Graphology is a very serious science and a good study of human nature. Remember, the pen is the extension of the persons brain...the bumps and curves and such all have a meaning...Graphology is over 3 thousand years old, so I think in that time, they have learned something about it.

The RCMP and the FBI use it daily...so I'd think it holds some credence.

~Rick~

Also astrology is very old.....
Also doing sacrifice for good luck is a very old practise......

RCMP and FBI use graphology or handwriting analysis? They are very different thing from what I know.....

This article has a lot of information and links regarding graphology (including "How Graphology Fools People," which seems appropriate for the Café, and an interesting BBC article):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphology

Oh yes...the RCMP and FBI sure do use Graphology...I know this first hand.

~Rick~

Forensic Graphology, Graphology and Graphic Analysis are fuzzy line systems of trying to identify people -- and their character and personality traits. Much is supposedly based on years of study and systematic categorization of traits found to be statistically significant.

Erika Karohs has spent a lifetime at this work -- and has a complete set of books that are deep and wide. I use them BOTH as a reader for fun and as a curiosity in an approach to socially projective traits we may have picked up as we learned to write.

The Deck by Bart Bagget is a short cut to getting dates (Bart admits that is why he created it) -- and makes an interesting short reading tool for entertainment purposes. The Karohs system also offers books aimed at Jury Selection and Job Selection -- much more sensitive areas. She is sincere in offering certification in graphic personality analysis -- as is Bart Bagget in offering his year long Forensic course for document analysis.

But I feel if we mix our role as ENTERTAINERS with the serious things of life such as jury selection -- we leave ourselves open to challenge and possible disgrace because the field IS NOT (other than forensic analysis) falsifiable in scientific terms. A great deal of discourse on personality systems has been published -- and for this entertainment I prefer SAR by Kenton Knepper.

Intense, professional handwriting analysis has a hit and miss history with as many charlatans as experts. Many published books on the subject agree in general and then miss each other in practice.

As far as therapy goes -- particularly the system offered by Mr. Bagget -- check with educational psychologists on what supervised and focused behavior modification techniques -- especially for small motor control (such as handwriting) can do for the recipent -- particulatly in Emotional Intellegence Quotient-- and focused thought processing.
something Maslo missed -- and Ski9nner never even considered.

Just a small point of contention here. Psychology is very real because the psychologists today try extremely hard to be objective and apply the rules of the scientific method to their research. In the past, Freud’s ideas and theories, like repressed memories, were a starting point for future research, and most of his ideas, through research, have been discredited and other theories have become more accepted. Like all disciplines, psychology is self-correcting, but it is also a relatively young field, which makes some of the early ideas seem a little far fetched now…remember when there was a time when we all thought the earth was flat? That is about where psychology is on the scientific time-line.
Graphology, on the other hand, has also been subjected to the rigors of the scientific method and has been shown to be nothing more predicative than a newspaper horoscope. It is discredited now by the majority of psychologists, much like the most of Freud’s ideas. The same is true for body language, facial expressions, and the like. The people who use it in the corporate world are really wasting their money. The same is true for body language experts in trials. They have been convinced by somebody that this is an actual tool, but in reality it is just a modern day snake oil. There are piles of legitimate research to support this. You are right in thinking there may be some VERY general statments you can make (sex,etc), but they are nowhere near a consitently accurate amount. Just over 50/50... So, I guess my two cents is graphology is not something to take seriously. Thanks.

Desix