Not sure how many people here work with handwriting analysis. I like the concept, and use it as part of "Draw me a tree". So I find articles like this one, about how graphology is still sometimes used as an employment screening tool in France, to be interesting reading.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22198554

I find it disturbing. It is great in our business, but in the real world to use such hokum as a way of selecting candidates for a job is a bit disturbing.

Tony do you call it "hokum" based on your actual experience or on your general belief that it is "hokum"?

I use graphology in my readings, this is a recent thing for me, I bought Graphology - The Art Of Handwriting Analysis (Speed Learning) by Julian Moore and can say that even though I only read it two weeks ago I am now able to do credible readings, great book.

From CJ's link I took the following: According to Begue, most graphologists are able to pull off the trick because they use the content of candidates' letters - the detail about their lives, motivation and so on - to draw up a psychological profile.

"He quotes an Israeli study which showed that when graphologists were shown strictly neutral texts with no relevant information about the candidate - their level of performance plummeted.

For critics, the skill of the graphologist is the skill of every other clever, intuitive "mind-reader". They draw obvious conclusions where they can, and for the rest rely on vague-sounding generalities that cannot but contain some element of truth".

I offer graphology as an entertainment element and even with my limited knowledge achieve amazing results (to the sitter at least) as to their personality. By limiting them to just 7 words on a small A6 card, I am able to use very simple parameters on which to base my reading. many of these have nothing to do with the words. They are based on how they undertake the task given. Where they start writing on the card, how quickly, use of the space available and so on. I wrote this simple system up a few years ago as "7 steps to graphology" which is undergoing a re-write and will be available soon. If anyone is interested, PM me for details.

Graphology isn't a trick Dusty. Not sure where your 'plummeting' stats are from but handwriting analysis can & will detail a persons characteristics with more accuracy than just some intuitive guessing.

From the article I linked to. He was quoting. Not sure where the article got its stats from.

Sorry all - I didn't mean to start a fight.

If you look at the video accompanying this article it is a simple basic cold reading that any of us could do. I use tarot and palms myself, but could just as easily use graphology. It gives great entertainment and insight in the right context, and I am sure there are guys on this forum who can do it brilliantly.

However in strict scientific terms there has been no correlation shown between handwriting and personality. That is the reality. To use this pseudo science for entertainment is wonderful. To use it to eliminate people in a recruitment situation is ludicrous.

The only type of handwriting analysis that has been shown to have any scientific validity is of the forensic variety- i.e., identifying forgeries, etc.

I have many years experience of handwriting analysis and I am an educated graphologist as well as a licensed psychologist. I have worked with handwriting analysis as the main tool among other kinds of personality tests for more than twenty years. I can assure you that handwriting analysis is the most powerful instrument you can use to get access to deeper areas of a personality and predict management behavior. It is very easy for an experienced graphologist to reveal profound information about the personality and even predict behavior.

Not according to the many scientific studies that have concluded, with the exception of forensic document examiners, that graphology is a pseudoscience. For a detailed discussion and history of graphology see:

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRela......pho.html

A couple of years ago I read that in France 70% of all applications are handwritten because companies use handwriting analysis to find the best possible applicant.

During my study (psychology) I read the following article: "The Validity and Utility of Selection Methods in Personnel Psychology: Practical and Theoretical Implications of 85 Years of Research Findings" (Schmidt&Hunter, 1998).

I write this a little more detailed, just in case someone is interested
They analysed what selection processes (e.g. Job Interview, biographic Questionnaire...) were most usefull in predicting success at work.
The best predictors were (corrected validity in brackets): 1. work sample (.54), 2. general mental ability test (gma) (.51) and 3. structured interview (.51)
The worst predictors were: 1. Age (-.01) and GRAPHOLOGY (.02)

-> Graphology is unable to predict if a person is going to be successful at a job.

Still I will not say that graphology is "hokum" per se. Just because it is not a good predictor for success at work does not mean, that it can not predict something else (though I doubt it very much).

Anyway, I find it a great tool to give a cold reading, especially because in my experience sceptics do not react as badly to graphology as to e.g. palm reading or iridology.

Yes. I agree that graphology can be an effective framework for mentalism and/or cold reading. As can lie detectors, even though the National Institute of Science has estimated the validity of polygraphs to be about 50%, e.g. chance expectation. (Which is why results are not permitted in court.)

If we lived in the same country I would put that assertion to the test. All the scientific data shows that graphology does not work. It has a limited use in indicating some neurological disorders, and as Bob pointed out forensic handwriting analysis has legitimacy. It is not an indicator of personality.

This thread is great fuel for the skeptics' fire.
Seriously. You guys!?

I'm really glad I'm not so paranoid as to have to change my act every time something is exposed here.

What's been exposed? I didn't know that the many published scientific studies examining graphology were secret.

I wouldn't worry about it, though. Astrology has been debunked for a lot longer than graphology and it hasn't hurt business of astrologers at all.

The problem lies in how to validate a psychological "test" in general. That is how do you measure if anybody is extrovert, moody, sensitive, vivid or anything? If you are going to validate something, that is find out if something measures what it says it measure, you have to lean on a a trusted measure. Most validation concerning psychological tests are validated against another psychological test. That is a big problem and a kind of circular logic.

Now, graphology is not a test per se and therefore there comes additional problems that will make the central question elude the scientific methods used to evaluate graphology. First we have the different skill and sensitivity every graphologist has. It takes many years and thousands of handwriting samples to become so good that you are sure in what "district" you are when you see a handwriting. Then we have the problem that very skilled graphologists even if they agree on fundamentals in the handwriting will put their emphasis on different things, just as we all see different things in the same person they will catch different things in the handwriting.

It has also the quality of art. That is when you paint a portrait different artist will create the portrait very differently. Still the person could be recognized in all the portraits. How do you measure if a portrait is good with scientific methods? You can't, because you have to use human judgement. If you try to measure the colors or the angels or the distance between the nose and mouth with scientific methods you will miss the point.

The strength of handwriting analysis compared to every other psychological test is that you can get information about fundamentals of the personality. Show me a test that can give me information about a persons emotional stability or can say something about a persons mental resilience and vitality. Graphology can and this makes it so superior compared to other psychological testing, because those things are central to management.

I never need to speak up for graphology and I never do (this is an exeption) because the analysis gives my words so much strength that even if the clients across the table have got a completely different image of the candidate it was many years since anybody challenged my evaluation and made a decision against it. Graphology, that is when you have acquired the ability to pick up and see what really is in the handwriting, cuts through the crap and reaches the center.

It is so easy to show for a skilled graphologist. It is the scientific methods that has the problems.

Using it for a reading? I don't like it, because many times you see things that people are not prepared to confront. You have to find ways to deliver things to them in a way so they can handle it. When you do a reading from cards or tea leaves or a palm this is not a problem. But when you have the eyes of a experienced graphologist it is like if you stare into a deep well and you see the width and tragedy of things you don't want to deliver. What should be something fun and pleasant turns into something else when you open doors that should not be opened in that situation. Believe me we all need our illusions about ourselves.

Agreed. Those that are saying graphology has no substance are incorrect. It's not the best tool to be applied to a cold reading situation granted, as you need to take the handwriting sample away to extract the information, but to say it's virtually meaningless is nonsense.

I think Bart Baggett would grossly disagree with most on this post as he is quite the authority. Interesting is the fact all kinds of experts write documentaries while there are just as many who would agree/disagree. We can pick whoever we want to support our argument, but that doesn't make it so.

Best

This is true. The operationalization of abstract ideas is always a problem. Psychology is a very young science, the first department of psychology had been founded in 1879 and there is still room for improvement.
I certainly agree with you that psychological research has certain limitations because psychologists have to be very picky when it comes to choosing methods.



With respect IMO this is not an appropriate comparison. You do not have to measure a portrait because you're not claiming it tells you something about the personality of that particular person (because it is art). But you are (not only you, of course) claiming this for a handwriting analysis.

I remembered that Randy did something on graphology. Though the control sample is rather small ^^ it is well worth watching.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeYkOHQ683k



Just today I conducted an experiment with a participant and for evaluating depression etc. I used the BDI (Becks Depression Inventar). Pretty good external validity. I chose this over analysing the handwriting.

I love the idea of handwriting showing aspects of the personality - I am just not convinced. Maybe we should all read the comprehensive collection of articles that Mr. Cassidy posted and come back afterwards. Maybe there is at least one study using an operationalization of a variable we can all agree on. Seems too much work though...

No offence at all! Godspeed!