Is Handwriting Analysis valid?

[podfish]

interesting thread. Thanks to Dr. Pam for bringing previous domain-specific knowledge to it. When encountering a body of papers on a subject you're not familiar with, you're always limited in your ability to read them critically even if you have time to spend/waste. And Dixon's comments have been interesting and well-structured as they so often are. Varda clearly has a lot of knowledge in this area and is well able to make her case.

With Independent Eye adding his fresh perspective, and with the lack of random rants it's drawn, this maybe will serve as a canonical example of a perfect Wacco thread. One thing that typifies this site is the attention paid to the scientific validity of claims. So lots of "evidence" is given and there's discussion of whether scientific logic is even being applied. This one finally is veering toward whether scientific validation is even necessary. Clearly to most people it's not. Even the most analytical of us are going to make personal decisions by how we feel -- that's been scientifically validated! So Conrad's bringing art into this is illuminating.

It's true that it's sometimes dangerous when people make decisions that fly in the face of the best knowledge, and not great when people make scientifically indefensible claims, but that's how us monkeys operate. There are a lot of contributions these semi-scientific (pseudo-science has become pejorative) activities make in the world. Sure, they do harm too. What doesn't? For example, vaccines do hurt some people. Even though most anti-vaxxers aren't shaping their feelings by scientific analysis, on that one point they're right. But we're better off with vaccines in the world. I suspect, despite a few railroaded criminal defendants who are wrongfully convicted (if any actually exists) graphology has enriched many people's world. As does art. As do puppies.

[Dr Pam]

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.

I knew you were going to say that :: wink::

It's a way of showing a patient who is distrustful of the therapy process that I know what I'm talking about. I don't call them "psychic predictions," but that's what they are. I'm foretelling the future. If the person won't do homework, for example, I'll tell them what will happen, or what another person in their life will do that they won't like in the next few days as a result of their choice not to behave differently. When they come back and report that what I predicted came true, they are much more willing to try new behaviors to see if they get desired results. The predictions are based on three decades of working with people in similar situations and pretty good intuitions about human nature, whatever that is.

I didn't start doing it until later in my career, after I had enough data to improve my hit rate. And I don't do it with everyone I see, just the ones who would benefit from the demonstration. I don't think this is an uncommon practice among psychotherapists.

Pam

[theindependenteye]

>>>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 haven't seen Varda's promotional material, so I'm not sure what she's claiming. Whether it's a Spanish lesson or a symphony ticket, I first look at what it's going to cost me, then I go on from there. I'd give her the benefit of the doubt, based on "anecdotal" evidence, that her clients probably wind up better off than if they invested their life savings in the stock market. Unless she advises them to.

I don't see the need for the "crucial distinction" you feel I'm missing. Of course there's a difference between astrology and theatre: astrology requires stars, theatre can be great with just a good ensemble. I'm talking about "value" not in terms of accuracy but in terms of inspiration. When the guy told me after a show in North Carolina that he literally met Jesus on the downtown street and Jesus told him "Stop being a fucking drunk!" and he did, I wasn't about to tell him he was delusional.

We agree totally that "Truth matters." But I believe there are disciplines, arts if you will, that stand totally apart from the discipline of science, and that nevertheless can lead people to truth. Or at least to nourishment.

I'm willing to acknowledge that I'm a bit wishy-washy when it comes to judgments, and that I perceive you, as much as I truly respect you and feel you make a great contribution to this list, as a bit of a Rationalarian Fundamentalist. But I can't find my way to feeling that Man Must Live by Truth Alone. If someone gets to a place he wants to go, I'm not about to label his guide a quack. Again, I raise my hand, timidly, for Metaphor.

Peace & joy--
Conrad

[Chris Dec]

OMFG: Whether it is an art or a science, handwriting analysis will be a thing of the past as handwriting itself will soon die out; public school decision makers have omitted cursive from the lower curriculum since kids need to know computer keyboarding to keep current with their peers. On the university level, according to my UCDavis Daughter, more and more notetaking in class is done electronically, and all homework, lab reports and papers, are keyed in, and even "handed in" electronically, with no use of paper. Anything written the old fashioned way is printed in block letters, like we did in kindegarten.

So, someday, someone like Varda, will look at my texting and determine, WTF... she was a fat fingered klutz who insisted on using the [archaic] long version of words... and thus, a long winded parent stuck in the 20th century. LOL, and all that.

...Handwriting, to the extent that anybody actually still does it , ...

[Varda]

Hi Chris,

For your information, it's a mistake to regard cursive writing is outdated and unnecessary! there is currently a campaign for re-introducing cursive writing in public schools, here is the website: www.cursiveiscool.com on home page you can listen to a video presentation on the importance of
cursive, and here are links to two articles:

https://www.ahafhandwriting.org/site...4c/cursive.pdf

https://readwrite.com/2013/01/11/why...ands-is-still-
important#awesm=~oy8Aps2Xcekrxz

To sum it up - cursive writing helps to focus, concentrate, learn to read, memory, impulse control, less learning disabilities, develop better personal style and self expression, integrate the visual with fine motor skills.

Latin based countries (60% of world population) still teach their children how to write in cursive, Mexico has re-introduced cursive in 2002 after not having it for 20 years, we will be competing in the global market place with people with better cognitive skills unless we re-introduce cursive writing.

So, let's not mourn yet the death of handwriting!

Varda

OMFG: Whether it is an art or a science, handwriting analysis will be a thing of the past as handwriting itself will soon die out; public school decision makers have omitted cursive from the lower curriculum since kids need to know computer keyboarding to keep current with their peers....

[Dixon]

Dian, I'm surprised to hear this from you. I thought you understood me fairly well.

Dixon, sometimes you can be so wrong even when you're right. How far does your responsibility to others extend?

My responsibility to others includes using a lot of my time and effort to educate people, free of charge, with some basic thinking skills to help them sort out true claims from false, so they won't be taken in by purveyors of snake oil. I hate seeing people get swindled, misled or victimized in any way, so I engage in these efforts even though it's enormously frustrating and I get a lot of hurtful flak, including this flak I'm getting from you right
now. My responsibility to others also involves engaging in reasoned dialog in which I consider their best evidence, explain why their arguments don't work (if they don't work), and remain open to being changed if and when they present good arguments. Do you have a problem with any of this, Dian? What exactly are you upset about? Really, it's unclear what you're bothered by.

Are you unmasking Varda as a fool leading other foolish people to decisions or insights that result in a world made up of idiots?

Dian, try as I might, I can't figure out what you're trying to say here. Are you saying we shouldn't point out fallacies for fear people would conclude that they're idiots because they've made mistakes in their thinking, or...?

A person with a strong "front" can be turned around to see that strength as weakness.

Again, your message is really unclear here. Are you saying that I shouldn't make strong arguments? That I should only deploy weak arguments so that people won't have to go through the discomfort of acknowledging that they were wrong about something? That I should be less articulate, less persuasive, less confrontive, or...what?

At this point, to me, this feels like bullying, Dixon.

Uh...wha...? I hate bullies. Calling someone a bully is a very serious accusation. Please give me an example of exactly what I've said that you're labeling "bullying"--or publicly retract that accusation. And BTW, are you gonna call Varda a bully for calling me names like "toxic"?

[Dixon]

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

This is a good example of how closed-minded people respond when confronted with good arguments they can't refute; they slip into fallacies such as the ad hominem attack, i.e., insulting the person they disagree with instead of addressing his/her arguments. What makes it even more disgusting is that, by including phrases like "am really concerned about you", you also bring it into the realm of passive-aggressiveness.

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...

This is just another way of saying that you're utterly closed-minded on the issue. You needn't belabor the point, Varda; you've already made it abundantly clear.

...and have no need or desire to convince you of anything, you are welcome to believe whatever it is that you want!

Translation: "My evidence turned out to be crappy, and instead of acknowledging that that probably means I'm mistaken, I'm gonna run away from the conversation."

The proof of the pudding is in the eating, so let me quote here a couple of recent clients of mine...

Varda, if you'd bothered to take a few minutes to check out the links I provided earlier, you'd know that anecdotes such as your clients' testimonials don't prove anything. Go back to your archive of old graphology readings, randomly select one, and give it to the next hundred customers. They will each glowingly describe it as being an amazingly accurate and specific description of them! This phenomenon has been demonstrated in the research many times. So you see, someone's perception that the reading you gave them is personally accurate is just hogwash. Please stop presenting testimonials as if they constitute evidence for the validity of graphology.

Would like to take this opportunity to invite anyone who has been following this exchange to have a FREE healing session with me...

Oh, you're claiming to be doing healing? What conditions do you heal?

Required - an open mind, personal accountability, a desire to move forward...

LOL! For you to be citing these virtues in the context of a thread wherein you've demonstrated a near-total lack of them is ironic. Hint: "an open mind" isn't the same as being gullible enough to accept unfounded claims.

[Dixon]

I don't call them "psychic predictions," but that's what they are. I'm foretelling the future. If the person won't do homework, for example, I'll tell them what will happen, or what another person in their life will do that they won't like in the next few days as a result of their choice not to behave differently. When they come back and report that what I predicted came true, they are much more willing to try new behaviors to see if they get desired results. The predictions are based on three decades of working with people in similar situations and pretty good intuitions about human nature, whatever that is.

Pam, I'm still a little unclear on what you're claiming. The term "psychic" refers to extrasensory sources of info (telepathy, clairvoyance, precognition, etc.) or to mental influence on matter (psychokinesis). Are you claiming to be precognitive in that sense, or are you just making educated extrapolations on the info you have about the client?

[Dr Pam]

Pam, I'm still a little unclear on what you're claiming. The term "psychic" refers to extrasensory sources of info (telepathy, clairvoyance, precognition, etc.) or to mental influence on matter (psychokinesis). Are you claiming to be precognitive in that sense, or are you just making educated extrapolations on the info you have about the client?

Dixon, to be honest, I'm not sure whether it's all educated extrapolation or if there's an element of ESP. I'm certain no psychokinesis is involved. If it were, I wouldn't have to walk across the room to fetch to cat toy.

I'm not "claiming" anything. I'm sharing personal experience about how predictions work. It doesn't matter to me how it happens. Life needs a small mystery or two.

Now leave me alone about it.

Pam

[Shandi]

I believe it's possible to make "educated guesses" about things that may happen with people, from years of seeing the same pattern. So that may be what Pam is talking about.

I've been fairly accurate about knowing what advertising isn't working, based on years of studying advertising and marketing, in addition to seeing people set up businesses with no marketing plan and no money left for it.

When I had my business in Hawaii (1983-93), one way I used to get clients was to check the newspaper ads, and call the ones I could almost "predict" weren't bringing results. I'd ask "How's your ad working?" They would say one of two things "I don't know" or "Advertising doesn't work". I would then tell them that I had some ideas to make their advertising more effective, and that my fee would be based on results. No results, no charge. My guarantee of results was based on their agreement to do as I suggested.

One of these calls, netted me a 3 month marketing consultant job, with a $2,000 a month salary. This was a new business, and their initial large display ad was tacky and unreadible, done by a local artist, who knew nothing about advertising. I ended up doing all their advertising layout for the newspaper and tourist publications, in addition to overseeing the staff to make sure they were tracking how people heard about the business. That way we knew what was working best, and their ROI, which enabled them to make informed decisions about where to spend their advertising dollars.

I can also usually "predict" (but only to myself) if a new business that opens in my area, will be able to sustain itself. Of course, they may have deep pockets, and be able to hold out longer than I think. I usually give them a year. These educated guesses are based on the name of the business, the location, and the advertising that I see them doing. The great thing about being able to do online marketing is that it doesn't cost, like print media. Oh dear, I've gone off topic once again!

Pam, I'm still a little unclear on what you're claiming. The term "psychic" refers to extrasensory sources of info (telepathy, clairvoyance, precognition, etc.) or to mental influence on matter (psychokinesis). Are you claiming to be precognitive in that sense, or are you just making educated extrapolations on the info you have about the client?

[Dixon]

I'm willing to acknowledge that I'm a bit wishy-washy when it comes to judgments...

Agreed. IMHO, you're a bit too forgiving of bullshit. Not a virtue.

...I perceive you, as much as I truly respect you and feel you make a great contribution to this list, as a bit of a Rationalarian Fundamentalist.

I consider myself a rationalist. Here are a few things I believe (all of which are subject to change in the light of some good counter-argument):

1. Outside the very real subjective worlds we each inhabit, there is an objective world we share.

2. Accurate understanding about how this objective world works is essential to survival and to solving our problems, thus to achieve a world of less suffering and more peace, freedom, justice, etc.

3. All of our beliefs about this objective world are based on some sort of logic--even if we're not conscious of the logical processes that underlie the beliefs we have.

4. Thinking, like baking a cake or riding a bicycle or anything else, can be done properly, thus usually yielding good results (accurate understanding of truth), or poorly, thus usually yielding bad results (fallacious beliefs).

5. In general, more positive outcomes will result from thinking properly than from fallacies.

If these beliefs make me a "Rationalarian Fundamentalist", I'll wear the label proudly (though the term "fundamentalist" is really pejorative and you're veering awfully close to ad hominem land by applying it to me, Conrad).

Again, I raise my hand, timidly, for Metaphor.

And again you're muddying the waters by doing so. The discussion of the validity (i.e., the truth-value) of graphology (or, for that matter, divination systems such as astrology, palm reading, rumpology, etc.) has nothing to do with metaphor, because graphologists are not selling metaphor; they're selling a claim about objective, non-metaphorical fact: that features in our handwriting are correlated with our personality such that a graphologist can derive real, useful info about you from analyzing that handwriting. (This is Varda's claim too). Right or wrong, that claim has nothing to do with metaphor. Of course any two things that are similar in any way (i.e., just about any two things at all) can be seen as metaphors for each other. For instance, handwriting in which the letters are far apart may be seen as a perfectly fine metaphor for social isolation, but the claim that the one is actually correlated with the other is just wrong. As a poet, I appreciate metaphor, but please let's not confuse the issues by bringing in metaphor where it's irrelevant.

But I can't find my way to feeling that Man Must Live by Truth Alone. If someone gets to a place he wants to go, I'm not about to label his guide a quack.

A quack is a quack whether or not someone occasionally benefits from his/her ministrations due to nonspecific treatment effects, dumb luck, or whatever. Whether you want to call them that is your decision to make, based on your attitudes to truth and the advisability of uttering it in any particular situation.

Conrad, I want to address what has emerged as one of your main points (and has also been expressed by podfish and others here): the idea that there's nothing wrong with lying to people, and even charging them money for that (such as by selling products or services that have been shown to be ineffective) as long as people get some benefit from that. All sorts of medical fraud and quackery, among other things, have been justified by this argument.

I acknowledge that this is not a totally crazy argument; it does have some plausibility. There may even be specific situations in which I myself would hold my nose and endorse a particular lie or "magic potion", though I shudder to think of it. But if we're gonna be responsible, we must be honest with ourselves about what the long-term net effect of our choices is likely to be.

Positive value of quackery such as graphology, astrology, etc.:

1. The practitioner makes money--can feed their children, etc.

2. The practitioner gets prestige in some social circles--may even get laid! :^O

3. Some of these beliefs provide social cohesion for certain subcultures (i.e., "We psychics are so much more enlightened than those damn thick-headed, bullying skeptics!")

4. The product or procedure, even if utterly ineffective in itself, can trigger helpful nonspecific treatment effects such as the placebo effect.

5. Certain types of introspection which may possibly be therapeutically growthful can be triggered by ideas or images. Such ideas or images can be provided by, e.g., a graphologist or astrologer just as readily as they could be provided by opening a randomly selected book or looking at random paintings or photos, and the ritualized aspects of the session may facilitate the introspection process.

6. Believing, however wrongly, that we have more knowledge or control than we really do is comforting, and may reduce stress, at least in the short term.

Negative impacts of quackery and other irrationality:

1. The client now has less money, as he/she has given it to the practitioner.

2. In order to believe demonstrably false or unfounded claims, we must remain ignorant of basic principles of reason, and even cultivate fallacious habits of thought. The fallacies that underlie belief in, e.g., graphology or astrology are often the same fallacies that underlie other feel-good beliefs such as racism, sexism, imperialism, etc. If we encourage people to embrace crappy logic so they can believe in graphology, astrology, gods, etc., then we don't get to complain when we find that they're undermining life-saving vaccination efforts or opposing a rational approach to global climate change or embracing homophobic, misogynistic, imperialistic religions. If we choose irrationality, we get the whole package--most of which is ugly, even brutal. If we want to have a more peaceful, free, just, sustainable world, we'll make more progress in that direction by choosing rationality, even if not all of the package is appealing to us.

3. Time, energy, belief, and money that could be invested in real solutions are diverted to illusory ones.

4. Don't we already have enough lies and illusion on this poor little planet? I'm tired of being manipulated by lies! (And by the term "lies", I'm including false beliefs which people maintain by Herculean feats of closed-mindedness and irrationality.) Selling snake oil or otherwise lying to people is so disrespectful, both of the person and of truth. Enough already!

5. Lots of research has shown that people overestimate their virtues and are more likely to rate positive descriptions of themselves as accurate than negative ones, regardless of the accuracy. Quacks play on this by selling the customers what they want: mostly positive descriptions of them. Is it really a benefit, either to the client or the world at large, to stroke people's egos with exaggerated crapola about how wonderful they are? Wouldn't it be better to come up with valid measures of people's traits and give them honest feedback about both their virtues/strengths and the areas where they need to improve? Quackery does not do this in a balanced way.

6. Some of the "needs" that are met by quackery should not be met! For instance, the common "need" (really just a desire or an addiction) to feel like everything's under control so we can feel more secure than we really are--a need that's addressed by belief in benevolent gods and by divination systems like astrology, etc.--is infantile. Wouldn't we ultimately benefit people more by helping them become a little more comfortable with ambiguity, uncertainty, and insecurity, rather than feeding them bullshit to assuage infantile "needs"?

7. In many (most?) cases, the actual benefits of quackery could be accomplished by offering real services. For instance, the placebo effect, emotional support and other healing factors can be triggered just as well by real treatments as by those that are based on phony claims. Re: areas where we can't give people what they want without BSing them, see #6 above.

Bottom line for me, Conrad et al., is that the (quite real) benefits of quackery are, I think, outweighed by their harm, especially when we take a more comprehensive and longer-term view than "I just tried Dr. Mountebank's Sacred Quantum Elixir and I feel great!" Every time we embrace some unsupported or actually refuted claim, we erode the rock of truth and build the pile of untruth a little more. A lot of it, for me, comes down to a bit of introspection I'd like to see everyone engage in: "What is my basic relationship to life/reality/truth? Is my real agenda to figure out, as honestly as I can, what's likely to be true? Or is my real agenda to embrace and defend beliefs that make me feel good even if they're illusions?"

[Dixon]

Dixon, to be honest, I'm not sure whether it's all educated extrapolation or if there's an element of ESP.

Thanks for the clarification. And I appreciate your apparent openness to alternative interpretations of your experience.

I'm not "claiming" anything.

Sure you are. You're claiming to be pretty good at predictions about your clients, and that making those predictions helps the clients trust you.

It doesn't matter to me how it happens.

Really? That surprises me. If I thought I might have psychic stuff going on, I'd be pretty excited and curious.

Life needs a small mystery or two.

Uh...do you think we're in danger of running out of mysteries?

Now leave me alone about it.

I'm really puzzled by this response. My polite requests for clarification bothered you somehow? That certainly wasn't my intention. I'm just trying to understand you.

[Dixon]

Varda clearly has a lot of knowledge in this area and is well able to make her case.

Podster, if you think Varda has made a good case, either I'm missing something or you could use a refresher course in what constitutes good evidence.

This one finally is veering toward whether scientific validation is even necessary. Clearly to most people it's not.

You're right--most people are clueless as to what science is, why it's necessary, and why the sorts of "validation" they prefer aren't really validation at all, just bad reasoning they use as an excuse to believe what they like.

Even the most analytical of us are going to make personal decisions by how we feel...

True, but with practice it's possible to decrease that foible. I hope you understand, Podster, that when assessing claims about objective fact, such as the graphological hypothesis, how we feel is entirely irrelevant. Letting our feelings distort our reasoning in such situations is to be avoided if we really want to get to the truth.

So Conrad's bringing art into this is illuminating.

I'm a fan of Conrad, but I think his bringing art into the discussion has only muddied the waters, because the truth-value of the graphological hypothesis has nothing whatsoever to do with art. Graphology is a claim about purported objective "facts", not a type of art.

There are a lot of contributions these semi-scientific (pseudo-science has become pejorative) activities make in the world.

The term pseudo-science has always been pejorative, as it refers to dubious claims which inappropriately try to assume the mantle of scientific respectability, without earning it by subjecting their claims to science's rigorous standards of proof. Why would you want to gild a turd by coming up with an inaccurate euphemism like "semi-scientific"?

Re: the rest of your argument (comparing graphology to vaccines--really?)--see my post #42 in this thread.

Blessings--
Dixon

[joybird]

.... But I can't find my way to feeling that Man Must Live by Truth Alone. If someone gets to a place he wants to go, I'm not about to label his guide a quack. Again, I raise my hand, timidly, for Metaphor

Don't be timid Conrad, I stand with you for Metaphor.
Joy

[theindependenteye]

Agreed. IMHO, you're a bit too forgiving of bullshit. Not a virtue....

So be it. In the sage words of Popeye the Sailor-man, “I yam what I yam.”

As to the bullshit of the world, I feel we all live our lives under the tail of the bull, and while it may do some good to shout up at the asshole, we’d best do it sparingly and tight-lipped. Actually, by temperament I’m extremely judgmental and do my best to work against it. Most extremely, I’m critical of causes and concepts I feel closest to. Crusades and absolutes, under any flag, make me run fast to the shower.

But I won’t make an argument that that’s a virtue. Claiming virtue is like adding an exclamation point to Popeye’s dictum, and I really distrust exclamation points except with “Wow!” or “Yes!”

If these beliefs make me a "Rationalarian Fundamentalist", I'll wear the label proudly (though the term "fundamentalist" is really pejorative and you're veering awfully close to ad hominem land by applying it to me, Conrad).

Apologies for hitting a sore spot with “fundamentalist.” I didn’t feel I was attacking, ad hominum or otherwise. I confess to being leery of what I perceived, and perceive, as a tone of absolutism, however firmly on the bedrock of reason.

But as I was arguing in relation to the graphology question, and which you disagree with, it’s the effect that makes the difference, and in this case the effect wasn't positive. The argument has gone beyond good humor and I should have been aware of that. Indeed, our definitions of “quack” and “quackery” differ.

Your long analysis makes sense, and I don't have time to respond effectively. Nevertheless, for me, if someone gains a useful perspective on himself through graphology, theatre, or a bottle of Glenfiddich, I don’t feel the seller should be labeled a quack, whether or not causality is subject to experimental verification, and Kant's categorical imperataive notwithstanding. Your mileage varies, obviously. But that’s all I have to say on the subject. Fire at will. Peace & joy-- Conrad

[Hotspring 44]

I wasn't going to, but now I am going to put my toe into this pond so to speak.


I ask Varda if she uses (or could use) only the handwriting to assess the person and if Varda is also formally educated (any college certificate or degrees) in psychology to have available another powerful tool in regards to making assessments and consulting with her clientele in person(?)... ...because that would make a huge difference in making a more accurate assessment for clients, whereas with (only) “pure” graphology (if there is such a thing as pure-graphology), it could reasonably be conceived that a client would not have to physically go to the practitioner’s office and would only need to supply a sample (or samples) of their handwriting.


About cursive handwriting: I find it extremely difficult to read at times particularly because of the many differences there are between how individuals write.

I had an unusual form of dyslexia (unusual at the time anyway; I could read books in print 2 grades above my grade level but writing was difficult for me, cursive even more difficult than “normal” print) that coupled with childhood trauma involving the school where I was being taught the cursive form of writing; so now I only hand write in upper-case and I have reasonable cause to be concerned about being unfairly judged by whatever authority be it potential employer, NSA, or anyone between that has some sort of power that either could or does have a direct effect on my well being, IE: employment, privacy, liberty, etc.

Anyway, I would rather read (normal) print.

I write in all upper-case (CAPITALIZATION) so I bet dollars to doughnuts that I would be candidate for potentially harsh assessment and I sometimes wonder with some fear that I would be grossly mischaracterized, particularly if my hand writing were somehow used (abused more likely) in some way as an integral part of psychoanalytic assessment like if I were in some sort of legal trouble and falsely (incorrectly, wrongly, etc.) accused of a serious crime.

I also think that that this paragraph (and the ones directly above and all below) are easier to read for most folks than the previous ones were.

Because of all the ways cursive differs depending on what individual (who) wrote it; for the most part as far as reading is concerned (it) adds complexity to today's average person's modernized everyday life and I think that by forcing another test onto already over-tested school kids seems to me to be another thing to slow progress in the learning of real science; kind of like creationism Vs evolution only cursive Vs keyboard, touchpad, etc..

That being said, there may come a time that typewriters are gone and computers become unusable
for some unforeseen reason or circumstances... ...so, for the preservation of very important information there is good reason to have most people at least knowledgeable and some who are specialized and well versed in the reading and writing in scroll,... ...uh... ... I mean cursive so as to be able to understand real records like the actual documents like that of the constitution and such, and also for accuracy in being able to learn, know and teach history.

Honestly for me, cursive is more painful than what I choose to endure.

[Dixon]

Hi, H44!

I ask Varda if she uses (or could use) only the handwriting to assess the person and if Varda is also formally educated (any college certificate or degrees) in psychology to have available another powerful tool in regards to making assessments and consulting with her clientele in person(?)... ...because that would make a huge difference in making a more accurate assessment for clients, whereas with (only) “pure” graphology (if there is such a thing as pure-graphology), it could reasonably be conceived that a client would not have to physically go to the practitioner’s office and would only need to supply a sample (or samples) of their handwriting.

Good point, H44.

The basic hypothesis of graphology is that there are correlations between features of handwriting (such as size, slant, distance between letters, formation of specific letters, etc.) and the writer's traits, and that these correlations are big enough and consistent enough that analyzing the features of the handwriting can yield information which is useful for the client's insight and decision-making. This does not require the client's presence or any other information.

If a client is physically present in a graphology session, or if the graphologist knows anything about the client, any info the graphologist generates which is or appears to be accurate could easily be from non-graphological sources. (This is called "cold reading" if the info is derived from the client's appearance/behavior in the session, or "hot reading" if the info is from prior knowledge about the client.) For this reason, tests of graphology require that the handwriting be analyzed without the client's presence, and in fact the content of the handwriting must be neutral--something that conveys no info about the client, like a paragraph copied from a random book rather than a letter or other personal statement by the client--to screen out confounding factors that might make it appear that graphology has yielded info which actually came from other sources. In such fair tests, the graphological hypothesis is typically disconfirmed.

[Varda]

Hi there,

In response to your question - I studied some literature at the Tel Aviv University. No formal psychology training, just courses, workshops, personal research and my life experience. I do not attempt to play psychologist, have no interest in that!

Handwriting analysis serves well to bring into awareness what we tend to suppress, this awareness makes all the difference, as one cannot address what one is not fully aware of. One's handwriting can also be used as a tool for self help, I offer instruction with that.

As to using block printing, it does have a meaning, but needs to be evaluated in context of the other aspects of your writing such as size, slant, pressure, degree of control, use of space, etc... generally speaking, printers want to play it safe as printing (especially block printing) is much less revealing than cursive. You did not sign your name to this post, just a code hotspring44 - it goes with the printing - avoiding exposure, it's safer, nobody would know who you are or be able to hurt you.

As far as being judged harshly because of your printing, that is incorrect!
printing is a legitimate form of handwriting and as far as employment screening, for instance, using handwriting analysis, printing can be a positive - possibly practical, independent, competent, but again, the context is important.

Varda

I ask Varda if she uses (or could use) only the handwriting to assess the person and if Varda is also formally educated (any college certificate or degrees) in psychology to have available another powerful tool in regards to making assessments and consulting with her clientele in person(?)...
......
I write in all upper-case (CAPITALIZATION) so I bet dollars to doughnuts that I would be candidate for potentially harsh assessment and I sometimes wonder with some fear that I would be grossly mischaracterized, particularly if my hand writing were somehow used (abused more likely) in some way as an integral part of psychoanalytic assessment like if I were in some sort of legal trouble and falsely (incorrectly, wrongly, etc.) accused of a serious crime. ...

[Varda]

What you wrote below, Dixon, is incorrect! where did you get that nonsense from? your skeptics perhaps?

A decent, adequate sample for analysis should not be copied from any book! copied material is not spontaneous, lacks and distorts the natural flow. Poor representation of the writer's natural way of writing. Laziness and few quick quotes will not gain you much!

Varda

If a client is physically present in a graphology session, or if the graphologist knows anything about the client, any info the graphologist generates which is or appears to be accurate could easily be from non-graphological sources. (This is called "cold reading" if the info is derived from the client's appearance/behavior in the session, or "hot reading" if the info is from prior knowledge about the client.) For this reason, tests of graphology require that the handwriting be analyzed without the client's presence, and in fact the content of the handwriting must be neutral--something that conveys no info about the client, like a paragraph copied from a random book rather than a letter or other personal statement by the client--to screen out confounding factors that might make it appear that graphology has yielded info which actually came from other sources. In such fair tests, the graphological hypothesis is typically disconfirmed.

[Dixon]

What you wrote below, Dixon, is incorrect! where did you get that nonsense from? your skeptics perhaps?
A decent, adequate sample for analysis should not be copied from any book! copied material is not spontaneous, lacks and distorts the natural flow. Poor representation of the writer's natural way of writing. Laziness and few quick quotes will not gain you much!

In assessing what, if any, accurate information can be derived from analyzing features of handwriting, any information derived from the content of the writing (as opposed to the form of the handwriting) could only muddy the waters. In other words, if you analyzed, say, a handwritten diary entry or letter or whatever, any accurate info your analysis arrived at could be attributed to the content rather than the handwriting. Thus no analysis of such personal material can reasonably be cited as evidence for the validity of graphology. How could it be appropriate for you to conclude you derived info from the client's handwriting as opposed to the content of what they wrote? Evidence for the validity of graphology that can't rule out the possibility that the info was derived from the content rather than the handwriting is no evidence at all. That's just common sense.

[Varda]

Dixon,

Here is what you are missing, because reading few pages quickly about this topic, is not enough!:


The purpose of an analysis is not to read the writer and know everything about him or her - but to gain an understanding about what is going on with that writer! that is a lot more important than superficial knowledge of any details about the writer.

If I was having a session with you, I would ask you to write freely, never copy anything, in a way you would write a personal letter, anything that you wish to share and sign your name. You can tell me all your secrets and problems, and still be clueless as to what is happening with you. The contents is not the clue and not the issue, but what you are doing on a piece of paper with that pen, is. Form is just one element, it's the synergy, the context, the sum total of your writing habits - that will yield insights.

Varda

In assessing what, if any, accurate information can be derived from analyzing features of handwriting, any information derived from the content of the writing (as opposed to the form of the handwriting) could only muddy the waters. ....

[Dixon]

Varda, I don't know if you are really having trouble grasping the simple concepts I've been trying to convey, or if you're just choosing to be obtuse to evade acknowledging the fact that the real evidence indicates no validity to graphology. I suspect the latter, given that you've made it abundantly clear that you're not remotely open-minded on the subject, regardless of the evidence. That leaves me with the question: Why waste any more time trying to reason with you? I've already wasted hours and hours here.

Until such time as you can honestly assure me that you have become open to the possibility that your belief in the validity of graphology is mistaken, just as you would like me to be open to your position, I'm gonna try to resist getting sucked into your closed-minded evasions and blatantly bogus arguments.

Dixon,
Here is what you are missing, ...

[Shandi]

From Danger Between the Lines (Kimon Iannetta Trust, 2008) Page 1 of 4

Criminal Handwriting Analysis

Handwriting examiner Kimon Iannetta analyzes the signatures and writing of three ruthless criminals―John Wilkes Booth, Jesse James, and Charles Manson―and speculates on why they may have been likely to commit their crimes.

John Wilkes Booth

The far-right slant and heavy pressure show that Booth was a passionate man who was capable of influencing people, which probably served him well as an actor. The underscored signature reveals confidence and self-reliance; Booth was challenging himself to take initiative into uncharted territory. Booth’s loyalty to his rigid and extreme beliefs, along with persistence, unbridled passion, and rage toward what he felt was unjust authority, was a deadly combination for Abraham Lincoln.

I did a little research on handwriting analysis, and saw a couple of articles in SimpleLiving.com

I didn't post the first one I saw which was about a teacher having her students write out the same passage from a poem, for purposes of analysis. When I looked again today, there was yet another article on the same topic, and a reference to a new book. While this doesn't prove anything, what it does show is that there's a lot of interest in this practice, and in some cases, as I pointed out previously, it's actually used as a tool for employers to make job applicant selections. What this shows is that everyone doesn't rely on scientific proof for information.

Another interesting phenomena is that people tend to believe anything in print. Documents can easily be presented, and accepted. I can attest to this from personal experience, although I'm not at liberty to divulge my source of information.

On another note, which has nothing to do with handwriting analysis: Have you ever seen a pregnant woman, and questioned whether she was actually pregnant, or hiding something? You don't even think about it, but maybe now you will.....

[Varda]

Hi Shandi,

Kim Iannetta, was involved in a scientific research in Hawaii State Hospital, with a team of PhD clinical psychologists, doctors and a PhD statistician, all detailed in her reference book Danger Between the Lines, to determine dangerousness according to handwriting indicators. Her book is based on that research, and is an excellent reference book, highly regarded and used by many graphologists around the world. In the study, the findings of the psychologists were compared to those of the graphologists and were very close. All is detailed in the book. This research was mentioned in the first reference list, possibly in the second one too.

Varda

Criminal Handwriting Analysis

Handwriting examiner Kimon Iannetta analyzes the signatures and writing of three ruthless criminals―John Wilkes Booth, Jesse James, and Charles Manson―and speculates on why they may have been likely to commit their crimes.

John Wilkes Booth

The far-right slant and heavy pressure show that Booth was a passionate man who was capable of influencing people, which probably served him well as an actor. The underscored signature reveals confidence and self-reliance; Booth was challenging himself to take initiative into uncharted territory. Booth’s loyalty to his rigid and extreme beliefs, along with persistence, unbridled passion, and rage toward what he felt was unjust authority, was a deadly combination for Abraham Lincoln. Next: Jesse James






I did a little research on handwriting analysis, and saw a couple of articles in SimpleLiving.com
I didn't post the first one I saw which was about a teacher having her students write out the same passage from a poem, for purposes of analysis. When I looked again today, there was yet another article on the same topic, and a reference to a new book. While this doesn't prove anything, what it does show is that there's a lot of interest in this practice, and in some cases, as I pointed out previously, it's actually used as a tool for employers to make job applicant selections. What this shows is that everyone doesn't rely on scientific proof for information.

Another interesting phenomena is that people tend to believe anything in print. Documents can easily be presented, and accepted. I can attest to this from personal experience, although I'm not at liberty to divulge my source of information.

On another note, which has nothing to do with handwriting analysis: Have you ever seen a pregnant woman, and questioned whether she was actually pregnant, or hiding something? You don't even think about it, but maybe now you will.....


[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

[Hotspring 44]

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.

I did a little research on handwriting analysis, and saw a couple of articles in SimpleLiving.com
I didn't post the first one I saw which was about a teacher having her students write out the same passage from a poem, for purposes of analysis. When I looked again today, there was yet another article on the same topic, and a reference to a new book. While this doesn't prove anything, what it does show is that there's a lot of interest in this practice, and in some cases, as I pointed out previously, it's actually used as a tool for employers to make job applicant selections. What this shows is that everyone doesn't rely on scientific proof for information.

[Varda]

Dixon,

This has been a time consuming, frustrating and infuriating exchange with you. The only reason I have continued is that I could not let bullying and ignorance seize this discussion. You clearly have no clue what you are talking about as far as graphology, yet, you went on an uncalled for rampage trashing it and me, and there doesn't seem to be any end to that.

Just for the benefit of anyone who has followed this exchange, here are some of the professionals who took part in that scientific research I mentioned earlier in Hawaii State Hospital, mentioned in Kim's book about dangerousness indicators in the writing -

James F. Craine, Ph.D., was chief of the Neuropsychology Serves Dept at Hawaii State Hospital, Dennis G. McLaughlin, Ph.D. (statistician), Heather B. Catell, Ph.D., clinical psychologist, Denis Mee-Le, M.D., Chief, Mental Health Division, Dept of Health, State of Hawaii

They all endorsed graphology as an effective tool to identify dangerousness in the handwriting, but what do they all know compared to you?

Dixon, get a life! and enough with this discussion.

Varda

Varda, I don't know if you are really having trouble grasping the simple concepts I've been trying to convey, or if you're just choosing to be obtuse to evade acknowledging the fact that the real evidence indicates no validity to graphology. I suspect the latter, given that you've made it abundantly clear that you're not remotely open-minded on the subject, regardless of the evidence. That leaves me with the question: Why waste any more time trying to reason with you? I've already wasted hours and hours here.

Until such time as you can honestly assure me that you have become open to the possibility that your belief in the validity of graphology is mistaken, just as you would like me to be open to your position, I'm gonna try to resist getting sucked into your closed-minded evasions and blatantly bogus arguments.

[Hotspring 44]

Varda, I had more to say but I decided to limit it to the shortest and most pertinent to one part of your post

Dixon,

This has been a time consuming, frustrating and infuriating exchange with you.

I think what Dixon has been asking for (Dixon, correct me if I am incorrect) and not seeing it from you as of yet is: where is the Black Swan?

[Dr Pam]

Dixon,

This has been a time consuming, frustrating and infuriating exchange with you. The only reason I have continued is that I could not let bullying and ignorance seize this discussion. You clearly have no clue what you are talking about as far as graphology, yet, you went on an uncalled for rampage trashing it and me, and there doesn't seem to be any end to that.

Just for the benefit of anyone who has followed this exchange, here are some of the professionals who took part in that scientific research I mentioned earlier in Hawaii State Hospital, mentioned in Kim's book about dangerousness indicators in the writing -

James F. Craine, Ph.D., was chief of the Neuropsychology Serves Dept at Hawaii State Hospital, Dennis G. McLaughlin, Ph.D. (statistician), Heather B. Catell, Ph.D., clinical psychologist, Denis Mee-Le, M.D., Chief, Mental Health Division, Dept of Health, State of Hawaii

They all endorsed graphology as an effective tool to identify dangerousness in the handwriting, but what do they all know compared to you?

Dixon, get a life! and enough with this discussion.

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. Craine was a neuropsychologist who had one other professional publication, set of case studies. This was early clinical work on the cognitive rehabilitation model in use now, but Dr. Craine was in no way a researcher. Their colleague, Dennis McLaughlin, has a PhD in statistics. Statisticians understand how to analyze data, but they are not scientists. From what I found online, those other people wrote testimonials for the book that all sound essentially the same and make me suspect that someone else wrote all three. I don't have a copy of the book so I can't be sure of their roles. You didn't mention the other graphologist on the project, Reed Hayes.

I could find at least one PhD in something who believes in anything you can name. UFOs, a glass star called Kolob, the Loch Ness Monster, Shakespeare was Marlow, Paul is Dead, Obama is a Moslem, the moon landing was faked. Shall I go on? Does this somehow prove any of these ideas? You know the answer.

What are you trying to do, Varda? People who are going to believe in graphology already believe. People who don't believe in graphology are going to think less and less of graphology and its practitioners as you continue your campaign of misinformation.

Dr Pam

[podfish]

Varda, I had more to say but I decided to limit it to the shortest and most pertinent to one part of your post

I think what Dixon has been asking for (Dixon, correct me if I am incorrect) and not seeing it from you as of yet is: where is the Black Swan?

that is a terrible video! but your point is correct, anyway.

I read Dixon as asking for, essentially, a description of a clean blind test, with elements that introduce extra factors removed. E.G. a sample that has no information in its content (he suggests copying an arbitrary source) and no contact between the interpreter and the person being analyzed. Sounds simple enough, but by now it's clear that's not what he's being offered.

But to that video! sure, existence of a black swan DOES disprove a premise that all swans are white. But not all theories are so all-encompassing as that. To go from that simple story to the theory that any study that claims EMF is unsafe disproves the premise that EMF is safe, despite multiple studies saying otherwise, is truly stupid. I really am horrified that she has an academic credential and presumably teaches impressionable youth.

For those who are inclined to be more charitable - here's the blatant error. The premise is being tested in both cases. The test of whether EMF is 'safe' (which in itself is a grossly inadequately specified claim) is complex, and can be made in many ways. The studies she refers to go about testing it in different ways, some of them better than others, and some may be erroneous. The test for whether a swan is black she assumes is obvious. But even that is wrong!! Were you looking at night? What if it was muddy, or had been hanging on the beach near Biloxi? Unless your claim is "all swans are white under any conditions and they can't be dyed or otherwise altered", the simple test of "hey, that bird's not the same color as milk!" isn't enough.

[Hotspring 44]

Thanks for acknowledging the main point I was trying to convey with that black swan video link.

I would address your other comments about it but that would be for another thread because it would drift too far off topic.
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.

that is a terrible video! but your point is correct, anyway.