# Not Worthless --- Just Not Very Good

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/not-worthless-just-not-very-good/209283>\
**Category:** Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports\
**Created:** [October 24, 2003, 8:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/not-worthless-just-not-very-good/209283 "2003-10-24T08:23:26Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 5\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Hydrocortisone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e19b73/32.png) [@Hydrocortisone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hydrocortisone)\
**Post date:** [October 24, 2003, 8:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/not-worthless-just-not-very-good/209283/1 "2003-10-24T08:23:26Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> Dean reports that, as an indicator of personality and IQ, graphology does better than astrology, palmistry, and phrenology (the study of bumps on the skull) but considerably worse than conventional IQ tests and personality inventories. Conclusion: Graphology is worthless as a predictor of personality.

How can it worthless? It does better than astrology, palmistry, and phrenology. So it has more worth than these techniques.  
[http://www.straightdope.com/columns/031024.html](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/031024.html)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Dogface](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9d8465/32.png) [@Dogface](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dogface)\
**Post date:** [October 24, 2003, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/not-worthless-just-not-very-good/209283/2 "2003-10-24T15:28:32Z")

</div>

Well, there are different levels of “not worthless”. Were I a personnel executive, “better than astrology, palmistry, and phrenology” would be grossly insufficient to recommend a technique.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Askance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/askance/32/8281_2.png) [@Askance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Askance)\
**Post date:** [October 27, 2003, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/not-worthless-just-not-very-good/209283/3 "2003-10-27T03:52:36Z")

</div>

“astrology, palmistry, and phrenology” could be of negative worth. Then graphology could be worthless but still better than them.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Hydrocortisone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e19b73/32.png) [@Hydrocortisone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hydrocortisone)\
**Post date:** [October 27, 2003, 7:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/not-worthless-just-not-very-good/209283/4 "2003-10-27T07:13:14Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> “astrology, palmistry, and phrenology” could be of negative worth. Then graphology could be worthless but still better than them.

Well, that still doesn’t _prove_ it is worthless.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![dakravel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85e7bf/32.png) [@dakravel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dakravel)\
**Post date:** [October 27, 2003, 8:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/not-worthless-just-not-very-good/209283/5 "2003-10-27T08:12:33Z")

</div>

You’d have as much luck in predicting a person’s personality by examining the wrinkles in their forehead.  
Imagine you’re given a multiple choice test with 5 answers per question. Someone chooses all “A”, and gets about 15% right. Someone else chooses all “C” and gets about 17% right. I choose entirely randomly and get 20% right. My entirely random choosing did better than either of those two, but random guessing would still be a ‘worthless’ method of taking tests.