# 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:** 3
**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 17, 2014, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/graphology/704751/41 "2014-11-17T02:26:59Z")
But why, specifically, would any of this have to do with handwriting? It’s like saying that highly successful people tend to cook alike. After all, why shouldn’t their good genes be expressed in similar taste buds? Or maybe death row convicts all had similar skull structures. Maybe if we used more science we could determine that any skull that’s a little smaller in one point actually puts pressure on the part of the brain that regulates every individuals’ propensity toward boyscoutism or serial killing. Each of those theories sound equally plausible to handwriting being an indicator of character. ---
**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, 2:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/graphology/704751/42 "2014-11-17T02:54:27Z")
The OP obviously (a) did not understand my questions just above or (b) flat out ignored them because (1) he or she knows it’s bunk or (2) is emotionally-invested in the woo of graphology. So, OP, care to try again, but this time answer all 3 questions instead of providing unsupported opinions for just one and labelling them as though they’re answering all 3? By the way, my handwriting has suffered a lot over the years because I suffer from tremors. Last I checked–with an actual practitioner of an actual science–tremors are not indicative of any personality trait whatsover. Nor, as it happens, is the severely broken metacarpus (the outside one) in my writing hand. Graphology, the junk “science”, tars a real science, that of questioned document examination, aka [graphanalysis](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Questioned_document_examination#Handwriting_examinations). ---
**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, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/graphology/704751/43 "2014-11-17T03:29:30Z")
> [@Monty](#): > > The OP obviously (a) did not understand my questions just above or (b) flat out ignored them because (1) he or she knows it’s bunk or (2) is emotionally-invested in the woo of graphology. So, OP, care to try again, but this time answer all 3 questions instead of providing unsupported opinions for just one and labelling them as though they’re answering all 3? > > By the way, my handwriting has suffered a lot over the years because I suffer from tremors. Last I checked–with an actual practitioner of an actual science–tremors are not indicative of any personality trait whatsover. Nor, as it happens, is the severely broken metacarpus (the outside one) in my writing hand. > > Graphology, the junk “science”, tars a real science, that of questioned document examination, aka [graphanalysis](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Questioned_document_examination#Handwriting_examinations). Monty, I can’t answer all your questions so I will simply address them. My definition of a science as it applies to graphology would be an ability to consistently identify the approx level of existence of a predetermined set of values, traits and possible resulting behaviors. I would be happy with 80% certainty. ``` I feel #1 and #3 I did answer. Ifeel strongly that a useful science exists here because I feel sufficient right conclusions have been drawn to establsih it as having potential even though the vast majority is junk destroying and chance of acceptability at its current level. ``` #3, actually doing the graphology work up and report would be childs play in comparison to the work and research needed to isolate identifiable traits into their most basic form. But not as daunting as it may appear on the surface. I would say go back to basics, build a tree just as you would an accounting program. We are much more similar as humans than we are different. Establish what might be considered main accounts but a very limited number, maybe 10. If we can learn how to identify the main accounts then we can move on to the sub accounts etc. I would bet that you could find enough members of these graphology groups to volunteer to do some controlled studies. I would imagine this is happening as we speak. At some point it should all come together if they are using a decent research format. ---
**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, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/graphology/704751/44 "2014-11-17T03:47:05Z")
> [@HoneyBadgerDC](#): > > I would bet that you could find enough members of these graphology groups to volunteer to do some controlled studies. I would imagine this is happening as we speak. At some point it should all come together if they are using a decent research format. Of course you can bet, but that they will follow and accept the results? That already has been done too. From the linked Quack Watch report: > [@](#): > > Of course, graphologists hotly contest the foregoing conclusions, claiming that the tests that belittle their abilities are unfair and irrelevant. The fact remains, however, that, in many of the best studies, graphologists gave prior approval to the tasks they would be asked to perform and the assessment criteria; i.e., they were willing participants until the negative results became known. > > **Often graphological societies nominated their best to represent them in these tests. In one rigorous series of studies, by Klimoski and his colleagues, the graphologists were so confident they would excel that they even funded the projects**. They agreed at the outset that the assigned tasks were a fair approximation of what they do in their everyday practices. Only when the results turned out disastrously for them did the graphologists begin to quibble about the fairness of the tests, at one point even going so far as to threaten legal action to suppress publication of the results. Summarizing his own research and that of many others, Klimoski concludes, “…a manager receiving solicitations for graphological services or seeing assistance in personnel decision making would be wise to heed the American credo, ‘Caveat Emptor’—let the buyer beware.” [24:263] ---
**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, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/graphology/704751/45 "2014-11-17T04:23:02Z")
Once again, here are the three questions I posed for the OP. [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] The first response was, as another poster mentioned, unsupported opinions, and not responsive at all to questions 2 and 3, I might add. What follows is the OP’s second response to the three questions. > [@HoneyBadgerDC](#): > > Monty, I can’t answer all your questions so I will simply address them. Of course you cannot answer them. Every post you are making in this thread shows you do not know what a science is, nor what science itself is for that matter. > [@](#): > > My definition of a science as it applies to graphology would be an ability to consistently identify the approx level of existence of a predetermined set of values, traits and possible resulting behaviors. I would be happy with 80% certainty. I did not ask that at all. What I asked, in question #2, was what your definition of a real science is. Since you are operating under your own definitions, you really should not have any problem whatsoever answering that question. Note that it does not matter, for the purposes of question #2, how your definition applies to graphology. All that matters is your defintion of “a real science”. So, yet again, _what_ exactly is your definition of a “real science”? Do not provide examples. That’s a list of nouns. What are the shared, required _qualities_ of those nouns that cause them to be included in the set of “HoneyBadgerDCSciences”? > [@](#): > > ``` > I feel #1 and #3 I did answer. > > ``` Feelings ain’t science. Anyway, you are mistaken as you did not answer those questions. > [@](#): > > Ifeel strongly that a useful science exists here because I feel sufficient right conclusions have been drawn to establsih it as having potential even though the vast majority is junk destroying and chance of acceptability at its current level. > > #3, actually doing the graphology work up and report would be childs play in comparison to the work and research needed to isolate identifiable traits into their most basic form. But not as daunting as it may appear on the surface. I would say go back to basics, build a tree just as you would an accounting program. We are much more similar as humans than we are different. Establish what might be considered main accounts but a very limited number, maybe 10. If we can learn how to identify the main accounts then we can move on to the sub accounts etc. > I would bet that you could find enough members of these graphology groups to volunteer to do some controlled studies. I would imagine this is happening as we speak. At some point it should all come together if they are using a decent research format. None of that is coherent. In short you have nothing. Why not simply cut to the chase and admit that you simply want it to be true even though you know it’s woo? ---
**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 17, 2014, 4:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/graphology/704751/46 "2014-11-17T04:36:21Z")
Can any European dopers attest as to whether or not they’ve had to submit a handwriting sample when applying for a job? According to these articles, between 50-75% of French companies use graphology to assess job candidates. [http://news.discovery.com/human/psychology/is-handwriting-analysis-valid-some-employers-think-so-130502.htm](http://news.discovery.com/human/psychology/is-handwriting-analysis-valid-some-employers-think-so-130502.htm) > **[Your handwriting could get you or lose you the job](https://www.theguardian.com/careers/handwriting-analysis)** > > Don't neglect your handwriting - it might just be what lands you your next job It seems a bit unfair to pile on the OP when there are whole countries that also buy into this pseudoscience. It reminds me a bit of fan death. ---
**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, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/graphology/704751/47 "2014-11-17T04:46:16Z")
> [@Erdosain](#): > > It seems a bit unfair to pile on the OP when there are whole countries that also buy into this pseudoscience. It reminds me a bit of fan death. A bad idea is a bad one even if a million people with no experience thinks that it is a good one. So I will also pile up on those nations and companies that are using woo to decide the future of people that could be excellent for a job and think that that woo is a good thing to use to disqualify them. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2014, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/graphology/704751/48 "2014-11-17T05:23:01Z")
It seems to me that the OP believe that graphologists are mostly all incompetent, which explain their dismall failure when their claims are thoroughly tested, except for a select few who actually got it right, this set including his mother. Hence that if his mother were to refound graphology on new basis, this new school of graphology could actually deliver valid results. I’m sure however that the OP would understand what’s wrong with this theory if I was claiming that almost all tarot readers are incompetent (so explaining the lack of evidence in favour of tarot reading), except my father’s first cousin, who has shown to my satisfaction that she can indeed, predict the future, so proving that there’s something real about tarot reading, making it worth investigating again. (FTR, my father’s first cousin did predict to me once something relatively accurate and relatively unexpected, hence my example. Interestingly, after giving a “raw” reading that would have been pretty accurate, she reformulated it so that it was both nicer and more likely, and this new interpretation was, on the other hand, totally off base 😃 ) ---
**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, 5:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/graphology/704751/49 "2014-11-17T05:36:47Z")
[quote=“clairobscur, post:48, topic:704751”] It seems to me that the OP believe that graphologists are mostly all incompetent, which explain their dismall failure when their claims are thoroughly tested, except for a select few who actually got it right, this set including his mother. Hence that if his mother were to refound graphology on new basis, this new school of graphology could actually deliver valid results. ``` I don't see any connection between tarrot reading and graphology. Because of lack of controls graphology came on the market decades before it was ready. It has no other way but to deteriorate before it was even roughly developed. There is no point in continuing to prove its ineffectiveness, this has long been established. I would find a study more interesting that focused on finding aspects that did provide reliable consistent results. If enough positive results were found it could lead the way to more development, if sufficient results were not found in a credible study I could easily accept closing the door on the subject. Under the best of circumstances no matter how much was learned on the subject I doubt that it could ever be usefully implemented by a group of self educated enthusiasts. I am sure there would be exceptions to this but not the rule. ``` ---
**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, 5:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/graphology/704751/50 "2014-11-17T05:44:22Z")
OP: Please read [this](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method) and [this](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_experiment#Double-blind_trials). p.s., I think this bit > [@HoneyBadgerDC](#): > > I don’t see any connection between tarrot > reading and graphology. Because of lack of controls graphology came on the market decades before it was ready. may break the Internet. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2014, 9:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/graphology/704751/51 "2014-11-17T09:29:54Z")
> [@HoneyBadgerDC](#): > > 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. Oh? If you were trying to associate something with success in sales, how would you go about it? The data is liable to be noisy, but you should at least see some correlation. If you saw an inverse correlation, or the noise drowned out the signal, you could reasonably conclude that if the aspect claimed to affect sales is either so minor as to barely matter or has no effect. But this is a poor example, because in psychology we can actually test for certain personality traits with fairly decent accuracy. Say what you will about Meyers-Briggs, but there is some validity to the model, and people who test one way are not likely to retake the test the next day and come out with radically different results. These are the tests that graphology is typically stacked up against. If you find those tests questionable, what does that say about graphology that there’s considerably _less_ concordance among results? ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2014, 9:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/graphology/704751/52 "2014-11-17T09:40:47Z")
> [@Erdosain](#): > > Can any European dopers attest as to whether or not they’ve had to submit a handwriting sample when applying for a job? According to these articles, between 50-75% of French companies use graphology to assess job candidates. I was asked to do so on occasion (although not 50-75%, thank Og) during my long, dark period of unemployment. I’d just type something out in Bradley Hand or Kunstler Script or similar font and send it to them, because fuck those idiots. ---
**Author:** ![Jragon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e19b73/32.png) [@Jragon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jragon)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2014, 9:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/graphology/704751/53 "2014-11-17T09:51:17Z")
As far as I’m willing to go with Graphology is that I think that if I were to give someone trained in handwriting recognition (like the people who analyze signatures and handwritten documents for courts) a huge corpus of my writing, they may be able to classify samples based on my mental state at the time of writing with relative accuracy. I say this because a large corpus provides a reasonable baseline for what my writing looks like in general, and my writing definitely changes form based on various criteria. Anything deeper than that is almost certainly highly suspect. And I’m willing to be proven wrong on the first point. ---
**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, 11:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/graphology/704751/54 "2014-11-17T11:02:35Z")
> [@Jragon](#): > > As far as I’m willing to go with Graphology is that I think that if I were to give someone trained in handwriting recognition (like the people who analyze signatures and handwritten documents for courts) a huge corpus of my writing, they may be able to classify samples based on my mental state at the time of writing with relative accuracy. I say this because a large corpus provides a reasonable baseline for what my writing looks like in general, and my writing definitely changes form based on various criteria. > > Anything deeper than that is almost certainly highly suspect. And I’m willing to be proven wrong on the first point. [Graphology](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphology) is not [questioned document examination](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Questioned_document_examination). ---
**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, 12:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/graphology/704751/55 "2014-11-17T12:11:57Z")
Someday, someone will come on here and post a bunch of utter nonsense about some particular flavor of pseduoscientific woo. They will receive a large number of clear, detailed responses explaining exactly why their particular flavor of woo is total garbage, backed up by science and data. And then, on that day, the poster will read and comprehend those answers, and realize how incredibly idiotic his original stance was. He will thank the Dopers profusely for setting him straight and helping him learn to think critically. Today is not that day. ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2014, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/graphology/704751/56 "2014-11-17T13:13:15Z")
The thing is, such people are never impressed by words like “woo”. Using language like that is self defeating. [The Bad Astronomer explains:](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrFRbGjUtJk) And, by the way, I think you’ve misunderstood what “thinking critically” actually means. ---
**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, 1:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/graphology/704751/57 "2014-11-17T13:24:36Z")
> [@Peter\_Morris](#): > > The thing is, such people are never impressed by words like “woo”. Using language like that is self defeating. > > [The Bad Astronomer explains:](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrFRbGjUtJk) > > And, by the way, I think you’ve misunderstood what “thinking critically” actually means. Then why don’t you directly address her and show us how it’s done? ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2014, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/graphology/704751/58 "2014-11-17T13:29:56Z")
Address \*who \*and show how \*what’s \*done? ---
**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, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/graphology/704751/59 "2014-11-17T13:37:52Z")
> [@Peter\_Morris](#): > > Address \*who \*and show how \*what’s \*done? Address who? **HoneyBadgerDC** , obviously. Show how what’s done? The topic that we are presently talking about: Show us how to convince her that graphology hos already been studied and found to be a dead end. ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2014, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/graphology/704751/60 "2014-11-17T13:49:25Z")
I don’t know enough about graphology tov even start. What I do know is that your behaviour in these threads always has a negative effect? I’ve been trying to point this out to you for years. Maybe one day you’ll listen. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/graphology/704751.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/graphology/704751.md?page=4)