Graphology

[The Mighty Thor]

Maybe this experience with graphologists will help Mr Blair to be more critical in chosing who to believe. At first his handwriting was analysed and a "diagnosis" made by a "respected graphologist". Then it turns out that the notes had been made by Bill Gates.

AS WORLD leaders discussed international aid for Africa, Tony Blair scribbled notes and doodled. Unfortunately for him, after the World Economic Summit in Davos, Switzerland, his notes fell into the hands of a Emma Bache, a graphologist.
Her verdict: the Prime Minister’s surprisingly chaotic script indicates an aggressive, unstable man who is feeling under enormous pressure.
Mrs Bache, who regularly carries out employee assessments for firms such as Barings, said: “I analysed his writing 18 months ago and there are marked differences. Then, his writing was much more fluid indicating that he felt more easy-come-easy-go. The ticks, such as the upward stroke on the ‘t’ in taxes, were not so angular.
“He is a lot more assertive and aggressive than in recent years because there are lots of very angular strokes. There is a lack of curves and a lot of irritability which he is struggling to keep under control.
“There is also a lot of retracing of the strokes, which I have never seen him do before. He is feeling very much under pressure so an obsessive-compulsive nature is coming out. The pressure he is putting on the pen is also quite heavy, which is an indication of stress and tension.” Mr Blair may have been feeling some antipathy towards those at the meeting, including the Microsoft billionaire Bill Gates and the rock star Bono, who are both considerably richer than him, she added.
Ms Bache said that the Prime Minister’s writing changed depending on whom he was writing to. “There are some people who really get his goat. If he doesn’t like someone he becomes very aggressive with big ticks like the one on the end of the ‘t’ in taxes.”
The Prime Minister has always used upward loops in his writing which indicate someone who is particularly concerned with appearances, according to Ms Bache.
She said: “There are a lot of phallic symbols — loops such as the ‘b’ and the ‘l’ in debt cancellation — which he’s always had in his handwriting.” She added: “You often get these loops with artistic and creative people, but Tony Blair is not in this category. With him it’s a case that he is too easily swayed by appearance.”
Mr Blair’s handwriting and doodles also demonstrated an overwhelming desire to stand his ground in the face of criticism, even when he knows he is wrong. “He is someone who doesn’t like to lose face . . . He is incredibly stubborn; you can see this from the way the ‘t’ in ‘taxes’ is below the baseline. Even when he knows he is wrong he won’t back down.”

<http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1461520,00.html>

 

[CurtC]

He is incredibly stubborn; you can see this from the way the ‘t’ in ‘taxes’ is below the baseline. Even when he knows he is wrong he won’t back down.

And this information was gleaned exclusively from his handwriting sample. I'm sure she had never heard of Mr. Blair nor his policy on Iraq.

 

[Kopji]

Following the report, scratch-pads were quickly confiscated from the American delegates table.

 

[andycal]

What on earth are those flying penises going to do to that donkey?!!!

 

[Kopji]

We don't have 'respected graphologists' in the US.
I'm glad. I think more highly of the TV evangelists and that's not a compliment.

It surprised me to find what an entrenched institution they were in the UK and Europe.

The entire field glorifies a fallacy: that we should be 'this way or that' to be successful. And judged all from our writing. This is far more dangerous a notion than anything a psychic, astrologer, or homeopath could ever come up with, and yet they are sometimes government employees or respected consultants to business.

Graphologists are the enemy.
I don't say that about many people.

Her 'review' of Bill Gates should be a wake up call to thinking people. Like or hate him, the guy's a success by anybody's measure. Yet judged lacking by the best of graphologists.
Send these people packing!

 

[Tom Morris]

I posted about this the other day: http://www.bbcity.co.uk/entry/3661

 

[Placebo]

Ah, good. I don't need to post my own thread on this.

[sobstory]As a child, I was exposed to a handwriting analysis book. It included the reading of personality traits, and I studied it and tried it out.[/sobstory]

End result... I believe it works. To an extent. And I'm not referring to the forensic sort either. Now, before I get flamed, let me clarify

I don't believe in a lot of the crap they thought up. I DO consider handwriting analysis to be common sense. You can't easily determine e.g. gender or locality.
I don't believe it to be entirely accurate at all times.
And as such I also believe it is unfit for job interviews.

How is it common sense? (I hear everyone scream)
Let's take it from the top. When you draw a picture, you might like to do e.g. a nice rounded artistic kitty, a gorgeous scruffy alleycat (well drawn), or a simple stick figure.

That choice can be a number of factors, but the most common would generally be your personal sense of style.

Thus, the guy drawing the simple stick figure probably either (a) can't draw well or (b) doesn't like drawing (cats?) artistically. In the case of (b), (a) often follows anyway. So a stick figure generally means they can't draw. Possibly because they're young.

Note the bold. It's intelligent guesswork based on 'feel' and assumption. Perhaps the stick cat was chosen in a mood of exploration. Why knows for sure? ... Then all the previous assumptions fall apart.

This means (1) you can make some assumptions and generalisations that might be useful and (2) this is dangerous if taken at face value.. it's not perfect

How about handwriting? Is it that silly to think that your writing style when writing that fancy 'A' doesn't reflect you personally? It's no different from that cat IMO. You chose that curly style probably because you like it that way.

IMO your choices, including writing style, means something. The trick is trying to guess what.

Eg. if someone writes with childish handwriting they probably either (1) very new to writing or (2) possibly psychotic or unstable (physically or mentally)

BUT You can't go around labelling someone a psychotic because he does a sad 'A'. Perhaps he drank too much coffee or took some dope? That's why it's not 'proof' of his state.

My humble opinion (which is open to change) so far, is:
Handwriting analysis (not forensic) is an interesting + fuzzy craft. It works, and is based on generalisations and probabilities that can be used unfairly if not checked.
I see it as interesting and useful for exploring possibilities in yourself/others. But that's about it.

Now, let the flaming commence...

PS: I have done blind tests of my amateur handwriting analysis and find them to be around 80% to 90% accurate so far. The worst feedback I got was one particular sample - and was around 60%. I also chalk it up to having too short a sample.

Just a few days ago, my grandmother asked me to try it out on a sample from a man that ran her over (accidentally)
I did a quick one, and gave 5 written lines of my thoughts. As it turned out, the sample belonged to the police officer.
The lawyer, looking at it 'out of interest' and who knew the officer, found it highly amusing and 100% accurate.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

No flames here placebo I do think that it could be a tool, among many others, to learn something about the personality of the writer. No, no base for any bold conclusion, just a tool.

 

[Placebo]

No flames here placebo I do think that it could be a tool, among many others, to learn something about the personality of the writer. No, no base for any bold conclusion, just a tool.

Thank you, and I agree - you can't make bold conclusions based on these sort of writing assumptions. At least not on just one or two elements thereof.

 

[Ashles]

How about handwriting? Is it that silly to think that your writing style when writing that fancy 'A' doesn't reflect you personally? It's no different from that cat IMO. You chose that curly style probably because you like it that way.

IMO your choices, including writing style, means something. The trick is trying to guess what.

Eg. if someone writes with childish handwriting they probably either (1) very new to writing or (2) possibly psychotic or unstable (physically or mentally)

BUT You can't go around labelling someone a psychotic because he does a sad 'A'. Perhaps he drank too much coffee or took some dope? That's why it's not 'proof' of his state.

I disagree that it would even be generally useful (beyond maybe telling sexes apart to some extent).
First you would have to look at why people write as they do - this will involve teacher and parent training, not their personality.

Secondly how much of your handwriting is actually chosen?
My handwriting is and has always been very childish indeed. I don't like it and have tried to change it, but it stubbornly stays the same. Ironically I have very dextrous fingers, can play the piano (to a certain degree) and can do some tricky coin tricks and manipulations. But none of this helps wth my handwriting.

Thirdly, surely an element involved is how often you write. I know several other people who I work with who all complain their handwriting is getting worse due to lack of practice these days.

When you are claiming percentage accuracies how are you calculating this? And what sort of comments are you writing? I could write personality descriptions right now that would probably be considered 80% accurate by most people.
It's a pretty grey area and very subjective.

Maybe we could do a test here - post some handwriting samples and get you to analyse them?

Here is Skepdic's take on Graphology

 

[drkitten]

When you are claiming percentage accuracies how are you calculating this? And what sort of comments are you writing? I could write personality descriptions right now that would probably be considered 80% accurate by most people.

That's one of the big issues. Do a quick web search on "the Barnum effect" (aka "the Forer effect"), in which it was demonstrated how strongly people are inclined to believe generalizations as being "accurate."

If personality based graphology really were 80% accurate, forensic handwriting analysts would use it. If it could be shown to be 80% accurate, it would even be admissible in court (which it isn't) -- but even if it were much less accurate, but still accurate enough to be useful, then police would use it as an investigating tool (which they don't).

 

[drkitten]

Maybe we could do a test here - post some handwriting samples and get you to analyse them?

To be fair, the best way to do this would be a matching trial.

Get four (or so) friends of yours -- not including yourself -- and have each of them copy the same page from a magazine or newspaper article or something. Scan them in individually, and ask Placebo to analyze each of the writings.

Then present each of the four analyses (you may need to do some deletion to eliminate handwriting description -- e.g. "the long descenders indicate that ....") to the same four friends, and ask them to figure out which one was based on them.

Chance predicts one success at picking their own description. If Placebo really is 90% accurate, he should be able to get three out of four at a minimum.

 

[Placebo]

I disagree that it would even be generally useful (beyond maybe telling sexes apart to some extent).
First you would have to look at why people write as they do - this will involve teacher and parent training, not their personality.

I'm not sure it's all that good to tell gender apart either
And I dunno about you, but I don't write the way I was taught any more

Secondly how much of your handwriting is actually chosen?

I don't consider it to be consciously chosen, at least not in the sense that you sat down one day and said 'Wow - I like doing my 'f's like this!'
However, in my case, I find my handwriting has changed drastically over the years. For no clear reason either, other than change of general style.

My handwriting is and has always been very childish indeed. I don't like it and have tried to change it, but it stubbornly stays the same. Ironically I have very dextrous fingers, can play the piano (to a certain degree) and can do some tricky coin tricks and manipulations. But none of this helps wth my handwriting.

Interesting... well, then you're psychotic (kidding)
I find it odd that you tried to change your style, and found it hard. But to me that smacks of the subconscious (catch-all phrase aside)

Eg. consider why you have internal battles of will when a jam donut comes around The same applies to anorexia, nail biting and obsessive compulsive behaviours (IMO)
Your upper-level conscious decisions aren't everything - hence your struggle to change handwriting (IMO - note I pepper them )

Thirdly, surely an element involved is how often you write. I know several other people who iIwork with who all complain their hanwriting is getting worse due to lack of practice these days.

I have the same problem lately - I seldom need to write.
But I feel the quality of your handwriting isn't all THAT important really, as long as it matured at some point. At the end of the day, the actual scruffiness of your writing is seldom looked at (I think?.. at least I don't..)

In any event, I think I might be able to tell the difference between someone who's writing has deteriorated and one why just doesn't give a damn Eg. based on how they 'fix' their letters

But sure, this might cause some confusion if one didn't consider that possibility. A lot of it is feeling-based for me - not unlike cold reading from paper

When you are claiming percentage accuracies how are you calculating this? And what sort of comments are you writing? I could write personality descriptions right now that would probably be considered 80% accurate by most people.
It's a pretty grey area and very subjective.

Good point And yes, it is fairly subjective. Especially when discussing how eg. assertive someone is.

Those percentages are measured from feedback (I ask them how close it matched, out of 100)
In many of those cases, the people evaluating it wanted it to be right, which may have slanted the accuracysomewhat.

Maybe we could do a test here - post some handwriting samples and get you to analyse them?

Well, I know I sound like the expert the way I'm discussing it, but I'm really quite amateur.
But I don't mind having a shot - could be interesting
If it turns out to be total rubbish, then so be it

Just keep in mind that I lose a bit of quality in the sample over the internet. That doesn't mean the accuracy would go down, but more likely the already limited bit of info I could give.

 

[CurtC]

Placebo, your explanation of it was filled with "maybes," "possiblys," etc. Then you jump off and state that "it works." But your measurements seem to be feedback from people whose handwriting you've analyzed, or their acquaintances. This is exactly the same kind of evidence that makes people believe in astrology.

So what test could you do that would demonstrate to us, and to you, that it actually works?

 

[Sloe_Bohemian]

Handwriting is probably towards the bottom of the list of things we can learn about a person by examining their writing.

Here's a short list:

• What did they say about themelves in the writing?
• Did they provide a name, address, or statement about their feelings?
• Is there a contact number we can call and talk to them in person?
• What is the topic? Are they the kind of person who talks about digging ditches or about lectures at university?
• Do they have well reasoned and insightful thoughts or ideas that they express in their writing?
• What's their use of vocabulary or sentence structure?
• Do they purchase expensive stationary or is it from Wal-Mart?
• Do they use an expensive or fancy pen... or can we learn something from the type of writing utensil?
• Do they draw little hearts at the top of every "i"?
• Have I met them before? Or, like Tony Blair, do I have some opinion of this person already?
• Are they paying me to do this, or is someone paying me to do this about them?
• Is my employer(person who asked me to do this) looking for criminals, or some other aspect that I am aware of?
• Is it warm in the room... what's my mood?
• Did I have a pleasant day before getting to do the "analysis" or am I grumpy?
• What's the color of the walls in the room where I do my "analysis"?

All of those things are probably more influential than the way someone crosses the "t" in a handwriting sample.

But I won't exclude handwriting as one of the tools to analyzing another person... but I'd put it far down below things like "what preconceived idea do I have about what I'm expecting to find".

and when drawing kitties I tend to give them stick figure body's but grossly exagerated heads with little bits of Tom Clancy's flesh dangling from their whiskers.... what's that mean?

I just don't think there's likely to be accuracy beyond what can be gotten from much more obvious clues. IMHO

 

[Sloe_Bohemian]

To be fair, the best way to do this would be a matching trial.

Get four (or so) friends of yours -- not including yourself -- and have each of them copy the same page from a magazine or newspaper article or something. Scan them in individually, and ask Placebo to analyze each of the writings.

Then present each of the four analyses (you may need to do some deletion to eliminate handwriting description -- e.g. "the long descenders indicate that ....") to the same four friends, and ask them to figure out which one was based on them.

Chance predicts one success at picking their own description. If Placebo really is 90% accurate, he should be able to get three out of four at a minimum.

There's a possible flaw... the subjects should be unknown to Placebo. There's always the chance P would recognize someone's handwriting... even without realizing it and that could influence P's analysis.

But more to the point... the subjects would have to all have similar social, educational, life-experiences. Unless you can get a sample for them to copy that is competely neutral (not likely to exist IMO) - then some participants may feel more comfortable writing about the subject while another person hesitates and rereads the passages before finishing their writing sample.

 

[Ashles]

Interesting... well, then you're psychotic (kidding)
I find it odd that you tried to change your style, and found it hard. But to me that smacks of the subconscious (catch-all phrase aside)

Eg. consider why you have internal battles of will when a jam donut comes around The same applies to anorexia, nail biting and obsessive compulsive behaviours (IMO)
Your upper-level conscious decisions aren't everything - hence your struggle to change handwriting (IMO - note I pepper them )

I have to say I totally disagree that this is anything to do with the 'subconscious'. It's just how my hand naturally works - my writing is quite a jerky movement and I hold pens in an unusual way.

Do you have any of your analyses that you could post?

 

[drkitten]

But more to the point... the subjects would have to all have similar social, educational, life-experiences. Unless you can get a sample for them to copy that is competely neutral (not likely to exist IMO) - then some participants may feel more comfortable writing about the subject while another person hesitates and rereads the passages before finishing their writing sample.

Interesting argument, but I disagree. Specifically, a subject's "comfort level" with writing any particular passage is, broadly speaking, part of their personality, and as such would be a legitimate aspect for graphological inquiry. (For example, if I were
considering hiring someone for a bank teller position, I might genuinely be interested in their "comfort level" in writing about fraud and embezzlement.)

But, more to the point, I don't think that the effect you posit would have any significance. I don't think that the graphologist would be able to detect it or to correctly evaluate its significance. So I see no reason to control for an effect that, first, I do not believe exists, and second, that I would be extremely interested to discover did exist.

 

[Bikewer]

I think the only sort of graphology that has any validity is Forensic graphology, which has nothing much to do with personality acessment, and everything to do with comparison.
The analysis of forged signatures, for instance.

We've used such an individual on a couple of cases involving threatening letters and such.

 

[drkitten]

I think the only sort of graphology that has any validity is Forensic graphology....

The professionals would agree with you. In fact, many of them get quite annoyed if/when you refer to what they do as "forensic graphology," exactly because "graphology" is (in their opinion) a completely fraudulent scam. I believe the preferred term is "document examiners" or "questioned document analysts" or something like that.