Is Handwriting Analysis valid?

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

https://img401.imageshack.us/img401/5875/pr73.jpg

A Mistake or Murder?

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

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

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

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

Varda
Certified Handwriting Analyst

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

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

Hi,

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

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

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

Following the trial to see how it all unfolds.

Take care,

Varda

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

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

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

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Varda:

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

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

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

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Sara S:

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

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

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

---

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

Hi Marilyn,

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

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

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

till then, be well

Varda

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by meherc:

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Varda:

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

Hi Marilyn,...

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Varda:

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Sara S:

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

---

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

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

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

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

Hey, Dixon,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peace and blessings,

Varda

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

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

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pam VA
Present Stockton and future Guerneville resident

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Varda:

Hey, Dixon,

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

---

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

I see handwriting analysis much the same as Rorshach tests, face reading, art therapy, etc. which all seem to provide some clues to subconscious beliefs, traumas, habits, etc. If we see deep lines in someone's forehead, we may assume that these show frequent worry, concern, or even deep concentration. If someone's mouth is turned down most of the time, it may seem that they're not smiling much, and may be stressed, angry, depressed, or unhappy. (or they may just have had too many Botox treatments) :wink2:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Purpose:

https://www.waccobb.net/forums/wacco...8_15-01-53.png

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

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

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

REGISTRATION LIST

CONFERENCE FACILITATED DISCUSSION SUMMARY

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

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

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

Objectives

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

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

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Varda:

Hey, Dixon,

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

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

---

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

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

Forensic handwriting analysis is empirically validated
Graphology not so much

Pam VA

Dr. Pam,

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dr Pam:

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

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dr Pam:

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

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

...

---

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

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

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

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

https://www.waccobb.net/forums/wacco...8_15-09-18.png

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

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

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

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

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

Sounds pretty damming to me. However...

... as for my own :2cents:... my experience is often that people are pretty consistent. Their personality seems to be revealed in everything they do whether how they dress, car they drive, how they post, whatever... their full complement of actions in the world are a perfect reflection of who they are. When you think about it, it can be no other way.

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

Hi Barry, Shandi and Pam,

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

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

Is it a science?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Research in graphology

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

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

Baruch Nevo,
Graphology Validation Studies in Israel.

List continues here.

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

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

Search Results

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

List Continues here

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Varda:

Research in graphology

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Pam

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers--
Conrad

Pam,

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

See it here.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dr Pam:

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

---

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

... as for my own :2cents:... my experience is often that people are pretty consistent. Their personality seems to be revealed in everything they do whether how they dress, car they drive, how they post, whatever... their full complement of actions in the world are a perfect reflection of who they are. When you think about it, it can be no other way.

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

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

---

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

Pam

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by theindependenteye:

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

---

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

[I handled it - Barry]

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dr Pam:

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

---

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

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.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

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

>>>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

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.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by 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....

---

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

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dian Hardy:

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. :shitstorm: 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.

Quote:

---

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...?

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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"?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Varda:

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

...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."

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dr Pam:

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?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

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. Big Smile

Pam

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!

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

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?

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by theindependenteye:

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.

Quote:

---

...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).

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?"

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dr Pam:

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Life needs a small mystery or two.

---

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by theindependenteye:

.... 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

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

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!”

Quote:

---

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

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..

:2cents:That being said, there may come a time that typewriters are gone and computers become unusable
for some unforeseen reason or circumstances... :pcsmash: ...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,... :hearye: ...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.

Hi, H44!

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Hotspring 44:

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.

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

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Hotspring 44:

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. ...

---

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

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

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.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by 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!

---

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.

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

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

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. ....

---

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.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Varda:

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

---

https://img4-2.realsimple.timeinc.ne...-booth_300.jpg

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. :wink2:

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.....:hmmm:

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. :wink2:

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.....:hmmm:


[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

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:hmmm:.
can you give a link to the web page/s you referred to? Thanks.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Shandi:

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.

---

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

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by 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.

---

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

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Varda:

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?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by 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

---

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

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by 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

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

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

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Hotspring 44:

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?)

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.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by 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:hmmm:.
can you give a link to the web page/s you referred to? Thanks.

---

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.

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.

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

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dr Pam:

Sigh.

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

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by 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


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

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by 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.

---

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.:wink:

Carmel man snaps photo of rare black flamingo
https://extras.mnginteractive.com/li...o.0313%7E1.jpg

q.e.d.

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. :thinking: 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.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Shandi:

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.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Shandi:

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

---

:thumbsup:FWIW, I do (and did) realize that:wink:.

Quote:

---

...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 psychologicalBig Smile.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Shandi:

...
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. :wink:

Quote:

---

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. :waccosun:

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!
:atwork:

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

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?:hmmm:...

...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.:juggle:

Quote:

---

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

---

:thinking::dunno:

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Hotspring 44:

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

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?

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

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

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.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Varda:

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by 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

---

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.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

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.

---

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

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Shandi:

Dixon,

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

---

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).

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dane Christensen:

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.

Quote:

---

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...

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

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by 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).

---

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

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

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

---

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! :tinker:

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.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by 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).

---

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

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

...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. ...

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

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

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

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.

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. :yltype:

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!


:thankyou1: VARDA

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by 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. ....

---

I do several Medline searches a day on various topics, so it is no big deal for me. The list of five abstracts on graphology was far from exhaustive. Those are the ones indexed on Medline that came up when I put in "graphology and personality." Varda had reams of artcles, many of which were outdated or irrelevent. But for all I know, there could have been a truly convincing demonstration in one of those articles from the 1940s. It would still have to pass the test of replicability.

Micro expressions probably will be real science one day, and advertisers will use it to decide which commercial to broadcast to the implant in our brain.

Are there other ways of knowing things besides the scientific method? In all likelihood, there are. We cant put them to any kind of rigorous test, so we can never know for sure of their validity.

We are getting into epistemology and noetics. Those waters are muddy and deep, but certainly worth the risk of drowning.

Pam