Sorry about my delay in answering. I made up words.
What I meant to do is draw an analogy. Let us assume that through examination of someone’s handwriting I can determine that person’s gender with a high degree of accuracy. I can do the same by looking at a person’s wardrobe or looking at their hairstyle.
Ahhh. That is true, Arnold, just as it’s true you could look through someone’s books and get a sense of whether they have an aggressive or passive personality for example. Probably many other personality traits can be read through many other of the objects that people have around them, such as clothes as you note.
And just as people mark and surround themselves with objects that reflect their inner personalities, I believe that people adorn their handwriting with characteristics that reflect what’s inside them.
Maybe now we’re getting somewhere. Let’s assume that this is true; handwriting reflects personalities.
The next question: What characteristic of handwriting reflects what personality? And can you prove it?
I have a friend that likes owls. Her house is full of stuffed, sculpted and molded owls. Now what part of her penmanship would relate to this personality trait so that an analyst could look at only her writing and say, “My, this person is obsessed with owls!” Would that be the curve of the letters? The thickness of the pen? The angle of the slant? Do all her "o"s have that owl-eye quality?
Just because a thick, bold pen stroke seems to relate to a personality that thinks in “thick, bold strokes” doesn’t mean diddly unless you can prove that there is a positive correlation, and no other factor is controlling either. Until then, it’s just the wild speculation that makes us human.
One more bump before I give up disappointed.
I’ve always been highly respectful of Cecil’s research in his articles. I’ve gotta say, as a big fan, I’m pretty bummed: First he quotes somebody, then when he’s called because it was an erroneous quote, he apologizes for not checking his sources, but then corrects with a second unchecked source. Which also turns out to be erroneous.