I’m British, and I think I’m fairly good about identifying the handwriting of mainstream Americans. Or at least, Anglo-Saxon Americans - and most of my girlfriends (and many, many adult friends) have been American, for some reason. There are definite characteristics to the cursiveness, the letters, the style, that is unmistakeable.
Now, if this is true, what does it say? For me, it indicates they have had a fairly similar schooling, a common thread of instruction and training - and ‘pressure’. I use that word advisedly. Education means ‘drawing out’, but it also indicates a putting-in, a pressure to conform or follow the instructions. After all, if you are told to do something, what is that but pressure?
If this is true, and if it’s true that ‘give me a child until he’s 7, and he’s mine for life’ as the Jesuits say, it seems to me that graphology makes sense. If I can tell their culture and education from their handwriting, there’s a likelihood I can tell their general background, and even their political views. (e.g. “XYZ-style handwriting means they are on balance likely to approve of their government’s politics” - that’s common sense, in a democracy)
The converse is Graphotherapy, and I think Cecil should touch on it. Graphotheraphy is the theory that if there is a personal characteristic that shows in handwriting (i.e. graphology), there’s an interesting corollary: What if you can change your handwriting: Would you then be a different person?
Graphotheraphy holds out that tantalising prospect. And it makes sense to me. If I can buck the years and anguish of the bastard handwriting teachers who beat my character into me, then with any luck I can outwit my education - and the teachers and parents who made me what I don’t want to be!