Quality of Handwriting Analysis study

[Bill_H]

Back in http://www.straightdope.com/columns/030418.html, the Perfect Master wrote

More than 200 objective scientific studies have demonstrated that graphology is worthless as a predictor of personality.

After I whined a bit, he addressed me (yay!) and said

The cite for the Dean study is: Dean G., “The bottom line: Effect size,” in Beyerstein B.L., Beyerstein D.F., editors, The Write Stuff: Evaluations of Graphology – The Study of Handwriting Analysis, Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 1992, pp 269-341.

To be charitable, I overstated the case when I wrote in my column, “More than 200 objective scientific studies have demonstrated that graphology is worthless as a predictor of personality.” That makes it sounds like 200 independent investigations found that graphology was worthless, whereas in fact that was the conclusion of one researcher examining 200 studies.

and then modified the article to read

A meta-analysis of 200 scientific studies of graphology by Geoffery A. Dean (published in The Write Stuff: Evaluations of Graphology–The Study of Handwriting Analysis, edited by Barry L. Beyerstein and Dale F. Beyerstein, Prometheus Books, 1992) found that it was worthless as a predictor of personality.

Ok, that is technically accurate, in the sense that Dean did say that. But an analysis of Dean’s study finds several serious flaws that I’ll lay out below. I propose that this is not a good enough study to draw the conclusion drawn.

First off, let me define what I believe is in contention. I propose simply that elements of personality are reflected in handwriting. That’s all. And that’s exactly what is claimed is not true in the column (“it was worthless as a predictor of personality”). I specifically do not claim
[ul]
[li]that this is useful for any purpose, such as psychiatric evaluation or personnel selection or evaluation.[/li][li]that people who practice handwriting analysis are either honest, scientific or consistent in their evaluation[/li][li]that ALL or even most personality traits that are claimed to be reflected by some are actually reflected.[/li][/ul]
All right, let’s dig in.

In the introduction, Dean presents quotes from the pro-Graphology side, and the “Scientific” side. Seeing as how the quotes on the pro-side include quotes from psychics and contain claims like “Handwriting analysis can help you in your search for whatever it is you want out of life”, and seeing how Dean labels the opposing side as “Views of Scientists,” Dean sets the stage that he’s about to debunk some extremists making extreme claims, and from that result move on to claim the entire field is fraudulent.

Next, Dean lays out what he will test. He is clear that he will not test “Is graphology true? Does it work? Is it real?,” but instead test “about extent.” Which is a fair thing to test, but that isn’t what is claimed in Cecil’s column. Cecil’s column claims that the answers to “Is it true? Does it work? Is it real?” are no, no and no. Which should invalidate this study right off the bat. But there’s a lot more.

Next, Dean throws Reliability into the mix. In other words, Dean evaluates how similar two Handwriting Analysts evaluations are of a single sample (or of how one Analyst compares against himself in a later evaluation). Which is also an interesting test, but again not what is in dispute here. Just because two graphologists come to different conclusions does not in any way refute the idea that one of the conclusions was accurate and reproducible.

Now comes Dean’s boldest act of non-science in this study. First, he states

Take the two biggest single determinants of human behavior and destiny, namely, sex and intelligence. Many studies have shown that non-graphologist judges can pick sex from handwriting with 60 to 70 percent accuracy (effect size .20 to .40), or even more when only their most confident judgments are counted. (table showing details omitted)

Similarly many studies have shown that lay and graphologist judges can judge intelligence from handwriting with comparable accuracy, the effect size averaging around .30 (Michel 1969). As expected, it gets easier as the IQ differences increase, leading to an increase in the effect size. (table showing details omitted)

Big differences are just as detectable in other areas. (…) Figure 2 shows how easy it is to distinguish between extreme IQs, between the artistry of the artist and the tremor of the alcoholic, and between being sober and blind drunk.

Wow! Those three paragraphs basically seal the claim that some personality is reflected in handwriting, with an especially strong effect. And not just any personality traits; the two “biggest determinants of human behavior and destiny” in his words. As I say, that should seal it, so how does Dean deal with this obstacle?
He removes these factors from his study
That’s right. The two most important personality traits by his own definition, which have a very strong effect are removed from the study, leaving traits with weaker (or negative) effects in the remaining averages. Why? Dean doesn’t say. He just casually mentions that they were excluded and marches forward.

Now for the second boldest act of non-science: Dean does not define what personality traits are accepted as part of his analysis. (except the two most important by his own definition, which were discarded without reason). None. Are some of the studies predicting what a reasonable studier of the field would consider to have strong effect sizes such as extraversion? Or ones that a reasonable studier would consider having no effect (or even negative effect) such as whether the subject as an employee will sell his quota next quarter. Oh wait, that particular one is listed as in the study in a side-note, but I digress.

Using this data, of which we know nothing about except that it has dis-included the most important and most favorable data, Dean concludes that Handwriting has a low effect size in predicting whatever it is he’s testing it to predict. Which he describes as “undeniably dismal” and goes on to quote the typical arguments against his conclusion, but of course don’t mention the “what are you actually studying?” one.

Dean then goes on to demonstrate that Handwriting Analysis can predict IQ with a .29 effect size (which is very good, slightly below the effect of comparing how a score on a law school ability text will predict a first year law grade). However, he uses this to demonstrate a negative point, that this prediction of IQ is nowhere near as accurate as actually taking an IQ test for example. Which is true, but not relevant towards our inquiry. In fact, quite the opposite; we are looking for a correlation, and Dean has found it. The fact that there are other better ways of determining personality is not under question.

Finally, Dean concludes that yes, graphology is valid, but the validity factor is not very high (again because he’s doctored and hidden the input), and the reliability is low (which as discussed is not relevant to the discussion of whether it’s a predictor), and ultimately he says it is “not useful” because “other methods are better.” Which is true (it doesn’t stack up against an interview with a psychiatrist for example), but irrelevant to the point that yes, handwriting analysis does predict personality.

By the way, one of the first things one notices about Dean’s text is that better then half of it isn’t about handwriting analysis, but rather about the math behind statistics. Which is not bad in itself. But it brings back an immediate image of The Bell Curve, which took a similar tack (and was also severely attacked on the question of credibility). When one tells you over and over that this is scientific, you start to wonder just how scientific it really is.

[zut]

Couple comments:

Originally posted by Bill H.
[Re: graphology, sex and intelligence]
Wow! Those three paragraphs basically seal the claim that some personality is reflected in handwriting, with an especially strong effect. And not just any personality traits; the two “biggest determinants of human behavior and destiny” in his words. As I say, that should seal it, so how does Dean deal with this obstacle?
He removes these factors from his study
That’s right. The two most important personality traits by his own definition, which have a very strong effect are removed from the study, leaving traits with weaker (or negative) effects in the remaining averages. Why? Dean doesn’t say. He just casually mentions that they were excluded and marches forward.

Well, now, wait a minute. The specific claim is that “elements of personality are reflected in handwriting.” To me, sex and intelligence are not personality traits. Sex is a physical (and social, to some extent) trait. From past experience, I’d be surprised if sex were not reflected in handwriting. I imagine the reason being that little girls are socialized to write differently than little boys. Intelligence is, well, intelligence. I imagine intelligence is linked with greater literacy, wider reading, and more practice writing. Again, I’d be surprised if there were not a correlation.

To me, “personality trait” implies aggressiveness, or honesty, or dependableness, or sense of humor, or whatever. Not sex or intelligence. Or age or hand size for that matter.

You do have some other good points about what the study is testing, though. I’d like to see some explanation of what traits were tested and what the methodology was before I make up my mind one way or t’other.

[Bill_H]

zut wrote

Sex is a physical (and social, to some extent) trait. From past experience, I’d be surprised if sex were not reflected in handwriting. I imagine the reason being that little girls are socialized to write differently than little boys.

Sex is both a physical attribute and a personality/social trait. There is much more to the differences (on average) between the sexes then just the genitalia. For example, if you know a persons main interests you can take a pretty good guess at their sex, and that doesn’t involve the shape of their genitals at all. Whether girls and boys are born different or taught different isn’t relevant here. What is relevant is that in fact they are different, and their handwriting is different, and a scientific mind wonders why this is so.

Girls and boys are taught to write the same. There is never a pull from their teachers, their parents or their peers towards a “female writing style” or a male one. Yet they unquestionably end up diverging. Not because of their physical bodies (a man doesn’t write with his penis).

Intelligence is, well, intelligence. I imagine intelligence is linked with greater literacy, wider reading, and more practice writing. Again, I’d be surprised if there were not a correlation.

Well, Mirriam-Webster defines personality as:

the complex of characteristics that distinguishes an individual or a nation or group; especially : the totality of an individual’s behavioral and emotional characteristics

If sex and intelligence don’t fall into the bucket of “an individual’s behavioral and emotional characteristics,” I don’t know what does.

To me, “personality trait” implies aggressiveness, or honesty, or dependableness, or sense of humor, or whatever.

Let’s take a hypothetical. What if my quote above had mentioned sex, intelligence and aggressiveness. One could then make the argument that aggressiveness should be thrown out as well because an aggressive personality is likely to write aggressively, just as you disqualified the intelligence trait because intelligent people write intelligently. The thing is, this is just the point. The theory behind handwriting analysis is that indeed people do reflect their internal interests and attributes (i.e. their personality) in the things they do, including the way they write.

You do have some other good points about what the study is testing, though. I’d like to see some explanation of what traits were tested and what the methodology was before I make up my mind one way or t’other.

Thank you. And this is what I’d like to see Cecil do as well.

[zut]

I think, though, that many of us have seen sex-linked differences in handwriting. I’ve seen stereotypically “girly” writing, for instance, with loopy letters, pink ink, and little hearts dotting the i’s. Why is this? I dunno; I’d guess learning gender roles at a young age from one’s peers might explain it, but I don’t really know. How extensive are gender differences? I don’t know, but learning that sex can be predicted on a better-than-random basis through handwriting would not surprise me at all.

More to the point, learning that sex can be predicted on a better-than-random basis through handwriting (although interesting in and of itself) would not influence my opinion on the validity of predicting other traits through handwriting. Different bird. Many engineers I know write in blocky all-caps; a learned trait left over from drafting boards. IDing an engineer based on this would be unsurprising. (Incidentally, while I was surfing, I found this pro-graphology site, which claims that gender cannot be determined through handwriting. Surprising.)

As for intelligence, I would think that intelligence (especially when considering large differences in IQ) would be directly linked to literacy and practice in writing. Stands to reason that someone who can barely spell and only rarely holds a pencil would have different handwriting than Carl Sagan, particularly if they’re choosing thier own passages to write. However, I’d be suitably impressed with some correlation between intelligence and handwriting if other factors were removed.

Just so you don’t think I’m throwing up objections after the fact, let me point out that I hypothesized in this post in the previous thread that it seemed to me that sex and literacy (among other things) may explain handwriting, these criteria being seperate from personality traits.

[Bill_H]

zut wrote

I think, though, that many of us have seen sex-linked differences in handwriting. I’ve seen stereotypically “girly” writing, for instance, with loopy letters, pink ink, and little hearts dotting the i’s. Why is this? I dunno; I’d guess learning gender roles at a young age from one’s peers might explain it, but I don’t really know.

Yes, but the fact that it’s obvious doesn’t negate the point, or make it a valid candidate for removal from study. In fact, the opposite is true. Why do girls write in a similar fashion, and boys in a certain other fashion, when both were trained the same way? As a boy, I don’t recall being pressured by other boys to write like them. I don’t recall being pressured by teachers or parents or anyone else to “write like a man”. And the same holds true for women. There’s clear divergence, and there is some reason. And it isn’t the physical attributes (my genitals have never been near a pencil), so that leaves the mental ones.

The fact that they are different validates the point that who you are shapes how you write. And the fact that it’s so “obvious” as to not even require scientific validation only enhances the point.

As for intelligence, I would think that intelligence (especially when considering large differences in IQ) would be directly linked to literacy and practice in writing. Stands to reason that someone who can barely spell and only rarely holds a pencil would have different handwriting than Carl Sagan, particularly if they’re choosing thier own passages to write. However, I’d be suitably impressed with some correlation between intelligence and handwriting if other factors were removed.

If it’s based on literacy and practice in writing, then one would expect the smarter writer to use better grammar, spelling and choice of words, and neater writing. And in fact those aren’t the things that are looked at. Instead, what’s looked at are the speed of the writing, the tightness of certain areas, the simplicity (removing un-necessary strokes), and finding ways to reduce strokes through optimization (by crossing two t’s with one stroke for example), amonst other things.
Also, Dean says that a lay person can detect intelligence through the style of the writing, that it’s again “obvious”. This isn’t related to choices of words or misspellings or other contextual clues.

[Hilarity_N.Suze]

*Originally posted by Bill H. *
Why do girls write in a similar fashion, and boys in a certain other fashion, when both were trained the same way? As a boy, I don’t recall being pressured by other boys to write like them. I don’t recall being pressured by teachers or parents or anyone else to “write like a man”. And the same holds true for women. There’s clear divergence, and there is some reason.

People learn a certain form in writing–what they’re taught–and only begin deviating from it once they’ve mastered it (or, if they’re in school, when they won’t be marked off for changing it). My handwriting does not resemble the penmanship form I learned except superficially. However, when I write in Russian–which I’m learning–I aim for exact duplication of the handwriting model.
I do have a point, which is that the age when we feel comfortable enough to deviate from the model is usually puberty, and at that time most people are under a great deal of peer pressure. It seems likely to me that, for instance, 6th grade boys, noting that girls dotted their i’s with little hearts, would collectively and instinctively resolve never to do that. That’s an obvious example. It’s probably one of those things that just happens, picked up almost unconsciously from peers, the way 1st-graders “just happen” to start drawing the sky as a strip of blue at the top of their page, the ground as a strip of green on the bottom, and the sun radiating out from a corner.

[Bill_H]

Cicada2003 wrote

People learn a certain form in writing–what they’re taught–and only begin deviating from it once they’ve mastered it (or, if they’re in school, when they won’t be marked off for changing it). My handwriting does not resemble the penmanship form I learned except superficially. However, when I write in Russian–which I’m learning–I aim for exact duplication of the handwriting model.

Yes, this is the theory in handwriting analysis. Everyone in a given culture is taught to write the same way, and after they become comfortable in their taught style, they begin diverging to make their style their own. And the individual changes they make from the norm are made for a reason; they are made because they reflect attributes of the person making them.

I do have a point, which is that the age when we feel comfortable enough to deviate from the model is usually puberty, and at that time most people are under a great deal of peer pressure. It seems likely to me that, for instance, 6th grade boys, noting that girls dotted their i’s with little hearts, would collectively and instinctively resolve never to do that.

That may well be so (although my personal opinion is that I don’t think so as noone I know has conciously experienced this.) However, the “whys” are not as important as the fact that it does happen. That women do tend to write in a similar way, as do men. They write in such a way to reflect their personality.

[zut]

*Originally posted by Bill H. *
[Re: sex-linked differences in writing]
Yes, but the fact that it’s obvious doesn’t negate the point, or make it a valid candidate for removal from study. In fact, the opposite is true. Why do girls write in a similar fashion, and boys in a certain other fashion, when both were trained the same way? As a boy, I don’t recall being pressured by other boys to write like them. I don’t recall being pressured by teachers or parents or anyone else to “write like a man”. And the same holds true for women. There’s clear divergence, and there is some reason. And it isn’t the physical attributes (my genitals have never been near a pencil), so that leaves the mental ones.

It seems plausible to me that sex-linked differences in handwriting could be due to social expectations of girls and boys (much like Cicada2003 pointed out). I doubt that would be felt on a conscious level. And the resulting differences would be because boys and girls are in different social groups, not because of personality differences.

As an analogy, I’ve observed that engineers tend to write neatly and doctors tend to write sloppily. Differentiating among writing samples from these two groups would seem easy to me: it’s strictly based on profession, not personality. Since profession is self-selected, I’ll grant that there may be underlying personality traits that, in general, are posessed by a higher percentage of engineers than doctors (and vice-versa), but it seems obvious that the requirements of the job are driving the characteristics of the writing, not the underlying personality traits. In the same way, socialization into the group at an early age could explain sex differences in writing, regardless of any other personality traits.

[Re: intelligence]
Also, Dean says that a lay person can detect intelligence through the style of the writing, that it’s again “obvious”. This isn’t related to choices of words or misspellings or other contextual clues.

Waitaminute; explanation, please. “Style of the writing”, to me, means choice of words, construction of sentences, and so forth. Y’know, “writing style”. Is this what Dean means?

---

Actually, let me say one other thing. Personally, I would be unsurprised if it were proven that handwriting experts could differentiate people on the basis of sex, or certain professions, or level of schooling, or handedness. This would be because of some very plausible underlying reasons: socialization in a group (sex), conscious valuation of different writing styles (profession), amount of practice writing (schooling), or physical differences (handedness).

It doesn’t matter how obvious differences in writing are, what matters is why they arise. Being in a different social group is not a personality trait. Having a different job is not a personality trait. Dropping out of school is not a personality trait. Being a lefty is not a personality trait. What would impress me would be a study that eliminated the effects of things that are not personality traits.

I expect that you might not agree with that, so let me propose a compromise. I agree (based on what you reported Dean said) that gender can be predicted with reasonable certainty from handwriting. I would be very interested in learning exactly why this is the case, but neither of us knows for certain. Now, just because sex can be determined from handwriting, that has no bearing on whether or not personality traits (or, if you prefer, other personality traits) like honesty or loyalty can be predicted. And, if you think about it, I expect you’d agree that when the general public hears “personality trait”, they think honesty or loyalty before gender.

[Musicat]

So, Bill H., have you abandoned the Validity of graphology thread you yourself started where you promised to read the WHOLE book, not just one chapter?

posted by Bill H.
I absolutely agree and I certainly will read them [the other chapters]

How about the one that compares graphology to sympathetic magic?

[Bill_H]

uh, Musicat. Pal. You couldn’t possibly have taken my post further out of context. Here is what you skipped:

I absolutely agree and I certainly will read them. But that’s beside the point. We are collectively here (in this thread), because of a (now-modified) claim by Cecil, which specifically calls out the Dean chapter. First things first.

I’m not here to critique Beyerstein’s work. And I’m only here to critique Dean’s for the simple reason that it’s the sole source of Cecil’s claim.

I propose that Cecil has based his column on a faulty premise and a faulty study to back that premise. That’s what we’re here to talk about.

[Bill_H]

zut wrote

As an analogy, I’ve observed that engineers tend to write neatly and doctors tend to write sloppily. Differentiating among writing samples from these two groups would seem easy to me: it’s strictly based on profession, not personality.

But now you’ve contradicted your argument about intelligence, where you said that “practice in writing” is a key component. Both Engineers and Doctors are likely more intelligent then the average person. Yet their “practice in writing,” i.e. their skill in actual penmanship is distinctly different. And yet a lay person can look at them both and project that they are by intelligent people.

In the same way, socialization into the group at an early age could explain sex differences in writing, regardless of any other personality traits.

I’ve said this repeatedly, but I’ll say it again: it doesn’t matter why it’s true. What’s under contention is whether it is true. And Dean’s study as well as your real-live observations say that indeed it is true.

Waitaminute; explanation, please. “Style of the writing”, to me, means choice of words, construction of sentences, and so forth.

My bad phrasing. I meant “style of handwriting,” i.e. the form of the letters and words.

It doesn’t matter how obvious differences in writing are, what matters is why they arise.

Well, I’m sorry to say “it’s my football, play my way,” but the sole reason I posted this thread was to dispute a claim by Cecil. And that claim was purely “how obvious the differences in writing are.” As it turns out, I, like you am very interested in learning the why’s as well, but that’s a different topic for a different day.

And, if you think about it, I expect you’d agree that when the general public hears “personality trait”, they think honesty or loyalty before gender.

Well, in this phrasing, that’s true. But… let’s look at what’s really claimed and really interesting here. Basically, a handwriting analyst looks at some data and answers the question “tell me about this person.” What does the inquirer really want to know? Oh, lots of things of course. But sex and intelligence are very high on that list.

Also, in the phrasing you propose (“when the general public hears ‘personality trait’”), I suspect intelligence does fall into that bucket.

And in the dictionary definition quoted earlier, both fall in.

[Musicat]

So, Bill H., if you don’t feel it is appropriate to critique the remainder of Beyerstein’s book (of which Dean’s work is only one chapter) in this thread, how about doing it in the other thread Validity of Graphology? Surely that topic heading would encompass the discussion of “The Write Stuff,” which has chapters like:[ul][]The problem of the validation of graphological judgments[]Graphology and personnel selection[]The origins of graphology in sympathetic magic[]Graphology and human judgment[]Difficulties in assessing personality and predicting behavior[]The present status of research on handwriting psychology[/ul]

[Duck_Duck_Goose]

Why can’t we just do the Great Straght Dope Graphology Writeoff and see whether graphology is valid or not? What happened to that, anyway? It was going good in the planning stages, I thought, then it fizzled.

[Bill_H]

Friend Musicat, it isn’t an issue of the post having the right title. I opened that thread for the same reason I opened this one: it was a letter to Cecil, taking issue with one of his columns. If I could’ve emailed it to him, I would’ve; but this is the chosen medium of the Chicago Reader to corespond with him. The sole point of this discussion (in my eyes) is the content of a particular Cecil column, which included his research into a topic of interest to me.

Now… I am interested in others research as well, including your own. Enough so that I bought a book you recommended, and have read a portion of it. And in due time, I’ll read the rest. But here’s the key: right now in my life, I don’t have the time to do research. I can make enough time to validate some of the research of others, but not enough to do the real legwork myself. Which is why we’re here. Cecil did some research, and I have concerns with it.

[Bill_H]

Duck Duck Goose wrote

Why can’t we just do the Great Straght Dope Graphology Writeoff and see whether graphology is valid or not? What happened to that, anyway? It was going good in the planning stages, I thought, then it fizzled.

I will gladly make myself available for this purpose. However, a few notes:

a) In order for the study to be truly valid, it must involve more of a random sample then can be found on this board, and it must involve a good number of subjects. Too few subjects means inaccuracy. Dean in his work found a number of studies that showed hand writing analysis worked, and a number that showed that it didn’t, and he claims this is because of the sample sizes involved. Which I believe is true. So, whatever we do can be interesting, and can have some merit, but it can’t be all-conclusive without some real effort (read: money).

b) For me to be involved, I want everyone involved (myself included) to walk away from the results with a feeling that we’d actually tested something real in a scientific way and come to a relatively firm conclusion (whichever way that may be). One of the reasons I withdrew from my previous offer was that some of the people formulating the rules drew the conclusion that what we had set up would not deliver valid results. And that’s their fair assessment; they are reasonable people. But I’m not going to devote a lot of my time to something where afterwards people say “well that wasn’t a real test.”

c) For me to be involved, I want to have a reasonable amount of fun in the process. That’s not to say it shouldn’t be scientific; it must be. The tone of the process in the last attempt turned drastically away from fun. I’m just not interested in putting alot of time into something where people are yelling at me. Believe me, I’ve got my quota of being yelled at full enough right now.

d) The initial test proposed earlier would’ve consumed alot of my time. Over 40 hours by my estimates. At the time, I didn’t have a problem with that, but in hindsight I realize that was a mistake.

So… I will gladly participate in whatever we want to set up, but it must be something everyone agrees has at least some level of validity, it must not have an extrememe confrontational attitude to it, and it must not consume a large part of my time. Those aside, I’m very interested in doing this.

[zut]

*Originally posted by Bill H. *
[Re: writing differences, doctors vs. engineers]
But now you’ve contradicted your argument about intelligence, where you said that “practice in writing” is a key component. Both Engineers and Doctors are likely more intelligent then the average person. Yet their “practice in writing,” i.e. their skill in actual penmanship is distinctly different. And yet a lay person can look at them both and project that they are by intelligent people.

Oh, c’mon. There’s no contradiction and you know it. I know you don’t believe that handwriting demonstrating one aspect or trait is precluded from demonstrating another aspect or trait. Neither have I claimed that.

I’ve said this repeatedly, but I’ll say it again: it doesn’t matter why it’s true. What’s under contention is whether it is true. And Dean’s study as well as your real-live observations say that indeed it is true.

To be fair, my observations aren’t really proof. Personally, I would expect repeatable differences between doctors and engineers, but it’s not really tested.

Well, I’m sorry to say “it’s my football, play my way,” but the sole reason I posted this thread was to dispute a claim by Cecil. And that claim was purely “how obvious the differences in writing are.” As it turns out, I, like you am very interested in learning the why’s as well, but that’s a different topic for a different day.

And I disagree. To make a stupid exageration, suppose two writing samples are tested: one by a guy writing normally, and one by a guy writing with his feet. It would be unsurprising and totally explainable if the two samples could be differentiated with a high degree of confidence. But I don’t think that would give anyone reasonable confidence in graphology as a whole; in particular, the root cause of the difference is not a “personality trait”. Similarly, I would expect someone with a second-grade education to write differently than someone with a college degree. Any differences would be unsurprising and explainable. And the root cause is not a personality trait.

I guess maybe this is a difference in viewpoint or semantics. I want to know if graphology can accurately predict personality traits that are not linked to non-personality causes. Even if I think sex and intelligence are personality traits (I don’t really, but let’s so stipulate for argument), they seem to me to be intertwined with other things.

Agreed that studying sex and intelligence (or schooling?) differences in handwriting is interesting, and people might want to know those things about a subject. But is that all graphology can do?

[Bill_H]

zut wrote

Oh, c’mon. There’s no contradiction and you know it. I know you don’t believe that handwriting demonstrating one aspect or trait is precluded from demonstrating another aspect or trait. Neither have I claimed that.

Perhaps I misunderstood you then. You said

I imagine intelligence is linked with greater literacy, wider reading, and more practice writing.

and in a later post

As for intelligence, I would think that intelligence (especially when considering large differences in IQ) would be directly linked to literacy and practice in writing.

So, the terms you used, “greater literacy, wider reading” implies the writer uses bigger words, better grammer, better spelling, deeper concepts I assume, yes?
And what does the the term “more practice writing” imply? My assumption was better penmanship.

Which is why I said this was a contradiction with your later statement that doctors write messily and engineers neatly. Both are more intelligent then average, yet “more practice writing” made the engineers writing neater, but didn’t affect the doctors?

There was no insult intended in my comment, just a lack of understanding. Please describe what the result of “more practice writing” is, if it wasn’t what I assumed, namely better penmanship.

Look, the whole claim of handwriting analysis is that people write differently based on who they are. You give the example that someone with a second grade education writes differently then someone with a college degree. The thing is: that is a stroke in favor of hand-writing analysis, not against. Same with sex, same with intelligence, same with with what I say are a host of other things. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t say “well of course handwriting predicts intelligence” and at the same time say “who people are is not reflected in their handwriting”

Now, what are the host of other things that it can predict, and where is the proof that it can predict them? Excellent question, and I’m along with you in dying for the answer. Cecil researched it, came up with what he felt was an adequate study that said “there is no proof”, and I have serious reservations with this. (by the way, it actually said that yes handwriting analysis does predict personality, but not as well as other tests. Which is not what Cecil said. But that’s another issue.)

[zut]

OK, I apologize. I interpreted your contradiction comment as an attempt to argue semantics rather than meaning. Obviously not your intention.

Anyway, “more practiced writing” != “neater writing.” As I recall, people who are functionally illiterate have a very blocky, hesitant form of writing, somewhat similar to a second-grader’s. That’s because (I believe) both have to concentrate on the shape of the letters and the motions of the hand. So when I say “more practice writing” I mean “more time, through practice, to become comfortable with one’s writing skill.” In the same way that any skill becomes more unconscious with more practice. Not the same as neatness.

I think, however, that my basic point is one you don’t agree with. I’m fairly sure that some differences are detectable in handwriting. The question is, what are they and what’s the cause?

Differentiating a second-grader from a college graduate? Sure, I’ll buy that. I can differentiate a master mason’s brickwork from an apprentice’s, too, for much the same reason. Or Jackson Pollock’s work from my Aunt Edna’s, for that matter. Differentiating a lefty from a righty? OK, sounds plausible. Weeding out the guy that writes with his feet? Absolutely. Differentiating with respect to gender? I think so, particularly in light of what you cited above.

Thing is, all these things are associated with causes other than personality. Let me ask again: is that all graphology can do? If graphology can differentiate people on the basis of their physiology (e.g., lefty/righty), and/or on the basis of (unconsciously or consciously) learned writing features (e.g., the doctor/engineer) and/or on the basis of vocabulary and grammar (I’m not even sure if this is an issue), then that is interesting, but that is not what is claimed.

[Bill_H]

zut wrote

If graphology can differentiate people on the basis of their physiology (e.g., lefty/righty)

It makes sense to me that this is possible, but I don’t know the technique. Anyway, this is really the main physiology angle (left vs. right), and noone on either side cares about the ability to predict it, so I propose we drop it.

and/or on the basis of (unconsciously or consciously) learned writing features (e.g., the doctor/engineer)

Absolutely. Think about this (and for me, this isn’t hypothetical, I regularly do this): Go to a seminar or other meeting of lots of people with similar traits, say a meeting of lots of software engineers. And during the meeting, everyone has the opportunity to write something. The most common real world example is writing name and contact info in a sign in sheet or filling in a survey or such. You will notice that their handwritings all share similar traits. Why is that? Why is it that (in your example), most doctors share similar traits in their handwriting, and most engineers do as well, and they are not the same traits?

The thing is, zut: if you sit back and think about it, you’ll realize that you’re not contradicting my point; you’re reinforcing it. Why do engineers have an “engineering handwriting style”? And doctors? And artists? And hairdressers? Are they taught to write differently? no. Are they pressured by their peers? no. But they do, and they are consistent in the way they do. People write differently based on who they are. And the way that they do is consistant with other people who are similar to who they are. (or so I claim, and so you validate).

[SparrowHawk]

As an artist, I don’t find it a challenging concept that marks made on paper will reveal something about the maker of the marks. Seems everybody pretty much agrees there. Just what the marks actually do reveal is the bone of contention, and what use that purported revelation is, if any. Because mark-making intrigues me, I have a couple of books on graphology amongst my art books and they claim handwriting indicates “traits,” which is sort of both broader and narrower than “personality.” That is, it seems to include some things we consider personality (like aggression, self-centeredness, decisiveness), but not all of them, and some other things we don’t (like intelligence, aptitude, mood).

I don’t see them claiming to be able to identify sex, either. Which is reasonable to me, in that my daughter’s handwriting resembles my husband’s more than it does mine, and they are both scientific/mathematical types. OTOH, I think sex-linked differences, if they exist, could be due to more than cultural or mental differences (though I’m not denying those). Male and female bodies differ in more places than the genitalia. Pelvic angles make it less comfortable for boys to sit still, their handwriting may be messier. The angles formed by the bones of the hand are different, too, as well as the muscles of the shoulder girdle which may account for physical differences in pen-wielding that effect angles and pressures and what-not. I don’t know. (I do know it effects sword wielding.)

As to it being “scientific,” the fact that it hasn’t been subjected to the rigors that real science needs to undergo in order to be acceptable, may be a problem with the folks doing the work, and not a problem with the concept itself. The computer study mentioned at the end of the article shows that there are certainly physical traits to mark making (like pressure, size, direction, placement and so forth) that are measurable and could conceivably be correlated with other testing methods to see if a connection could be established. But nobody’s bothered to do it, so we’re left with some random ideas being sloppily applied. It seems to me like it could be scientific, or at least, science could be applied to it to see whether and where there’s any validity.

Okay, I am going to visit the other thread and shove my oar in there if it seems like fun.