# Graphology **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 16, 2014, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/graphology/704751 "2014-11-16T04:16:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![nicky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f0a364/32.png) [@nicky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nicky)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2014, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/graphology/704751/21 "2014-11-16T13:42:03Z")
> [@HoneyBadgerDC](#): > > How do you feel about reading body language? Even animals can read body language to some extent. . I see handwriting as an extended form of body language with much more potential for revealing mind sets. When we listen to a persons voice we hear a tone, a pitch, a rythmn all these same characteristics can come through in handwriting. your comparision with body language illustrates why graphology is nonsense. We may be able to read someone’s body language and determine their immediate mood. What we can’t do is read it and determine their fundamental character. Which is what graphology purports to do. ---
**Author:** ![Erdosain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/erdosain/32/7284_2.png) [@Erdosain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Erdosain)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2014, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/graphology/704751/22 "2014-11-16T13:50:39Z")
My local NPR station had a graphologist on recently and she really sounded like a quack. She said she would never hire a caretaker for a family member without first examining the caretaker’s handwriting, because that would reveal how trustworthy the person was. She was also very worked up that in the United States she wasn’t allowed to testify in courts of law while in Europe she often could. Then she proceeded to give cold readings to writing samples from the staff. It was all really woo. ---
**Author:** ![HoneyBadgerDC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/honeybadgerdc/32/1033_2.png) [@HoneyBadgerDC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HoneyBadgerDC)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2014, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/graphology/704751/23 "2014-11-16T18:18:23Z")
> [@Smeghead](#): > > OK…on what information or data is this belief based? > > Ah. Nothing at all. I see. The belief is loosely based on what I would consider to be accurate assessments of personality traits primarily by my mother and not so much other so called experts. I feel like body language is a good comparison simply because writing is an extension of body language. Body language goes far beyond watching how someone interacts. We all do things very differently, how we eat, walk, wipe our asses, relax, anytime we are doing anything body language is involved. Putting together a useful data base and then interpeting the data could be massive undertaking but using computers not nearly so complex as it might have been 100 years ago. Considerable experise would be needed in grouping specific types for comparisons. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2014, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/graphology/704751/24 "2014-11-16T18:36:10Z")
> [@HoneyBadgerDC](#): > > Putting together a useful data base and then interpeting the data could be massive undertaking but using computers not nearly so complex as it might have been 100 years ago. Considerable experise would be needed in grouping specific types for comparisons. [Studies have already been done, and have come up laughably short.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphology#Lack_of_validity) ---
**Author:** ![Smeghead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f1d935/32.png) [@Smeghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smeghead)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2014, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/graphology/704751/25 "2014-11-16T18:52:16Z")
> [@HoneyBadgerDC](#): > > The belief is loosely based on what I would consider to be accurate assessments of personality traits primarily by my mother and not so much other so called experts. “Personality traits” is an entirely meaningless phrase, scientifically. It is nothing but vagueness that has been exploited by astrologers and other, similar hucksters for centuries. All you have to do is keep your language vague enough, and literally any description can apply to any person. “You feel like people don’t appreciate you enough.” “You sometimes worry about your personal life.” And so on. How do you measure these so-called “personality traits”? How do you determine whether or not they accurately describe the subject? How do you statistically prove that your handwriting analysis is significantly more accurate than a cold reading? Until this work is done, and done properly, this is nothing more than a bunch of hot air. ---
**Author:** ![HoneyBadgerDC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/honeybadgerdc/32/1033_2.png) [@HoneyBadgerDC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HoneyBadgerDC)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2014, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/graphology/704751/26 "2014-11-16T19:13:58Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > [Studies have already been done, and have come up laughably short.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphology#Lack_of_validity) That was an interesting read and seemed to mirror my own mothers conclusions about the state of graphology. She firmly believed it had potential but was highly dissapointed in how far it had come and how much bull shit was being sold. Many of the sciences that attempt to deal with human behavior fall short of their potential because of the difficulty in establishing data points. Interpetation is subjective and relies on subtle nuances not likley to be picked up on by proffessionals. I don’t believe any of these sciences wil reach their full potential until they start to identify, employ and collaborate with individuals who have demonstrated a high level of perception when it comes to behavioral traits. I feel handwriting has a major potential to become a useful tool mainly because it is compact, it can be categorized, stored indefinetly, and if the theory holds true it potentially contains a lot of information. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2014, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/graphology/704751/27 "2014-11-16T19:30:28Z")
Do you really not see the major shortcoming in using your mother as an example of graphology done correctly? Please note I’m not criticizing her views or beliefs, just her method. She starts off by looking at handwriting of people she knows. Then she applies her method to people she doesn’t know well, only she focuses on their positive traits. The people who receive her readings may be generally impressed because who doesn’t like to hear nice things about themselves? At no point is there an objective person being inserted into this process to evaluate the claims. So, let’s say your mother looked at Bob’s handwriting. She knows that last summer Bob stood up to a bully at the ice cream parlor. Then she sees a similarity in John’s handwriting, and tells John that he is the type of person who stands up against injustice or something. John totally agrees. Where is the independent third party who could interject and say that John voted against allowing women into his country club and tends to believe that might makes right? ---
**Author:** ![HoneyBadgerDC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/honeybadgerdc/32/1033_2.png) [@HoneyBadgerDC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HoneyBadgerDC)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2014, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/graphology/704751/28 "2014-11-16T19:51:00Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Do you really not see the major shortcoming in using your mother as an example of graphology done correctly? Please note I’m not criticizing her views or beliefs, just her method. > > She starts off by looking at handwriting of people she knows. Then she applies her method to people she doesn’t know well, only she focuses on their positive traits. The people who receive her readings may be generally impressed because who doesn’t like to hear nice things about themselves? At no point is there an objective person being inserted into this process to evaluate the claims. > > So, let’s say your mother looked at Bob’s handwriting. She knows that last summer Bob stood up to a bully at the ice cream parlor. Then she sees a similarity in John’s handwriting, and tells John that he is the type of person who stands up against injustice or something. John totally agrees. Where is the independent third party who could interject and say that John voted against allowing women into his country club and tends to believe that might makes right? Of course I am aware of these things. She was the first to admit how shallow the supposed science was. Simply becuase she enjoyed it so much she maintained a strong connection to it over several decades and attempted to imporove on her own limited data base. Early on we teased her mercilessly about her hobby but as time went on many of us started taking her more seriously and her free services had become somewhat in demand. She always declined any kind of requests by anyone who would make a career or life judgement based on her readings. The more she studdied the more humble she became but also the more adamant she became about the viability of graphology if it were ever properly researched and developed. She enjoyed communicating with others in the field but grew more and more dissapointed with the progress being made. ---
**Author:** ![Smeghead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f1d935/32.png) [@Smeghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smeghead)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2014, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/graphology/704751/29 "2014-11-16T20:01:59Z")
> [@HoneyBadgerDC](#): > > Of course I am aware of these things. She was the first to admit how shallow the supposed science was. So, you’re aware of and admit that your reasoning for your belief in this pseudoscience is weak and faulty, but you believe it anyway, and at least entertain hope of convincing us to believe in it as well. Are you also willing to admit that this is a completely irrational belief? ---
**Author:** ![HoneyBadgerDC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/honeybadgerdc/32/1033_2.png) [@HoneyBadgerDC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HoneyBadgerDC)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2014, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/graphology/704751/30 "2014-11-16T20:04:13Z")
> [@Smeghead](#): > > So, you’re aware of and admit that your reasoning for your belief in this pseudoscience is weak and faulty, but you believe it anyway, and at least entertain hope of convincing us to believe in it as well. Are you also willing to admit that this is a completely irrational belief? I have never said that I believe in it as it is. I said I believe the potential for a real science exists here. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2014, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/graphology/704751/31 "2014-11-16T20:55:26Z")
> [@HoneyBadgerDC](#): > > I have never said that I believe in it as it is. I said I believe the potential for a real science exists here. Actually, it sounds like you want science to keep studying it until science tells you what you want to hear. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2014, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/graphology/704751/32 "2014-11-17T00:01:19Z")
> [@HoneyBadgerDC](#): > > I have never said that I believe in it as it is. I said I believe the potential for a real science exists here. Three questions for you: [ol][li]_Why_ do you believe there is a “potential for a real science” there?[/li][li]What is _your_ definition of “a real science”?[/li][\*]Care to explain your understanding of the Scientific Method?[/ol] ---
**Author:** ![DingoelGringo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9d8465/32.png) [@DingoelGringo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DingoelGringo)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2014, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/graphology/704751/33 "2014-11-17T00:03:57Z")
I had a stroke a couple of years ago now and my handwriting is no longer legible at all. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2014, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/graphology/704751/34 "2014-11-17T00:26:06Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Maybe a “weak” version? > > Certainly, some things show in handwriting – such as when one is writing in a hurry vs. when one is taking time to write carefully. Those are things considered in handwriting recognition. You can certainly determine to some degree of accuracy if a signature or other writing has been created by a specific person based on known examplars. Even recognition is an inexact science though, it’s easy to tell a fake autograph that’s been photocopied or one that’s been produced by a signature machine, but there’s no way to know way to know for sure whether someone’s signature was genuine or produced by a skilled forger based on the handwriting alone. Graphology though is nonsense, people are taught writing. Perhaps it’s a fair indicator of a person’s fine motor skills, but nothing near conclusive can be determined. ---
**Author:** ![Smeghead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f1d935/32.png) [@Smeghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smeghead)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2014, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/graphology/704751/35 "2014-11-17T00:40:12Z")
> [@HoneyBadgerDC](#): > > I have never said that I believe in it as it is. I said I believe the potential for a real science exists here. That’s splitting a nonexistent hair. You’re trying to argue that something exists when there’s absolutely no reason for it to beyond the fact that you really think it SHOULD exist. That’s nothing to be ashamed of - humans are hard-wired to take a few spurious coincidences and extrapolate wildly from that. It’s just that a few smart people figured out a long time ago that such extrapolations tend to lead us hugely astray, and so invented science to fix it. ---
**Author:** ![HoneyBadgerDC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/honeybadgerdc/32/1033_2.png) [@HoneyBadgerDC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HoneyBadgerDC)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2014, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/graphology/704751/36 "2014-11-17T00:52:34Z")
[quote=“Monty, post:32, topic:704751”] Three questions for you: [ol][li]_Why_ do you believe there is a “potential for a real science” there?[/li][li]What is _your_ definition of “a real science”?[/li][li]Care to explain your understanding of the Scientific Method?[/ol][/li][/QUOTE] I believe the potential exists for a variety of reasons. #1 Being that handwriting is one of the few example of something truly personalized that humans can actually leave behind as a track. Even more so than art. #2, Handwriting has much in common with body language which is a universally accepted constant amoung humans. Handwriting would be a truer form of body language because we are not directly reacting when we write. #3. Besides the emotional responses involved in body language we are also showing priorities and preferences for things. I suspect much of this is allready well established. The process itself just to establish whether or not it could be appoached scientifically would be relatively easy and straightforward. Identify several traits that could be clearly objectified, find a fair sized amount of people for a study group and then look for the likenesses or consistent similarities in the handwring. I think this would be a first step in deciding if more steps were warranted. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2014, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/graphology/704751/37 "2014-11-17T01:08:33Z")
> [@HoneyBadgerDC](#): > > I believe the potential exists for a variety of reasons. > > #1 Being that handwriting is one of the few example of something truly personalized that humans can actually leave behind as a track. Even more so than art. > > #2, Handwriting has much in common with body language which is a universally accepted constant amoung humans. Handwriting would be a truer form of body language because we are not directly reacting when we write. > > #3. Besides the emotional responses involved in body language we are also showing priorities and preferences for things. I suspect much of this is allready well established. > > The process itself just to establish whether or not it could be appoached scientifically would be relatively easy and straightforward. Identify several traits that could be clearly objectified, find a fair sized amount of people for a study group and then look for the likenesses or consistent similarities in the handwring. > I think this would be a first step in deciding if more steps were warranted. Do you not understand previous posts that have pointed out that this work has _already_ been done, and graphology is an abject failure? Why are you ignoring all these studies? ---
**Author:** ![zoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zoid/32/336_2.png) [@zoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zoid)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2014, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/graphology/704751/38 "2014-11-17T01:11:18Z")
> [@HoneyBadgerDC](#): > > I believe the potential exists for a variety of reasons. > > #1 Being that handwriting is one of the few example of something truly personalized that humans can actually leave behind as a track. Even more so than art. > > #2, Handwriting has much in common with body language which is a universally accepted constant amoung humans. Handwriting would be a truer form of body language because we are not directly reacting when we write. > > #3. Besides the emotional responses involved in body language we are also showing priorities and preferences for things. I suspect much of this is allready well established. > > The process itself just to establish whether or not it could be appoached scientifically would be relatively easy and straightforward. Identify several traits that could be clearly objectified, find a fair sized amount of people for a study group and then look for the likenesses or consistent similarities in the handwring. > I think this would be a first step in deciding if more steps were warranted. Every one of those three statements is your personal opinion and has absolutely zero evidence to back it up. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2014, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/graphology/704751/39 "2014-11-17T01:23:08Z")
> [@HoneyBadgerDC](#): > > The process itself just to establish whether or not it could be appoached scientifically would be relatively easy and straightforward. Identify several traits that could be clearly objectified, find a fair sized amount of people for a study group and then look for the likenesses or consistent similarities in the handwring. > I think this would be a first step in deciding if more steps were warranted. Done: > **[How Graphology Fools People | Quackwatch](https://quackwatch.org/related/Tests/grapho/)** > > To the casual observer, handwriting analysis enjoys greater plausibility than other occult or pseudoscientific ways of reading personality. Take astrology o ... > [@](#): > > In order to answer questions about validity, one must have a criterion for the trait that is supposedly indicated by the measure. If we are evaluating a test that claims to predict superior sales ability, for instance, the criterion might be the agent’s total annual sales or the number of deals closed per number of contacts. An acceptable test would have to show not only that those who ace the test tend to be high on such criteria but also that those who do poorly end up at the bottom of the sales charts [24]. In his worldwide search for empirical evaluations of graphology, Dean [8] unearthed more than 200 studies that had unambiguous criteria of this sort and were acceptable with respect to sample sizes, experimental controls, statistical analyses, etc. After subjecting these studies to a meta-analysis, Dean showed that graphologists have failed unequivocally to demonstrate the validity or reliability of their art for predicting work performance, aptitudes, or personality. Graphology thus fails according to the standards a genuine psychological test must pass before it can ethically be released for use on an unsuspecting public. > > Dean found that no particular school of graphology fared better than any other, belying the smug claims of Graphoanalysis that it is scientifically superior to its rivals. In fact, no graphologist of any stripe was able to show reliably better performance than untrained amateurs making guesses from the same materials. In the vast majority of studies, neither group exceeded chance expectancy. And as that first step has failed repeatedly, it is clear then that **a preliminary step** still needs to be done, namely that all the Graphology groups stop the bickering and agree on standards. Unfortunately so far it looks like the first item noted in that article in Quack Watch is taking place. > [@](#): > > The term “Graphoanalysis” is the registered trademark of a particular school of handwriting analysis, the International Graphoanalysis Society, of Chicago, Illinois. In this chapter “graphology” and “handwriting analysis” will be used interchangeably but “Graphoanalysis” or “Graphoanalyst” will refer only to followers of the Chicago school. Founded in 1929, it is the best-established of the training organizations. It offers mail-order courses, publishes its own journal, and confers official-sounding certification on its graduates. Graphoanalysts are also the most vocal in claiming scientific status while denying that of their rivals [1]. Seems to me that if you want to press the issue it looks like if you are ready to start the 39th graphologist society 🙂 , not very helpful unless the results are published in a peer reviewed journal. So rather than looking like a scientific endeavor this looks more like pseudoscience indeed. > [@](#): > > **Such backbiting among graphological factions is frequent.** There are over thirty graphological societies in the U.S. alone, with many using methods that a proponent says are “not easily combined with other systems.” [2] **This lack of standardization is compounded by the fact that many local practitioners make up their own intuitive schemes**. While there are some concepts common to most systems of handwriting analysis, there are equally notable disputes as to what the various “signs” mean. Take, for instance, two books by internationally known graphologists that I reviewed: one considers a certain way of crossing t’s indicative of a vicious, sadistic temperament, the other says it’s a sign of a practical joker. Which do you hope is advising your boss? ---
**Author:** ![HoneyBadgerDC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/honeybadgerdc/32/1033_2.png) [@HoneyBadgerDC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HoneyBadgerDC)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2014, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/graphology/704751/40 "2014-11-17T02:19:21Z")
The sales example used above would be a good example of something not to use. Most things performance based would be defective for the simple reason that we are often successful at things for very different reasons. ``` I would think that if you took 100 examples of people who were highly successful in mathematics you may find a smaller cross section of types than you would with something as broad as sales which can be affected by personnal appearance, physical characteristics, likeablity and numerous other things. ``` If you took examples from 100 murderers on death row you may find on closer examination 50 very different types of killers. Behaviors might only be an indicator of where to look for something. The important thing would be to make sure a trait was comming from the same emotional place, verified by a series of other similar traits indicative of the studied primary trait. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/graphology/704751.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/graphology/704751.md?page=3)