Ah, but I disagree. They are taught to write differently; they are pressured by their peers. Engineers used to do hand-drawings on the board where consistancy and legibility was paramount. Even though CAD has taken over, that ethic still exists. Doctors value quickly scribbling prescriptions. I imagine that that’s a trait that’s reinforced in medical culture. Point is, again, that while occupational differences in writing are interesting, if the reason for the differences are because people are taught to write that way, then it’s not really very surprising.
Good grief y’all! Stop it before you disappear up your own trouser legs!
Still hopin for a response from Cecil…
Interesting subject and I actually enjoyed all the responses.
Let’s try breaking down quality of handwriting by 3 different main classes of people:
A) Those that think the perception of the message is more important than the message itself. Flawless handwriting, but little substance. I envision cheerleaders passing notes in class.
B) The Anal-Retentive that somehow think that message and perception are equal. Pshaw!
C) Those that think the message is everything, put all of their efforts into what they write rather than how it looks. And of course, being self-centered, they don’t much care whether or not anyone else can read it, convinced of their own righteousness, so scribble illegibly. And they (I) expect y’all to recognize from my scratchings that I am, truly, superior. -Rod-
Ducky, the test idea fizzled. Let’s not hijack this thread with it, too.
Bill H., I agree with zut that engineers and doctors are taught differently. Not in elementary school when just learning how to write, but in college when using their writing and developing their styles. I know my own style changed during college from note taking in class. I can guarantee I write differently now than in, say, Jr. High. Engineers are still taught how to letter for drawings. It’s not extensively used, but there’s a class in drawings that teaches lettering. Similarly, as pointed out, doctors are expected to whip out their notes quickly. And consider that often what doctors are writing on their little prescription pads aren’t even words at all, but a form of shorthand for pharmacists. They have to learn those codes, which means practicing writing. So here we have to classes of presumably intelligent people who are being taught to write differently. These changes can become reflected in their daily writing and are independent of personality.
As for reaching Cecil, I will once again suggest what I did in the other thread - try writing a paper letter and snailmailing it to The Chicago Reader. Sure, Cecil may not have an email address (that you have access to), but the old standby still exists.
Come on, Cecil.
Last time we spoke, you said
And you amended your column, now quoting Dean. It looks like you’ve made the same error again: you quoted a supposed professional without looking up the underlying report.
I’ve taken the effort to look up the report, and if you do too, I believe you’ll agree it’s seriously biased, flawed and lacking in disclosure of important aspects. Furthermore, I believe you’ll find that it’s findings don’t say what you used them to claim.
To summerize my findings:
a) It starts out with quotes from the Pro and Anti side of things, and presents psychics and silly people as Advocates and scientists as Naysayers. From the introduction, it sets itself up to battle a strawman.
b) It intentionally disincludes from it’s analysis two pieces of personality information that in it’s words are “the two biggest single determinants of human behavior and destiny.” No reason. Just drops them.
c) It includes the aspect of reliability, i.e. the test of whether the handwriting analysts studied came to the same conclusions, which is not relevant to your conclusion.
d) It does not disclose at all what is actually being tested for. (except that the two key elements mentioned in #b above were not included).
e) It’s conclusion is that in fact handwriting analysis does predict personality, but that there other more reliable methods.
I’m a big fan from the very early days, Cecil. Do yourself and your quest for truth the kindness of reading the report that you entirely based your conclusion upon. I believe you’ll agree that it’s not good enough to support your conclusion. In fact, you may find it proves the opposite.
Bill H., could you expand on this point? I’m not certain I understand what you’re saying on this one.
Thanks.
No prob, Saltire:
Bill H. wrote
I think the key word there is “reproducible”.
Dean’s study chose to call it “reliability.” I’ve seen both used to describe the concept.
Sorry that was unclear. Reliability means can we trust it? Does it work? The reproducible comment is about a way to determine if it is reliable. Can it be duplicated?
Typically the question of reproducibility is about whether other people can achieve the same results with the same test setup. In other words, if I tell you how to do it and you go do it, can you come up with the same answer? There is, of course, an inherent flaw in whether the other person is competent in following the instructions. It is assumed you are only looking at competent people trying to duplicate the test. So the fact that two different graphologists find completely different results is suggestive that something is wrong with the process. It is not conclusive, because one could be correct and the other an idiot, but lack of reaching the same results with the same method is suggestive of a problem in the method. Many people using the same method and then comparing the results is how you get around that. If you do not get consistent agreement on the same test subject, that indicates problems.
Your quote ended with the line that the test results were accurate and reproducible, but included statements that the two graphologists got different results. That puts the reproducibility comment in question. That was what I meant.
Still hoping for an answer. The fact that Cecil read the first and corrected his column gives me hope that he actually does read these from time to time.
Cecil, first you posted a column without validating your source. When you were called on the bogus information you quoted, you updated your column with a new source, but again didn’t validate it. And once again, it was a bogus source.
Own up to your Perfect Master-ship, read the source that you based your column on, and validate (or invalidate) it. You’re better then this.
First person to say “than” loses.
Oh, I guess it’s me, isn’t it?
Bill H., you’re making a mountain out of a molehill. Granted, perhaps Cecil could update his column, but isn’t the larger concern here whether or not handwriting analysis, when used as a tool for personality gauge or ability assessment, has any validity?
That’s exactly what it is. Cecil said it doesn’t have validity. First he trusted one source, and based his column on it. Then when pressed, he examined the source and discovered it was incorrect. So, he corrected himself and quoted a second source. Without examining it. I have examined it. And it’s a poor source at best.
As the keeper of the flame of ultimate truth, Cecil should check this new source, and if he discovers it’s not valid, he should either find another, or correct himself by retracting his claim.
If Cecil said “I believe this handwriting analysis is a bunch of crap,” I wouldn’t be happy, but at least it would be my opinion against his. But when he says “Scientific minds believe it’s crap, and here’s the study to prove it,” he sets a stance for himself that expects validation. I’ve validated. And the source is crap.
I seriously doubt that if one study appears to be crap to you, that it will change the overall situation much to Cecil or the rest of us peons, no matter how much you scream about injustice.
Now a reproduceable study that shows that handwriting analysis DOES predict personality and closely correlates with it, that’s something worth looking into.
Subtract one study that you think is flawed, and scientific minds still believe it’s crap. Their opinion is not held up by just a single pillar, and you have not removed all support. Have you looked at the REST of the (Beyerstein/Beyerstein) book you promised to read? I would recommend the book even if the chapter you have issues with were removed entirely.
I see the claim in here that sex and intelligence can be determined by handwriting analysis. I have a question - wealth and sex can be determined by looking in a person’s wardrobe for example, and intelligence could probably be determined by looking at a person’s bookcase.
Does that mean that “endymology” (from the Greek for garment) or bibliology are sciences?
Not sure I follow, Arnold. Perhaps I was wooshed by a joke or perhaps the train of thought didn’t stop at my station.
I don’t know what “endymology” means and couldn’t find it on google or the dictionary. (I appreciate the “garment” reference, but don’t know if that means the word means “study of garments” or “love of garments” or something else).
I didn’t know what “bibliology” meant until I looked it up in Webster, who says it is
I get the feeling perhaps you were saying “if handwriting analysis is a science, then it follows that my grandmother is a Martian,” i.e. something ludicrous follows. But honestly I didn’t understand what the ludicrous part was, and the dictionary seems to say it isn’t so ludicrous. Also I didn’t follow the path from a to b.
Or, again perhaps I was whooshed.
You were definitely whooshed. Arnold was trying to say “judging people’s personalities by their clothes” and “judging people’s personalities by the books they own”. Apparently his choice of fancying up the descriptions with fake words confused you.