference happened in June 1013.
Measurement Science and Standards in Forensic Handwriting Analysis Conference

Purpose:

The Measurement Science and Standards in Forensic Handwriting Analysis Conference took place on June 4-5, 2013 at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Campus in Gaithersburg, Maryland. The purpose of this free conference was to enhance the current state of forensic handwriting analysis through the use of advancements in measurement science and the latest research investments in quantitative analysis capabilities. NIST’s Law Enforcement Standards Office (OLES) organized this event in collaboration with the following organizations/agencies:

• American Academy of Forensic Sciences - Questioned Document Section
• American Board of Forensic Document Examiners (ABFDE)
• American Society of Questioned Document Examiners (ASQDE)
• Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Laboratory
• National Institute of Justice (NIJ)
• Scientific Working Group for Forensic Document Examination (SWGDOC)

AGENDA
CONFERENCE PRESENTATIONS
SPEAKER BIOGRAPHIES
FINAL ABSTRACTS
LINK TO CONFERENCE WEBCAST
ANNOUNCEMENTS
CONFERENCE POLL QUESTIONS and RESULTS

REGISTRATION LIST

CONFERENCE FACILITATED DISCUSSION SUMMARY

The forensic science discipline of handwriting examination and analysis initially surfaced as evidence in courts around 1868, when a forged will was exposed in the case of Robinson v. Mandell. Over at least the last 150 years, many published scientific studies focused on the individuality and reproducibility of handwriting for use in a forensic setting. The discipline primarily relies upon a trained handwriting examiner assessing the similarities of known and unknown samples in order to generate a conclusion. After completing their examination, handwriting examiners typically draw one of nine possible conclusions regarding authorship or source: identification, strong probability, probable, indications, no conclusion, indications did not, probably did not, strong probability did not, or elimination.^[1]

Handwriting examination is a sub-set of the forensic science discipline of questioned documents. The Scientific Working Group for Forensic Document Examination (SWGDOC) notes on its website that “the forensic document examiner conducts scientific examinations, comparisons, and analyses of documents in order to: (1) establish genuineness or non-genuineness, or to reveal alterations, additions, or deletions, (2) identify or eliminate persons as the source of handwriting, (3) identify or eliminate the source of machine produced documents, typewriting, or other impression marks, or relative evidence, and (4) preserve and/or restore legibility.” According to the American Board of Forensic Document Examiners’ (ABFDE’s) website, “Forensic document examiners (FDEs) help lawyers by examining and offering written opinions on a variety of disputed document problems including: wills, deeds, medical records, income tax records, time sheets, contracts, loan agreements, election petitions, checks, and anonymous letters.”

Research into developing useful quantitative measurement-based techniques that can be applied to handwriting analysis is ongoing. The goal is to apply such techniques to the routine analysis of handwriting by examiners.

Objectives

• Discuss the current state of handwriting examination techniques and limitations
• Discuss research advancements supporting quantitative measurements in handwriting examinations
• Develop a roadmap to incorporate quantitative measurement techniques in analysis procedures
• Document the potential barriers to achieving the future state of quantitative analysis

Attendees
Conference presenters and attendees included forensic document examiners, researchers, measurement science experts, statisticians, and industry representatives. This conference was open and free to attend for all interested stakeholders; however, access to the NIST campus was restricted to registered attendees. The conference was webcast live, for free, to ensure maximum participation for interested stakeholders. Interested individuals were encouraged to attend the conference in order to interact with the presenters and contribute to the conference dialogue and roadmap discussion.

Hey, Dixon,

Relax, take a deep breath! you are too hostile and toxic for your own good! am really concerned about you!

I am perfectly comfortable in what I know and proven to myself many times in the last 38 years of studying, researching and doing graphology, and have no need or desire to convince you of anything, you are welcome to believe whatever it is that you want!

[Dr Pam]

I always appreciate Shandi's level-headed and compassion-based input into a subject on the WACCOBB. I enjoyed her story about the prediction coming true that she would be involved in music. Psychic predictions are often stated vaguely enough that their fulfillment could take many different forms. This is the "subjective validation" Dixon mentioned. Nevertheless, it is fun and satisfying to have that Aha! Moment of "This is what that meant." I make psychic predictions of my own so that skeptical patients will learn to trust me. "How did you know?" They ask.

Sorry, Shandi, you have made an error. Forensic handwriting analysis is a world away from graphology. It has nothing to do with devining (yes I use the word deliberately) personality characteristics and behavior patterns from handwriting samples. It is the science of determining the probability that different handwriting samples were produced by the same human being.

Forensic handwriting analysis is empirically validated
Graphology not so much

Pam VA

[Shandi]

Dr. Pam,

I see what you mean about the difference between the two. I was sidetracked because they used the term "handwriting analysis", and I appreciate your clarifying it for me.

And thanks also for the acknowledgement of my contributions on WaccoBB. I've had many people express their appreciation in personal emails, though they don't really know me, other than through my writing.

I've recently become inspired to offer email coaching. I saw it advertised, and my heart leaped, so I think that's clue for me to follow up on. I feel compelled to inspire, encourage, and support. WaccoBB provides a way for me to do that, so I'm very thankful for the path made available by Barry, and of course all those people who share their feelings, thoughts, questions, concerns, and wisdom. It's a great community to be a part of! I'm glad you're here.

...I always appreciate Shandi's level-headed and compassion-based input into a subject on the WACCOBB. ...

[Barry]

There's no question that there is a complete and utter lack of scientific support for the efficacy of graphology. Here's a coyly named article cited in the Wikipedia article on graphology.

Driver, Russell H (April, 1996) Should we write off graphology? International Journal of Selection and Assessment. 78-86. Sounds like some military journal.

...

Here's the info Dr Pam referenced. First the wikipedia page on Graphology starts off with:

"Graphology is the study of handwriting.^[1] As a theory or practice for inferring a person's character, disposition, and attitudes from their handwriting, graphology is generally considered pseudoscience.^[2][3] The term is sometimes incorrectly used to refer to forensic document examination.

Graphology has been controversial for more than a century. Although supporters point to the anecdotal evidence of thousands of positive testimonials as a reason to use it for personality evaluation, most empirical studies fail to show the validity claimed by its supporters.^[4][5]"

Footnote 4 leads to an article published in "International Journal of Selection and Assessment' which describes itself as:

The International Journal of Selection and Assessment (IJSA) is leading, peer reviewed journal, that publishes empirical studies, review articles, and theoretical expositions, related to all aspects of staffing and assessment in organizations.

The journal is dedicated to advancing global knowledge on staffing, by providing research of the highest quality, which speaks to a global audience of both academics, and practitioners.

So what they are interested is finding scientifically valid techniques for deciding if someone is right for the job. If graphology is indeed helpful in revealing aspects of one's character, it seems like it would be good use for this technique.

However, they put it to a test in a study called "Should We Write Off Graphology?" and found that:

"the overwhelming results of well-controlled empirical studies have been that the technique has not demonstrated acceptable validity. A review of relevant literature regarding both theory and research indicates that, while the procedure may have an intuitive appeal, graphology should not be used in a selection context."

Sounds pretty damming to me. However...

... as for my own ... my experience is often that people are pretty consistent. Their personality seems to be revealed in everything they do whether how they dress, car they drive, how they post, whatever... their full complement of actions in the world are a perfect reflection of who they are. When you think about it, it can be no other way.

Handwriting, to the extent that anybody actually still does it , is definitely organic to the person. Now whether we can suss out a particular shape means a certain something... at a minimum, the people who have done the reading haven't developed the technique to the point where it can be scientifically demonstrated to be better than random. On the other hand, they didn't test our Varda!

[Varda]

Hi Barry, Shandi and Pam,

If I may, there are many misconceptions about handwriting analysis (graphology)! and Wikipedia and/or the skeptics are NOT where you should look for serious, in depth information! at the end of this email will post to you a list of references to research conducted in the US, Canada, UK, France, Germany, Holland, Switzerland, Israel, Spain and might be more about Graphology, mostly from medical and psychological journals to demonstrate to you that there has been quite a bit of serious research about graphology.

Handwriting analysis assesses one's behavior and personality as expressed in his or her handwriting. Not related to the occult, it's not a psychic exercise, does not guess or predict what happened/or will happen to the writer. It is a complex, involved study that takes years to master.

Is it a science?

There are two aspects to a handwriting analysis - first one is identifying findings - observing features in the writing and correlating them to established behaviors,

The second one - synthesizing, putting all the details together to reach an understanding of the person behind the writing. The first step is the studied and researched aspect, the science of graphology, the latter is the art of it. Same can be observed in psychology, medicine, and just about any field accessed and executed by humans, because each of us is unique and filters data thru our own prism shaped by everything that makes us - our genes, history, life experience, etc.

Forensic handwriting analysis, or Questioned Document Examination, as Pam noted, is a different field of study . Graphology will deal with the psychology of the writer, document examination will answer - who penned that writing? it's about authenticating questioned writing. (Have studied, completed two courses (basic and advanced) in 1995 in Questioned Document Examination, have certificates. Have a certificates in graphology (basic and advanced), late 80's, and just got another certificate recently from AHAF (American Handwriting Analysis Foundation).

I have my own international graphology online forum since 2001, we are 40+ members from about 10 countries, quite busy in anything handwriting! and I belong to 2 other international forums with about 500 graphologists (!) we have physicians, many psychologists, engineers, private investigators, and people from all walks of life and corners of the globe passionate about graphology.

So, try to imagine what it is for me to read some of the emails here trashing graphology out of sheer lack of basic understanding of what it is or isn't!

So, here is the list, it's LONG! of research references about graphology, get a decent book about it and find out more!

Research in graphology

APA Guidelines For Educational and Psychological Testing
American Psychological Association
APA: 1974.

Barrow, N K and Scott, R H
Validation of a personnel Selection System to meet EEOC Guidelines.
Journal Of Handwriting Psychology
1984, 1 (1), 15 - 17

Baruch Nevo,
Graphology Validation Studies in Israel.

List continues here.

[Shandi]

Thanks Barry! I realized that somewhere in the back of my brainware, I recall reading something about graphology being used in screening job applicants. When I did a search, I found so many that rather than just site one reference I copied and pasted several of them, so that people who might be interested in looking at this approach to using this practice in business, would have some options to check out. It may be a psuedo-science, but it's one of those things, in a complex array of others, that are used to make judgements about people.

We've all heard the saying "Don't judge a book by it's cover", but it's kind of hard not to, since that's our first impression. Whether it's the way someone dresses, (or undresses, thinking now about the "in-style" of showing butt cracks or underwear) how they walk, what they eat or drink or smoke, whether their voice is loud or soft, plus many other ways we filter people thru the lense of our perception.

Search Results

1. Handwritten evidence | Guardian Jobs
   jobs.theguardian.com/article/4170791/handwritten-evidence/‎
   
   But while recruitment-graphology is growing in Britain - used by more than 3,000 ... "So job applicants need never fear that a sample of their handwriting has been ... can be a cost-effective screening process to these more expensive methods.
2. handwriting analysis in business: human resources use graphology ...
   
   www.ehandwritinganalysis.com/employer.html‎
   
   handwriting analysis in business: human resources use graphology for employee screening and personality profiles. ... of potential employees and a risk assessment of the applicant allowing an employer to determine if a job fits the individual ...

List Continues here

[Dr Pam]

Research in graphology

APA Guidelines For Educational and Psychological Testing
American Psychological Association
APA: 1974.
...

Up until now I have defended Varda's right to believe what she wishes and to practice what she wishes. She can still do these things. However, she has crossed an ethical line by publishing this list of book and articles that she claims are research references about graphology.

The very first publication on her list, (APA Guidelines For Educational and Psychological Testing
American Psychological Association, APA: 1974.) has been revised twice since 1974, and I can assure you that neither of the later revisions contain any support for the use of graphology in psychological testing.

Educated men used to think the earth was flat. Would you cite that text as proof that the earth is still flat?

I have read the work of Hans Eysenck in my studies of psychology, including some of the references Varda included in her list. Dr. Eysenck was a dyed-in-the-wool skeptic and a staunch scientist who did research into a number of pseudoscientific fads of his time, the 1940s to the 1970s. He would usually find roughly 5% support for the hypotheses held out by the system of belief, whether it was astrology, phrenology, or graphology. You can find the abstracts of some of these articles online. Five percent is about what is accounted for by statistical error. In other words, 5% of anything is going to be supported by science because of the way statistics are calculated.

She also included works by Popper, Rosenthal, and Guilford that I have read. I don't remember anything about graphology in these books and articles. Perhaps it was cited as a defunct system. I do know they have no place in a bibliography that supposedly "supports" the validity of graphology.

There are no sources in Varda's list after 2000. The behavioral sciences don't pay much attention to the old stuff. Research methodology changes, the scientific climate changes. Read Kuhn's The Nature of Scientific Revolution.

I don't care if you think I'm ignorant of your handwriting analysis system. Feel free to continue to practice your craft and stop trying to convince reasonable people that what you are doing is truth in the 3 dimensional world. I would also ask that you not present false information in support of your claims. I am finished with this topic.

Maybe Shandi can help me soften my email delivery, but I have a bone to pick with her too. Newspaper articles about employers using graphology to select employees do not constitute scientific support for graphology, they constitute articles about what employers are doing. Law journal articles about graphology are not scientific support. If employers are doing some damn fool thing, law journals better publish about it so the lawyers will have some idea what to say when the employer gets sued for refusing to hire someone on the basis of their handwriting. Advertisements and websites for graphology firms do not constitute support for graphology.

I stand by my original statement, that there is insufficient empirical support for the use of graphology in personality assessment. You'd have a hard time finding a competent psychologist would would do it for you.

Dr. Pam

[theindependenteye]

The starting-point of this debate was the question of the admissibility of this technique to a murder trial. That seems hard to validate, although, no, I haven't looked at evidence for such. But given the ambivalence of admitting polygraph tests, it seems questionable.

But for me, leaving the murder trial aside, the “science” of the subject is not to the point. I would see graphology, like non-pharmaceutical psychiatry, astrology, Tarot, AA meetings or theatre, is an art. It relies on a discipline, but the discipline is there to invoke/evoke interpretation that may prove valuable to the person involved. It depends, finally, on the intuitive skill of the practitioner.

Do I “believe” in astrology or the Tarot? Certainly not in the sense that they have any capacity for experimental validation. Have I gained insights from both? Yes, in the same way I’ve gained insights from theatre or literature or a symphony. Deep, immensely valuable insights.

This debate reminds me a bit of a span of time when we were writing grant proposals and foundations were asking for “measurable results” for projects. Wha??? Sure, I can count my attendance, the increase in season subscriptions, and the number of Very Goods on the questionnaire you stick in the program to satisfy their requirement, but ultimately it’s all twaddle.

Because the thread started out related to a criminal trial, "validity" is certainly an issue in that context, but I see no reason to diss it as a counseling tool, and it's up to counselor and client whether they "believe" in it as I "believe" in gravity or simply as I "believe" in a character I'm playing.

If my astrologer friend claimed scientific validity for his readings, I’d say, “Bullshit, Sam.” But to me, he’s in the same business as I am: producing evocative metaphors. The only “validation” of a metaphor is in the sparks it strikes.

Cheers--
Conrad

[Varda]

Pam,

Here is another list of research with graphology, what about that?

See it here.

[Dixon]

Varda will not change her mind about a moneymaker she has practiced for 38 years. Doing so would be tantamount to admitting she was wrong all that time. Dixon will not surrender his commitment to scientific validation as the only reasonable avenue for truth for the same reason, even though he hasn't made much money off that belief.

Pam, I've appreciated your contributions, but must correct you on one thing: While I accept your assessment that Varda is apparently closed-minded on the subject of graphology, your attribution to me of similar closed-mindedness re: my beliefs about scientific validation is both unfounded and mistaken.

I have been through at least 3 major changes in my worldview: from Mormonism to Christian fundamentalism, from being a fundie to being a sort of New Agey paranormal-believer, and from that to being a rationalistic skeptic. All of these were hugely difficult shifts that required me to publicly acknowledge that I'd been totally wrong about some of my deepest beliefs.

For instance, becoming a skeptic required me to confess having been wrong about ESP, ghosts, UFOs, Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, the Bermuda Triangle, the Hundredth Monkey, and much more. Furthermore, it's hard to imagine why I'd be begging Varda for her best evidence if I weren't interested in seeing if she had compelling evidence. My skeptic friends ask me why I even bother to engage with people like Varda. I tell them that it's partly because I want to discover what I'm wrong about. So, Pam, give me credit for my open-mindedness.

[Dixon]

... as for my own ... my experience is often that people are pretty consistent. Their personality seems to be revealed in everything they do whether how they dress, car they drive, how they post, whatever... their full complement of actions in the world are a perfect reflection of who they are. When you think about it, it can be no other way.

That's perfectly good reasoning, Barry, and it leads to a perfectly good hypothesis: that graphology yields accurate information about people's personality traits. The good news is that that's an easily testable hypothesis! And the even better news is that it's been tested numerous times, and some of the tests have been independently replicated, until we now have a scientific consensus on the subject. If sources such as the International Journal of Selection and Assessment are to be believed (and they are), that consensus is that graphology is not valid; it's a pseudoscience. End of story, unless someone develops a far more sensitive system that would consistently get accurate useful info from handwriting samples--which may not even be possible. In any case, graphology as it's practiced is apparently hogwash, in which case selling it is unethical and buying it is for suckers.

...the people who have done the reading haven't developed the technique to the point where it can be scientifically demonstrated to be better than random. On the other hand, they didn't test our Varda!

So let's test her! I could come up with a simple test. Varda and I agree on a fair design for the test. We test Varda's assessment of handwriting samples from 8 or 10 people. If Varda gets, say, 75-80% right, I publicly announce on Wacco that our test has apparently validated graphology. If she doesn't, she publicly announces on Wacco that our test has apparently not shown any validity of graphology--and she promises not to charge anyone money for it anymore. How about it, Varda?

[Dr Pam]

Pam, I've appreciated your contributions, but must correct you on one thing: While I accept your assessment that Varda is apparently closed-minded on the subject of graphology, your attribution to me of similar closed-mindedness .... So, Pam, give me credit for my open-mindedness.

Correction gratefully accepted. I was really just setting up my joke about empiricism not being a moneymaker.

Pam

[Dixon]

Conrad, you're failing to make a crucial distinction. Graphology (or astrology, or tea-leaf reading, or palm reading, or iridology, etc.) is not an art--at least not in the sense that theater, poetry, dance, painting etc. are arts. Graphology etc. claim to be sources of factual information about specific people, in much the same way that a blood test or a really valid and reliable psychological test is factual information specific to an individual. Theater and other arts do not make this claim, therefore it's an apples-to-oranges comparison. If you perform a play about, e.g., graphology being valid, it's fiction, and as long as you don't present it as fact, there's nothing dishonest about it. If you sell graphological services with the claim that graphology yields actual info about the specific client, it's either quackery or outright fraud. Let's not validate lying by confusing it with fiction. These are two fundamentally different things.

I have used goddess imagery artistically, in my poetry and collages. They make marvelous archetypes and metaphors, but that's different in important ways from claiming goddesses are real. I've used the I Ching to jump-start my creative process, but that's different from claiming that the I Ching is a source of real info about me or any particular person. People can probably get some sort of growth from all sorts of playing with astrological archetypes, just as we might get some benefit from someone showing us a McDonald's menu and saying "You were born in June? That makes you a Double Cheeseburger--you're substantial, salty, satisfying, complex...". The fact that people might conceivably be able to base a growthful process on virtually any image or suggestion does not mean that graphology is any more valid than McDonald's-menu-ology. It has been amply demonstrated that your horoscope or graphological report is no more descriptive of you than it is of me or of anyone else. Claims that these things are specifically accurate for a particular person are, in a word, bullshit.

Truth matters. Let's not confuse fiction with lies, nor art with quackery.

The starting-point of this debate was the question of the admissibility of this technique to a murder trial. That seems hard to validate, although, no, I haven't looked at evidence for such. But given the ambivalence of admitting polygraph tests, it seems questionable...[etc.]

[Dixon]

Hey folks, it's bad enough that miles of this thread are taken up with huge lists of dubious studies that the poster herself never even read--but what's worse is when a post includes a needless repitition of a previous lengthy post. So much of this thread is now taken up by multiple copies of ridiculously long posts that it's almost impossible to navigate this page. Please go back to your posts and delete needless long copies of the post you responded to. Thanks!

[I handled it - Barry]

[Dixon]

Psychic predictions are often stated vaguely enough that their fulfillment could take many different forms. This is the "subjective validation" Dixon mentioned...I make psychic predictions of my own so that skeptical patients will learn to trust me. "How did you know?" They ask.

Uh...are you saying that fooling somebody into thinking you're psychic is a good way to build trust? Speaking as one who was trained in psychotherapy (my MA is in Counseling), it seems unethical to me.