Is Handwriting Analysis valid?

[podfish]

BTW, Black Swan really exist; no mud, darkness affect, photo tricks, ink, crude oil, paint, bad science, reasonable existing controversy, charcoal, burned feathers, one of a kind freak of nature, or fraud.

got a few pages of links for me?? I want to know more about this controversy before I make up my mind. (ok, I've already made up my mind. Should that stop me?)

[Shandi]

I'm sorry to report I made a mistake in identifying the website. It's actually www.realsimple.com/work-life/crim-handwriting-analysis

Thanks for asking about this.

Shandi, I was going to respond more to your post but I wanted to look at the "SimpleLiving.com" website you mentioned so I could be more informed but the website "SimpleLiving.com" as you wrote it is not available.
can you give a link to the web page/s you referred to? Thanks.

[Dixon]

H44, podster, et al.
FWIW: I'm not sure the Black Swan analogy really conveys my main concern in this situation. What I really want to see is people like Varda either adducing good evidence for their claims (which would require that they put a little effort into learning what actually is or isn't good evidence), or acknowledging the likelihood that the claim isn't true after all. More specifically, in this case that would mean giving some reason to believe that the preponderance of evidence from properly designed, conducted, and interpreted studies (not just one or a few studies) supports the graphological hypothesis.

And while I'm making a wish list, I'd also love to see Varda provide an example or two of my "bullying" or, if no clear examples are forthcoming, publicly retract that vile accusation. Of course, in the spirit of fairness, if she or anyone is unclear as to why I've labeled her, e.g., closed-minded or hypocritical, I'll be more than happy to provide even clearer support than I've already offered.

[Dane Christensen]

I have found this discussion so interesting it has prompted me to post on this site for the very first time!

Here's my take:

Varda initially posted about the idea of using hand writing analysis (or more accurately, graphology) to assess the potential guilt or innocence of Oscar Pistorius, which prompted Dixon to respond that graphology is nothing but psuedo-science at best and to staunchly defend the scientific method. This prompted a whole cast of fascinating and highly intelligent characters to weigh in on the subject.

I couldn't possibly respond to all the points, but I would like to focus on the two main players here: Varda and Dixon.

Varda: I suspect that your posting that initial message was intended to subtly promote yourself and your services. Nothing wrong with that. That's how it's done these days. Now you seem taken aback that you are receiving so much apparent hostility. I suggest that you choose a different perspective. Dixon is your best friend right now! He has been stoking this controversy for days, prompting several people to spring to your defense, and kept graphology and you on the minds of a bunch of people who are squarely in your target market! If I were you I would engage with Dixon and anyone else who chimes in for as long as you can stretch this out. Don't take it personally and get offended. It's all just a game. And you're winning, not necessarily because of the arguments your making, but simply because you are capturing mind share. Of course, I think you could be winning even bigger if you adopt a less defensive posture and take on Dixon's arguments in a more engaging fashion. He's giving you tons of material to work with. Work it! Observe...

Dixon: I see a fundamental flaw in the very foundation of your entire argument. For all your claims of intellectual flexibility, you exhibit classic absolutist (black and white) thinking in terms of assigning disciplines to either the rational and scientific category or 'bullshit' category. You have assigned graphology to the 'bullshit' category along with astrology, tea leaves, palm reading, etc. as opposed to the 'scientifically valid' category that would include disciplines like physics, medicine and psychology (maybe ?). I start to get a bit hesitant with psychology because it is definitely considered a softer science. Even medicine is far from cut and dried. A new drug can go through years of rigorously controlled testing, and by the end of the study they know that it helped this group of people a lot and that group of people a little and the other group of people not at all, and that there were miscellaneous side effects that occurred in various unrelated groups within the test group--and ultimately they say 'OK, good enough' and they put it on the market. But for any given person taking that drug, it may or may not have the desired effect and may or may not be worse then the illness it's intended to treat. Does that mean we should write off medicine as unreliable and a scam? I mean, really, one year coffee is good for you because of the antioxidants and the next year it's bad for you again.

The point is, there is a vast spectrum between the purely intuitive and the absolutely quantifiable in our reality. Even physics, perhaps the most hard science of them all, is riddled with mysteries and paradoxes. Need I invoke Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle? All of reality is simply a mass of probabilities and everything lies on a spectrum. And I don't think anyone is qualified to determine exactly where the dividing line is between one category or another -- even the venerable Reptilian Overlord.

Not that I'm knocking the scientific method. I'm a big fan, and I believe that many things that make our lives better have derived from science and technology. But I also believe that many more good things that make our lives better spring from the purely intuitive. I would even go so far as to argue that the most meaningful things that bring us peace, joy and love are more likely to come from that direction. And those deserve to be valued.

As for graphology, I don't know much about it. I've read in this thread that there are some scientific papers that say it hasn't quite passed the test for scientific validity, and some others that support its validity. I don't really have time to dig into it any further. I agree that it probably isn't an appropriate tool to determine the guilt or innocence of an alleged murderer. But it does seems intuitively obvious to me that the direct transmission of our thoughts through our fingers onto paper probably does reveal something about our personalities, however subtly, just as every artifact we leave in this world does. Graphology seems similar to analyzing facial micro-expressions or body language, both of which are fairly respected disciplines. Why would the subtle movements of our fingers be less revealing than the subtle movements of our facial muscles or the rest of our bodies?

So I think lumping graphology and body language together with astrology and tea leaves in the 'bullshit' category while psychology and biology get lumped together with physics and mathematics in the 'valid science' category is very simplistic. And while it does make for an interesting conversation, it really doesn't shed much light.

But what do I know? I'm just an online marketing guy.

[Varda]

Pam,

Forwarded to Kim Iannetta your email below, she has provided this link to her website with more info about the participants and the scientific research you questioned: https://www.trialrun.com/all_testimonials.html
she also offered to look at your handwriting, so if you are interested, please scan it to me and I will forward to her or email me privately [email protected] and will give you her email.

Here is another recent, good resource up your alley: " Clinical Graphology, an interpretive manual for mental health practitioners" by Annette Poisner, MSSW, Ed.D, RSW

Varda

Sigh.

That book, Danger Between The Lines, was self published by Ms. Iannetta. It was an attempt to use handwriting analysis to predict dangerousness. ...

[Dr Pam]

Pam,

Forwarded to Kim Iannetta your email below, she has provided this link to her website with more info about the participants and the scientific research you questioned: https://www.trialrun.com/all_testimonials.html


Here is another recent, good resource up your alley: " Clinical Graphology, an interpretive manual for mental health practitioners" by Annette Poisner, MSSW, Ed.D, RSW

Varda

Why send me a website l already found? My point was you cant ask someone to put their name on a testamonial for your book and then call them a co-author unless you don`t mind being unethical.

Dr Pam

[Hotspring 44]

I'm sorry to report I made a mistake in identifying the website. It's actually www.realsimple.com/work-life/crim-handwriting-analysis

Thanks for asking about this.

That link does not work for me either but it did get me to where I could do a search on that website where it lead me to: https://search.realsimple.com/result...search-btn.y=0
and ultimately to: https://www.realsimple.com/work-life...301/index.html

The way that short article is written makes the so-called science of graphology seem more like astrology than a proven science. If I were to judge the scientific validity on articles written like that I would be thinking the whole thing is kind of hokey.



BTW, in Wikipedia titled “Psycogram” there is far more detailed info than the realsimple.com has.

I realize that for me to study graphology enough to either prove or disprove, it would take more than I have in time, money, or personal interest, so I feel that I do not have any reasonable way to pass judgement one way or the other.

[podfish]

Carmel man snaps photo of rare black flamingo


q.e.d.

[Shandi]

The thing is that I didn't say it indicates scientific validity, I was just pointing to an article on handwriting analysis. I've also posted about how it's used to screen job applicants. Obviously all these companies that rely on this "unscientific method" must have their reasons. I think I read that 90% of companies in Europe use it, but that might be something I dreamed or imagined. I never said anything about it being scientific.

Actually I've never stated that it was scientific or not, since I'm not in a position to do that, so I leave that to the "professionals" of science, and those who look to them for the absolute truth.

It does make me wonder how many people actually look up scientific evidence before making a decision about anything they do. Anyone care to share their process about how they make decisions regarding: flu/pneumonia shots, flouride, EMR, water filters, chemo/radiation, and most recently, a decision to use or not use "hemp oil" to stop seizures and as a potential cancer cure.

The best part about this continuing conversation is the attention that graphology is getting. We've all heard the saying that "Any publicity is better than no publicity". Varda couldn't have planned a better promotion of her work, and career calling. I think she did say something about this in the very beginning. So, I'm glad to see that so many people care enough to participate. Just wish we could keep it on a more loving, unscientific, yet enlightened level.

[Dixon]

Just wish we could keep it on a more loving, unscientific, yet enlightened level.

Sandy, when it comes to assessing questions such as whether graphology works, you can't be very enlightened without being scientific. What do you think science is for? It exists precisely for tasks such as determining whether things like graphology work. Science is a system of procedures for correcting for our common logical fallacies. Without science, sources of distortion such as the confirmation bias, subjective validation, the Barnum Effect, the Forer Effect, etc. lead folks to believe something works when it really doesn't. So saying you want an enlightened discussion about objective claims without science is like saying you want to stay dry without using your umbrella.

[Hotspring 44]

Actually I've never stated that it was scientific or not,...

FWIW, I do (and did) realize that.

...Anyone care to share their process about how they make decisions regarding: flu/pneumonia shots, flouride, EMR, water filters, chemo/radiation, and most recently, a decision to use or not use "hemp oil" to stop seizures and as a potential cancer cure.

The short, refined version answer:
I consider all the options I know I have and, then try to find more, then based on what seems to be the most likely affordable (<$) one/s to benefit me at the time, (also) based on what I know and believe to be reasonable (who and what I choose to trust) and also at least not too outrageously absurd.

I also think that whatever works even if it's some form of placebo or even "mind altering" substances (which could also be referred to as "mind alerting") cannabis, psychedelics or fungi, etc.; whatever works for the individual is for them a medicine, and as far as I am concerned (is) a natural human right, MD or no MD involvement. I am referring to actual healing effect, weather physiological or psychological.

[Barry]

...
The best part about this continuing conversation is the attention that graphology is getting. We've all heard the saying that "Any publicity is better than no publicity". Varda couldn't have planned a better promotion of her work, and career calling. I think she did say something about this in the very beginning. So, I'm glad to see that so many people care enough to participate.

Sure is a pity that Varda requested to cancel her business directory order.

Just wish we could keep it on a more loving, unscientific, yet enlightened level.

I'd like to see both hemisphere's of our brains (we were given 2, right?), along with our heart/gut participate.

I'm happy to say that thanks to the wide participation of our conscious community, we've done that – when considered in total – if not in each post.

It's been a great discussion so far (if a bit harsh at moments), and now that Dane has joined the fray, it's about to get yet better! I can hardly wait for Dixon's (thoughtful, considered, open minded and eloquent) reply!

[Hotspring 44]

got a few pages of links for me?? I want to know more about this controversy before I make up my mind.

What "controversy" are you referring to?...

...Anyway, FWIW, here are a few I looked-up for this thread:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prove_a_negative
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreligion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_tollens
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_impossibility
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Greene
...But not necessarily in that order.

...(ok, I've already made up my mind. Should that stop me?)

[podfish]

What "controversy" are you referring to?...

sorry, it was an attempt at wit. I hope I got at least half-way there?

[Dixon]

I'd like to see both hemisphere's of our brains (we were given 2, right?), along with our heart/gut participate.

Barry, could you give an example or two showing how the kind of thinking commonly called our "heart" or "gut" could play any useful role in assessing the validity of, e.g., graphology, as opposed to just leading us into fallacies such as the confirmation bias, Forer Effect, Barnum Effect, subjective validation, or mistaking a cold reading for a specifically accurate divination?

[Varda]

Dixon,

Before attempting to be "scientific", you need to be sensible! how scientific was it of you to attack a topic you are completely ignorant about and too lazy to put any serious effort to find out? talking about science - it's not carved in stone either, think how quantum physics turned everything we thought we knew upside down, so always strive to not just use narrow principles but your whole experience to determine the value of anything.

But, I am not holding my breath expecting you to give up opportunities to vent your frustrations, that, in my opinion, is what it was all about for you.

Varda

Sandy, when it comes to assessing questions such as whether graphology works, you can't be very enlightened without being scientific. What do you think science is for? It exists precisely for tasks such as determining whether things like graphology work. Science is a system of procedures for correcting for our common logical fallacies. Without science, sources of distortion such as the confirmation bias, subjective validation, the Barnum Effect, the Forer Effect, etc. lead folks to believe something works when it really doesn't. So saying you want an enlightened discussion about objective claims without science is like saying you want to stay dry without using your umbrella.

[podfish]

Before attempting to be "scientific", you need to be sensible!

???
not really. This thread could have been a dry, measured, "scientific" analysis of the claims of graphology (or its defenders, since 'graphology' isn't a being that can make claims...). It clearly isn't going that direction, and probably never could have. But it's led to lots of interesting random offshoots. Like dark-colored birds.

Your reference to "quantum turning everything we thought we knew upside down" got me though. It didn't, actually, not in the new-agey sense that you invoke with that phrasing. And describing Dixon's writings in term of 'attack' and 'venting frustrations' just indicates how the various parts of this conversation are traveling in different orbits. There's a lot of reading between the lines and addressing inferred meanings, rather than expressed ideas. So again, entertaining thread but way light on information vs. word-count ratio.

[Chris Dec]

I buy my groceries from money I make as a graphic designer. I've created advertising for clients, using my computte skills, my sense of design, creativity, and in large part, information I get from the advertiser, feeding back to them their dream, honed and guided by my expertise. Sometimes an ad works, and sometimes it fails to pull in anyone at all. Similarly, I create beautiful business cards for people who will hand them out, and nearly all of them will get tossed. I try not to think about it.

Looking through the Sonoma County telephone book or even the business directory right here at Wacco, I have seen what people do to make a living. These include offerings of a number of supplements, practices and cures which are not proven to be 100% effective, and in fact, a practitioner will admit that the results are not the same for all. I am talking about legitimate professions like optometrists, doctors, psychiatrists, massage therapists, and well, just put your finger anywhere in the yellow pages. Wait, I just did: I put it on a plumbing service that sells liquid enzymes for the septic tank; yet my septic tank specialist told me to never use them, since it can upset the natural bacterial action of a healthy septic. Hmm...

In my time here in Sonoma County, I have been offered: Light Therapy, Energy Balancing, EMS, EMDR, Acupuncture, Feng Shui, Personal Enrichment, Shamanic Healing, Alternative Nutrition, an undercoating for my California car to protect it from salt in winter, and, well, don’t get me started on insurance coverage.

I am a fairly wise consumer of new fangled or ancient stuff, with a healthy degree of skepticism, and it is my responsibility to know how to spend my money. I have never benefitted from chiropractic services, but I have friends who swear it has saved their lives. Point here is, jeezus, if it works for some, let them have it.

Some people have told Dixon to get a life… but hey, his life IS being scientific, rational, and getting to the truth of matters in a scientific and rational way. That’s who he is.

Varda, if somebody challenged the ethics of my livelihood because advertising doesn’t work for every business, I would either tell them to go fuck themselves or better yet, ignore it, with a demure smile, not exactly laughing all the way to the bank (gawd, I wish) but knowing that I am engaged in a worthwhile occupation no matter what anyone thinks.

Dixon,

Before attempting to be "scientific", you need to be sensible! how scientific was it of you to attack a topic you are completely ignorant about and too lazy to put any serious effort to find out? talking about science - it's not carved in stone either, think how quantum physics turned everything we thought we knew upside down, so always strive to not just use narrow principles but your whole experience to determine the value of anything.

But, I am not holding my breath expecting you to give up opportunities to vent your frustrations, that, in my opinion, is what it was all about for you.

Varda

[Shandi]

Dixon,

I think I can be enlightened without being scientific. Because for me, part of being enlightened involves kindness, even in pointing out what's scientific or not, especially when speaking to another being. It's one thing to make statements about something, and call "it" unscientific. But to speak to someone and call her a "liar, and unethical" is unecessarily unkind and would provoke reaction from anyone but a saint, and to call her clients "suckers" is another harsh judgement.

I think you would also apply these terms to any woman who invited anyone to a pyramid (scam) circle. Althought several women have admitted to inviting others, you've refrained from calling them the same names you've assigned to Varda.

You may not see yourself as bullying, but others do. I think you've gone a bit overboard, but that's just my perception. I'm a pretty logical person, but I try not to be unkind, even when someone is being unkind to me. I don't want to waste my precious time and energy engaging in a senseless war of words.

If Varda felt that you really cared about her, she might be more willing to listen, but I don't get that sense. Her experience has been that her work has helped people, rather than harmed them. She's dedicated her life to this work, whether it's proven to be scientific or not, and she isn't going to try to find a reason to stop doing it in spite of your "open mindedness", as you call it.

At this point, I'm curious about anything that you've held a "position" on, that you've also maintained an "open mind" on, and in doing so, have been convinced by the scientific method to change your position.

If your thinking and research has led you to a particular conclusion, which ultimately led to a career choice, that you would also be open minded enough to continue study to prove yourself wrong. Somehow, for me, this doesn't seem logical, but again that's not my area of expertise.

Another little story from my life. I knew a woman who'd been a nun for 30 years, and one day realized that it was no longer serving her. She left the convent. She was my English teacher, and we had become friends. I was 16. She shared her grief at having "wasted" all those years, to which I replied "You only did what you were able to do at the time you made the decision. I don't see it as wasted at all. This has brought you to a place of new understanding of who you are now, which is much different than who you were then." She had
made a serious committment at a young age, and as she grew and developed, it changed her perceptions of herself and her world. But I doubt that she had maintained an "open mind" about being wrong in her career choice. She gradually had experiences which helped her mind open to make new decisions.

Sandy, when it comes to assessing questions such as whether graphology works, you can't be very enlightened without being scientific. What do you think science is for? It exists precisely for tasks such as determining whether things like graphology work. Science is a system of procedures for correcting for our common logical fallacies. Without science, sources of distortion such as the confirmation bias, subjective validation, the Barnum Effect, the Forer Effect, etc. lead folks to believe something works when it really doesn't. So saying you want an enlightened discussion about objective claims without science is like saying you want to stay dry without using your umbrella.

[Varda]

Thanks Shandi,

I appreciate your level headed approach, kindness and warmth. You are right, it's one thing to question and another to be unjustifiably trashing and disrespectful, especially when there is no knowledge to back it up...

Varda

Dixon,

I think I can be enlightened without being scientific. Because for me, ....

[Dane Christensen]

Darn! No response from Dixon to my post. I'm disappointed! I was looking forward to a spirited debate.

Well, it was a pretty long post, so maybe I should break it down to a more bite sized chunk.

Dixon, would you consider analyzing facial micro-expressions and body language in the same bullshit psuedo-science category as graphology and therefore utterly worthless? If not, what would you say are the defining characteristics of those disciplines that make them valid while graphology is invalid.

(Not that I'm advocating for graphology, here. I just see a gaping hole in Dixon's logic and wondering if I'm missing something or he is).

[Dixon]

Darn! No response from Dixon to my post. I'm disappointed!

Don't worry, Dane, I'll respond to both of your posts. I wouldn't want you to feel snubbed. And I do usually try to answer people's questions in discussions. It's just that right now I'm trying to finish a writing project before the next meeting of my poetry group, so am trying to limit my Wacco posts to a few short ones.

I was looking forward to a spirited debate.

Not to be too picky, but I have a little problem with the notion of debate. To me it implies both sides closed-mindedly defending their position. That's no way to get to truth. All my life I've resisted people's suggestion that I'd be good on a debate team or as a trial lawyer. If I don't have the option of saying "Okay, you've made a compelling argument. You're right, I agree with you now", I don't want to participate. I'm not interested in macho contests. If by chance you're interested in my ideas about dialogue/argument, you might find my WaccoBB article "Let's Argue!" interesting.

Talk to ya later...

[Sara S]

The Pentagon has said that they did studies assessing Vladimir Putin's body language (from CNN via Jon Stewart).

Darn! No response from Dixon to my post. I'm disappointed! I was looking forward to a spirited debate.

Well, it was a pretty long post, so maybe I should break it down to a more bite sized chunk.

Dixon, would you consider analyzing facial micro-expressions and body language in the same bullshit psuedo-science category as graphology and therefore utterly worthless? If not, what would you say are the defining characteristics of those disciplines that make them valid while graphology is invalid.

(Not that I'm advocating for graphology, here. I just see a gaping hole in Dixon's logic and wondering if I'm missing something or he is).

[Shandi]

I got it, and thought it was very witty, and that's why it got my gratitude!

sorry, it was an attempt at wit. I hope I got at least half-way there?

[Shandi]

Hey Dane,

I'm looking forward to seeing an exchange between you and Dixon, mainly because I think you're both in the genius category, and would provide some valuable considerations for WaccoBB members. Having known you for over 20 years, and Dixon for about 7, (mainly through his posts), I also have a sense that you both truly care about people and have a desire for truth and justice, though you may have different ways of showing that in your writing. I admire your many qualities and talents. I have a strong belief that one day I will be able to say....."I knew him when....we co-created the first Internet Learning Center. (Was that in 1994?)

Thank you for being a constant source of inspiration in my life!

Oh, by the way, I'm reading a new book called "It's All in The Face" (The Key to Finding Your Life Purpose) The back cover says "Everybody reads faces. You can't avoid it. It's an ancient art and a modern science." It's Personology, and has been used for jury selection by many attorneys. It's fascinating reading, and could be useful for those on dating websites. I'm almost through it, but not convinced that it could really help with finding one's life purpose, but more likely show an inclination to various elements involved in careers.

Darn! No response from Dixon to my post. I'm disappointed! I was looking forward to a spirited debate.

Well, it was a pretty long post, so maybe I should break it down to a more bite sized chunk.

Dixon, would you consider analyzing facial micro-expressions and body language in the same bullshit psuedo-science category as graphology and therefore utterly worthless? If not, what would you say are the defining characteristics of those disciplines that make them valid while graphology is invalid.

(Not that I'm advocating for graphology, here. I just see a gaping hole in Dixon's logic and wondering if I'm missing something or he is).

[Shandi]

I wonder if "discussion" would have been a more acceptable word?

...Not to be too picky, but I have a little problem with the notion of debate. To me it implies both sides closed-mindedly defending their position. ...

[Dr Pam]

Don't worry, Dane I'll respond to both of your posts. I wouldn't want you to feel snubbed. And I do usually try to answer people's questions in discussions. It's just that right now I'm trying to finish a writing project before the next meeting of my poetry group, so am trying to limit my Wacco posts to a few short ones.

Talk to ya later...

Since Dixon is busy, I'll respond to Dane's query about the substantive differences between graphology, body language, and analyzing facial micro expressions. I have yet to establish any genius credentials, and may never do so, since I'm not nearly as smart as I used to be.

For me, the difference is in the scientific literature. In peer reviewed journals, many more articles are submitted than are published. There is an editorial board of experts who read and analyze the submitted articles, based on their expertise in the field. More than one expert reviews each article before publication. This process has two results. Nothing sloppy or nonsensical gets through, but it often has the effect of screening out research that might contradict the expert's pet theory.

One or two articles don't constitute proof. Findings must be replicated to be widely accepted. The more evidence that piles up for or against a theory, the more likely it is to be true or false. In this case "evidence" means findings based on the scientific method, which involves particular steps and standards of measurement and observation. En.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Pub Med is a great resource that gives immediate online access to abstracts from hundreds of journals, mostly biological and behavioral. There are other pay services like PsychInfo, that are for specific disciplines. Being able to read scientific literature objectively requires a certain amount of experience with it, because there are abbreviations and methods of expression that are hard for the lay person to follow. Most people get their science from tertiary sources, which is unfortunate, because there are usually errors of interpretation, even of the objective findings.

Truth derived from the scientific method may not be absolute. New methods of measurement, new findings, and failures to replicate established findings happen every day. At any given time, we only know what is in the scientific record for that time. I did a quick PubMed review on graphology, the interpretation of body language, and analyzing micro facial expressions. Here are the imoressions I got from reading the abstracts (I don't want to pay for the articles).

1. Graphology -three articles since 2000, 15 in all dating back to 1955, only the 5 most recent had abstracts online. The 2 articles from Italian journals found enough support to justify its use in clinical settings, the theee from English language journals did not. The abstracts imply the Italian journals may not have used ideal research methods, but I'll never know because I don't read italian.
2. Body language - 279 studies since 1971. I didn't read all the abstracts, but perusal of the titles suggests body language is such a well established concept that it doesn't have to be validated anew to be used as a dependent variable across a variety of contexts.
3. Facial micro expression analysis - 8 studies since 2006, most very preliminary. There doesnt appear to be enough data to support or refute the validity of this field of study. The argument here would not be whether or not human beings make faces when they feel emotion. That is patently obvious. The question is, "Can we detect micro expressions accurately enough and correlate them in a larqe enough number of people to make it a reliable technique of reading a person's inner experience?"

There 's my 50 cents about the scientific method. It also explains why I wasn't impressed with the self-published book Varda was touting. Anyone can self publish a book, and say anything they want in it. There is a place for self-publishing, but it isn't the realm of questionable science.

Pam

[Dane Christensen]

Dixon,

Thanks for response. I did use the term 'debate' in the same sense that you describe collaborative arguing in your article. I appreciate Sandy's suggestion of the term 'discussion'. Maybe that's better. Though starting off with a statement like 'you have a fundamental flaw in the your logic' certainly says 'debate' more, doesn't it. At any rate, no worries. It's all in good fun for me. I'm not attached to the outcome. I'm all about gaining clarity and awareness and helping others do the same, whether that happens through discussion, debate, or arguments. It's all good. And it never ends, because I find the quest for clarity and awareness is never complete, which is kind my my main thrust in this thread.

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts on my question. Meanwhile, I will respond to Pam's points.

Dane

[Dane Christensen]

Pam,

I'm really impressed that you've taken the time to look into this question in such depth! And even so, as you've stated you've really just grazed the surface.

My sense is that you kind of made my point for me. The question of the validity of these methods seems pretty fuzzy. Five studies on graphology with abstracts is not a very large amount of research to go on, especially when the results were mixed. The situation seems about the same for micro facial expressions--validity unclear at this point. But body language seems to be well-accepted. If they had done hundreds of experiments on graphology and micro facial expressions, would those be as validated? Who knows until all the studies are done?

But it does still seem intuitively obvious to me that all three of these methods have one key factor in common, they are observing subtle movements of the body to assess the frame of mind of the person making them. True, graphology and micro facial expressions are more subtle than body language, but my intuition tells me that if someone designed the right kind of test with fine enough instruments, the proper controls and a large enough sample size, there's a good chance that those other disciplines might well be proven valid.

Carl Sagan said that 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'. I suppose a corollary to that would be that ordinary claims don't require extraordinary evidence. To me, when Varda makes claims about the benefits of graphology, that isn't so extraordinary. She's not saying it will change the world or that it's totally guaranteed or anything like that. Just that it can help to solve people gain some understanding. So why should we require ironclad proof of its effectiveness?

My main point in all this is that we are all going through life constantly making guesses, assumptions, estimates, often with milliseconds of consideration. For all our scientific advances over the millenia, we're all still just muddling through life, trying to find the same things our ancestors wanted -- peace, joy and abundance. And I say anything that helps people feel like they've attained that (and feeling like you've attained it is the only way to actually attain it) is a good thing. And if graphology helps some people get satisfaction, I say 'hurray'! whether it is scientifcally validated or not.

[Shandi]

A REPORT on MY HANDWRITING ANALYSIS:

I regret only one thing, and that is, not recording the session. These are some insights gleaned from my letter to Varda. The topic was my desire to write my life story, and not being clear on where to start.

Her overall impressions were: BALANCE, FORWARD THINKING (not stuck in the past) DIRECT (what you see is what you get) CARING,

Some issues noted were FRUSTRATION, NOT ENOUGH SELF LOVE (giving may be a way to get acknowleged), RESENTMENT (for father), WITHHELD EMOTIONS (due to feeling unsafe expressing these) NOT IN TOUCH WITH GUT FEELINGS (relying more on logic)

The positive aspects are things that many people might say of me, since I'm very transparent in my writings.
What was more revealing about Varda's abilities was her insight into issues that even people who know me, might never realize.

After the analysis was done, she gave me some writing excercises to do that could influence desirable shifts. This will take some discipline, since so much of what I write is on the computer.

She also shared some experiences of her analysis that has proved to be very potent for people in overcoming serious challenges, some that had been sustained through a long lifetime. These would make wonderful testimonials, but have been lost through computer failures.

I encourage anyone who could use some insight into "unconscious" limitations that may be in the way of reaching desired goals, to make an appointment to see Varda, or to simply contact her to submit your scanned handwriting. She may uncover the mysteries that lie around the space, and beneath/between the letters of your handwriting!


VARDA