LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
Maybe the guy was drawing a stick figure of a cat, and did so very well.
Graphology
- Thread starter The Mighty Thor
- Start date
Maybe the guy was drawing a stick figure of a cat, and did so very well.
Just to show he's not an isolated example:
I'm very similar to Ashles in this respect.
My penmanship is atrocious and among the worst I have ever seen.
I have tried to change it little by little over time with no success.
I have also tried to sit down and change some specifics with moderate success.
For example, my scripted capital J offends me in its normal state. So I've adopted a new method of writing it (it's better but still not great). Sometimes the new method comes out without my thinking; sometimes I have to stop and think about it do it it my new, preferred way.
What characteristics would you ascribe to me from three samples:
One with the capital Js all in the old fashion.
One with the capital J all in the new fashion.
One with the capital J done in both fashions throughout (as sometimes happens)
Mostly, when I write for someone else to read, I print. Even then the quality and style differ depending on:
My mood
My fatigue level
The time allowed
Its importance
Whatever else...
And I, too, have at least moderately dextrous fingers. I'm an amateur magician; I've studied piano (in the past) and played guitar. Other things, too, but we'll leave those out...
I'm very similar to Ashles in this respect.
My penmanship is atrocious and among the worst I have ever seen.
I have tried to change it little by little over time with no success.
I have also tried to sit down and change some specifics with moderate success.
For example, my scripted capital J offends me in its normal state. So I've adopted a new method of writing it (it's better but still not great). Sometimes the new method comes out without my thinking; sometimes I have to stop and think about it do it it my new, preferred way.
What characteristics would you ascribe to me from three samples:
One with the capital Js all in the old fashion.
One with the capital J all in the new fashion.
One with the capital J done in both fashions throughout (as sometimes happens)
Mostly, when I write for someone else to read, I print. Even then the quality and style differ depending on:
My mood
My fatigue level
The time allowed
Its importance
Whatever else...
And I, too, have at least moderately dextrous fingers. I'm an amateur magician; I've studied piano (in the past) and played guitar. Other things, too, but we'll leave those out...
Wow! Like Joey in Friends I have found my 'hand twin'. 
I also write in print if I'm writing something for someone else to read.
Frankly if I'm tired and in a hurry sometimes even I can't read what I've written.
Possibly as a result I am excellent at reading other people's handwriting (useful as I work in a department that has a lot of handwritten briefs), but realistically that's probably more due to the fact that I am good at guessing words in context.
I also write in print if I'm writing something for someone else to read.
Frankly if I'm tired and in a hurry sometimes even I can't read what I've written.
Possibly as a result I am excellent at reading other people's handwriting (useful as I work in a department that has a lot of handwritten briefs), but realistically that's probably more due to the fact that I am good at guessing words in context.
I did not state that it works. I stated that it is my current opinion + belief that it works.
I did not state that it 'maybe' works either - there's a big difference.
It's quite obvious that I have no objective evidence at this stage. I was simply stating my thoughts on the matter.
Where did I say I got feedback from people whose handwriting I analysed? Strawman...
These were people who obtained work colleagues' and acquaintances' samples, and then offered their feedback thereafter.
They then later also let me know what the subject's thoughts were
I've already agreed that it is likely slanted, and definitely subjective. Thus I agree my percentages don't mean much.
So what's your point?
I'm thinking on it. It has to be objective.
So far I was thinking of simplifying the options, and having 2 mediators.
However kitten and sloe's ideas seem a lot simpler - good thinking guys/gals
Fair enough, it was just a thought. I'm not an expert on such matters
I don't keep the analyses that I do .. remember this is really just an old passing hobby that various people know about and approach me on.
My interest in it is pretty weak now, to be honest
As a few here have said, there's usually easier ways to learn about somebody
But to test it, and possibly rid myself of a bad belief or strengthen a good one ... why not...
Is that all you have to contribute, or do you have an argument as to why?
I had already picked up from previous threads that many members here are adverse to any personality handwriting analysis
Depends on the fashions
Quite possibly nothing. Keep in mind that I don't like a lot of the bull*** that most graphologists think up.
I prefer things that make sense and could have some psychological basis.
By the way, I should mention that writing in capitals/print significantly hampers what I can read from it.
That should be obvious if you think about it, considering that I'm an amateur that has far more humble expectations of handwriting analysis
I can't read MS Word documents either
What I am wondering is why you think any of it would have a psychological basis?Placebo said:
In what way would how someone writes 'a's or 't's be related to any of their thought processes?
You say 'things that makes sense' but psychologically I don't see how graphology does.
For example, saying someone has smooth looping characters might mean they have a clear uncluttered approach to life might sound like it makes sense, but it doesn't really. It's likening unrelated concepts.
Well, Placebo, and I really do say this respectfully:
It seems that -- even if real -- the art of graphology as you describe it is too full of restriction, too unreliable, and too dependent on artificial circumstances to be of any real use.
Just sayin'
It seems that -- even if real -- the art of graphology as you describe it is too full of restriction, too unreliable, and too dependent on artificial circumstances to be of any real use.
Just sayin'
Well, let's try a simple example.Ashles said:
Someone who writes with their letters and words spaced far apart doesn't like cluttering everything together. Thus they like their space. Chances are they don't like being smothered by others either.
Sure, that's not exactly infallible logic, but that's what graphology is all about. Likelihoods. IMO anyway.
BTW, I'm not used to calling it graphology
Probably cos the book says it has a 'bad ring to it'In general practice of, say, screening an employee - sure, it's not much use.
But in getting a feel for someone else's personality... maybe.
It was fun at the time, nonetheless. Call it a party trick
Eg. I protested the recent sample I analysed and was told not to worry - 'it's only for interest's sake'
I'm not happy about anyone trying to make judgement calls on it.
Placebo,
I understand your comments and qualifications, but I think you're missing the obvious.
For instance, regarding your example of someone who writes with words and letters spaced far apart.
That could easily be me trying to write clearly for someone else to read my notoriously bad writing. I've done exactly that more than once.
And I am also notoriously messy and a clutterer.
You're drawing conclusions that may seem common-sensical, but common sense has a way of fooling us more often than we think.
Are there any actual studies on this art by whatever name?
Not just books, mind you, but the referenced studies that one hopes are in the backs of the books you read about this.
I understand your comments and qualifications, but I think you're missing the obvious.
For instance, regarding your example of someone who writes with words and letters spaced far apart.
That could easily be me trying to write clearly for someone else to read my notoriously bad writing. I've done exactly that more than once.
And I am also notoriously messy and a clutterer.
You're drawing conclusions that may seem common-sensical, but common sense has a way of fooling us more often than we think.
Are there any actual studies on this art by whatever name?
Not just books, mind you, but the referenced studies that one hopes are in the backs of the books you read about this.
Exactly. It is unrelated concepts.Placebo said:
For example my handwriting is very cluttered, with my letters almost falling over each other, but I am an excellent example of someone who needs their space and hates being smothered and I am sure there are several people reading this right now who are the same.
The space comparison sounds like it makes sense, but why would there be any correlation betwen writing clearly with lots of space and how you interact socially?
Also, conversely, do you describe anyone as not liking their space and enjoying being smothered?
If you don't use the converse of a description then it would seem likely that your descriptions are generalistic and generally positive. And everyone likes those.
This description would apply to most people regardless of their handwriting.
For example if I analysed your handwriting and said the following how well would it apply?
"You have a need for other people to like and admire you, and yet you tend to be critical of yourself. While you have some personality weaknesses you are generally able to compensate for them. You have considerable unused capacity that you have not turned to your advantage. Disciplined and self-controlled on the outside, you tend to be worrisome and insecure on the inside. At times you have serious doubts as to whether you have made the right decision or done the right thing. You prefer a certain amount of change and variety and become dissatisfied when hemmed in by restrictions and limitations. You also pride yourself as an independent thinker; and do not accept others' statements without satisfactory proof. But you have found it unwise to be too frank in revealing yourself to others. At times you are extroverted, affable, and sociable, while at other times you are introverted, wary, and reserved. Some of your aspirations tend to be rather unrealistic. "
This is the Forer effect as mentioned above by new drkitten.
Maybe. If it's cursive ..jambo372 said:
Indeed. However if I draw 15 points (argument's sake) from that handwriting - a couple of those assumptions are going to be correct.
It's also entirely possible, but less likely, that NONE of the assumptions are correct.
And vice versa.
Now I realise that the example I provided isn't bulletproof. But apply 10 of those concepts to a handwriting and I'd be a bit suprised if more than 5 or 6 / 10 are false.
Do that to a couple of analyses, and have them all come out say 5 or 6/10 - then sure. Here's my plastic badge.
Yes, even though it's meant to be kept positive - according to the book I read. They argue that it's more professional like that, but has you noted people are far less likely to criticise a brown nose comment.
Your example has way too many 'this but that too' and 'At times' and 'Some of'.
So of course it's easy to apply to anyone.
I do try to avoid that.
A typical short example of a recent analysis is:
You are an assertive person with a strong opinion on things. You feel that you are sophisticated and intelligent and you tend to become angry very easily and react strongly to others with differing opinions.
You do not like rules and have no problem going behind them when you feel it will make your situation easier.
As it turns out, the guy is actually quite an beligerent and pushy person.
He's a police officer with a control/power complex.
The person providing me the feedback was a lawyer who has had dealings with the guy.
And yes, I do realise that it may have been a coincidence that the lawyer had a BAD experience with the officer. However I certainly didn't know that at the time of the analysis.
NOTE: I'm not saying all police officers always have power issues. I'm saying that quite a few gravitate that way - at least in my country.
Regarding kitten's test idea, it occurred to me last night that there is a bit of a problem with it. If the subjects being analysed do not WANT to be objective of the results, then the test will fail regardless of accuracy.
[EDIT]
Sure - that's why the samples should ideally be written in comfort, naturally and without complications.
But it wouldn't have altered every aspect of your writing
BTW, did you get your handle from the game 'Thief' ?
Or is that your real name?
I loved that game... *sigh*
Placebo,
"Garrette" is my middle name. Combinations of nicknames using my first name are common and generally already taken.
Combinations using my last name don't appeal to me.
Never played thief. Used to be big into D&D when it first came out, though, to show my age.
---
Without going into detail as I'm short on time, I recommend you go back and re-read this thread and then look up the Forer Effect on Google.
You will see that your comments are explained quite easily in that context.
I think Ashles (was it Ashles? perhaps another poster) was correct in saying that your analyses are, in effect, astrology in another guise.
Very general, more applicable to more people than you think, and far less individualistic than you think.
And to be honest, if you pick fifteen traits to describe and only two of them are correct, that's probably less than chance.
And if you pick fifteen traits to describe and only six of them are correct, it's probably still about chance, especially given their very very general nature as you have shown here.
"Garrette" is my middle name. Combinations of nicknames using my first name are common and generally already taken.
Combinations using my last name don't appeal to me.
Never played thief. Used to be big into D&D when it first came out, though, to show my age.
---
Without going into detail as I'm short on time, I recommend you go back and re-read this thread and then look up the Forer Effect on Google.
You will see that your comments are explained quite easily in that context.
I think Ashles (was it Ashles? perhaps another poster) was correct in saying that your analyses are, in effect, astrology in another guise.
Very general, more applicable to more people than you think, and far less individualistic than you think.
And to be honest, if you pick fifteen traits to describe and only two of them are correct, that's probably less than chance.
And if you pick fifteen traits to describe and only six of them are correct, it's probably still about chance, especially given their very very general nature as you have shown here.
Indeed. However if I draw 15 points (argument's sake) from that handwriting - a couple of those assumptions are going to be correct.
That's really not saying very much. If used Tarot cards, cast the bones or just made complete guesses at 15 points (argument's sake) a couple of those assumptions are going to be correct. Your analyses would really only be significant if it could be shown that you were right most of the time. If you were only right even 50% of the time (and I don't think you are claiming even that much) you would be wrong 50% of the time which at the very least is of no practical use and, should any person take your analyses seriously (I think you are saying that you don't, which is good) potentially dangerous. In the case of the lawyer you mentioned, for instance, it would seriously undermine his ability to ever deal with any case involving the police officer you analysed if it ever got out that you had done so at his behest.
On a more general note - and I hope this doesn't seem rude - I think you are greatly underestimating the number of possible explanations in each case for the various characteristics of a person's handwriting; in all your examples so far you have indicated that there are likely two possible explanations whereas, ithe logical prima face assumption would appear to be that there are an infinite number of possible explanations for any characteristic and formal research would be necessary in order to determine which, if any, possible explanatory factors occured significantly more often than others.
Just on the subject of the cat drawn as a stick-figure, you might want to look at the work of the English painter L S Lowry who is very famous for his matchstick figures, including cats.
That's really not saying very much. If used Tarot cards, cast the bones or just made complete guesses at 15 points (argument's sake) a couple of those assumptions are going to be correct. Your analyses would really only be significant if it could be shown that you were right most of the time. If you were only right even 50% of the time (and I don't think you are claiming even that much) you would be wrong 50% of the time which at the very least is of no practical use and, should any person take your analyses seriously (I think you are saying that you don't, which is good) potentially dangerous. In the case of the lawyer you mentioned, for instance, it would seriously undermine his ability to ever deal with any case involving the police officer you analysed if it ever got out that you had done so at his behest.
On a more general note - and I hope this doesn't seem rude - I think you are greatly underestimating the number of possible explanations in each case for the various characteristics of a person's handwriting; in all your examples so far you have indicated that there are likely two possible explanations whereas, ithe logical prima face assumption would appear to be that there are an infinite number of possible explanations for any characteristic and formal research would be necessary in order to determine which, if any, possible explanatory factors occured significantly more often than others.
Just on the subject of the cat drawn as a stick-figure, you might want to look at the work of the English painter L S Lowry who is very famous for his matchstick figures, including cats.
Thanks for the replies, all 
I looked up the Forer effect, as suggested, and recognise it as an effect that I often poke fun at when reading the starsigns in the local newspaper.
One objection I have is that if you look at Forer's analysis, he used a lot of 'but at the same time', 'however', 'Sometimes'.
In other words, covering both bases of positive 'swings' to an answer.
The Forer effect may have had an impact on the feedback I received in a lot of cases, but also keep in mind that I didn't keep my analyses all rainbows and puppies.
Take the lawyer example - far from 'nice'.
As I understand, the Forer effect states that the niceties are far more likely to cause positive feedback.
Nevertheless, you all have made me question exactly how well it does in fact work. Many of my early analyses were more positive than negative.
Oh, and btw, I don't see 2/15 as impressive either.
But one particular aspect of the style is, in and of itself, not of any direct bearing.
I was also under the impression that this was the kind of basis used by the author of the book I read. Perhaps not as critically minded as some of us might be.
It would be quite interesting, but possibly dissapointing, to find that book again
*opens amazon*
- Greg
I looked up the Forer effect, as suggested, and recognise it as an effect that I often poke fun at when reading the starsigns in the local newspaper.
One objection I have is that if you look at Forer's analysis, he used a lot of 'but at the same time', 'however', 'Sometimes'.
In other words, covering both bases of positive 'swings' to an answer.
The Forer effect may have had an impact on the feedback I received in a lot of cases, but also keep in mind that I didn't keep my analyses all rainbows and puppies.
Take the lawyer example - far from 'nice'.
As I understand, the Forer effect states that the niceties are far more likely to cause positive feedback.
Nevertheless, you all have made me question exactly how well it does in fact work. Many of my early analyses were more positive than negative.
Oh, and btw, I don't see 2/15 as impressive either.
No no... believe OVERALL that the results would come out to around ... say... 70%
But one particular aspect of the style is, in and of itself, not of any direct bearing.
This would be the ideal way of reconstructing a far more honest version of graphology. Perhaps stating probabilities in the actual results.
I was also under the impression that this was the kind of basis used by the author of the book I read. Perhaps not as critically minded as some of us might be.
It would be quite interesting, but possibly dissapointing, to find that book again
*opens amazon*
- Greg
Alright - sorry for the triple posting
I found some links to research done on graphology
Research in graphology: http://compusysnt.compusys.iafrica.com/sandline/research.htm
page 11, Growth of Graphonomy: http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cach...gs/BIGS14_02.pdf+graphonomy+experiments&hl=en
History of graphology: http://www.compatamate.com/history.html
I haven't had the time to check them out properly - will only get the chance tomorrow
I found some links to research done on graphology
Research in graphology: http://compusysnt.compusys.iafrica.com/sandline/research.htm
page 11, Growth of Graphonomy: http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cach...gs/BIGS14_02.pdf+graphonomy+experiments&hl=en
History of graphology: http://www.compatamate.com/history.html
I haven't had the time to check them out properly - will only get the chance tomorrow
As it should.
Remember that I asked some time back for the referenced studies.
I suspect they do not exist. (Which is a dig at those who have written the books, not at you, unless you dismiss the lack of studies as unimportant to the actual efficacy of "graphonomy.")
The quotation says that the discipline is definitely a science. That means there must definitely be science behind it. I would dearly love to see it.
btw: Kudos on sticking around here, taking the questions you have, and being willing to look at what you believe in.