Talk:Graphology
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 15/8/2006. The result of the discussion was speedy keep. |
 |
WikiProject Echo has identified Graphology as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Hebrew language Wikipedia. |
An aspect of Graphology that gets seemingly little press is the feeling of the writer towards others. Usually this is mentioned with the change in letter forms when writing words like "mother", "father", "daughter", etc. When writing these words the emotion of the writer shows.
After working with handwriting analysis for a few years I was telling a nurse from the pediatricians office about my study. She asked for a demonstration of my skill with her writing. She wrote the names of the three doctors that she worked for in the clinic. I was stunned that each was written differently. I had met one of them briefly at the hospital a year earlier when our first was born and had never even seen the other two.
After a few comments about her, I said that I think I can tell you how you feel about the three doctors that you work for. Briefly, one intimidated her, but was not too bright. The second she respected for his knowledge, but was not close to, and the third she thought had good midical skills and was the closest friend to her. We were both stunned by the accuracy of the analysis.
Recently I tried this with a medical professional lady who wrote the names of her two college age sons and her ex-husband. She did not tell me which was which. She had told me that the older son was doing well, but the younger had not matured enough. My analysis of her feelings led me to select the most mature as her Ex and the one she felt least mature as the younger son. As it turned out, the one whom she felt was the least mature and showed her feelings in her handwriting was her Ex.--69.151.253.6 13:41, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- got any studies that support your claim?Geni 16:15, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Why does Handwriting Recognition redirect to Graphology? Shouldn't that be a redirect to Intelligent Character Recognition --80.171.44.176 17:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Don't rewrite the entire aricle at once, please
If you want to do a major rewrite of an article that has been around and had as much discussion as this one, please talk about it here first. That's why I rolled back the rewrite, which smacked of POV - DavidWBrooks 14:21, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
a) The comments in the main page, that belong on the discuss page were removed from that page, but not transferred here. b) There was no discussion of those comments, either on the main page or here.
[edit] References / Sources
If somebody goes thru and marks what they want cites for, I'll add the cites. 99.99% of the info in this article can be found in any of the professional textbooks, or training courses in the field. :: jonathon
I've added the citation for the only 'citation needed' flag I found.
Going back to the early versions of this article.
Under systems/approaches to handwriting analysis are the following comments:
- Should traits and corresponding signs be listed here? methodology of graphoanalysis? Differentiation between Graphoanalysis, Crepieux-jamin, Michon and Trait Stroke?
- Technical vocabulary? Muller-Enskat Protokol? Wittlich Character Diagram? Psychograph? Psychogram? which version - Anthony, Cole, Roman?
- Add: Ralph Gologie; Max Pulver
- Add: Sisteme de Xandro; Sisteme di Moretti; Szondi
Under Medical Graphology is the following comment:
- Somebody else needs to write the medical stuff. I haven't run a MEDLARS search recently, and don't have copies of the papers cited in there on graphology anymore. :-(
The entire section Basic Assertions has been removed.
Criminal Investigation was renamed Forensic Document Examination.
Given that Psychogram was a speedy delete candidate, and that it was suggested that Graphoanalysis was meant, rather than Graphology, for the delete, is rewriting this article, to include the above things to add, or writing articles that focus on those specific issues even wortwhile?
[edit] scientific status
It appears that at least some claims of some graphologists are pseudoscientific, but I wonder if the lack of supporting scientific evidence has come about because (1) no studies have been done, or (2) good studies have been done and have found the claims to be false? I know a kinesiologist who says studies have been done by psychologists who have harshly criticized graphology because it fails to do things that standard psychological tests also fail to do, or that such studies have built-in bias resulting from psychologists' hatred of graphology. The same kinesiologist asserted that a psychologist had told her that one cannot tell whether the writer is male or female by the handwriting. The kinesiologist did an informal experiment using a class of several dozen students and found they could tell fairly reliably.
I have the impression that scientific investigation of this area is meager. Michael Hardy 02:53, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
To answer your questions above:
1) Studies have been done, but for the most part they suffer from serious design flaws. Graphologists tend to know nothing about good research design, and research psychologists tend to nothing about handwriting analysis.
2) The studies done in academia tend to indicate that handwriting analysis has no validity. At least one ended (paraphrasing) "any further investigation of handwriting analysis would be a waste of resources, as their have been so many failures to validate it". One major issue with that, and most other studies from academia, is that handwriting anlysts are not used. Instead, the resercher picks up half a dozen books on the subject, without any regard as to the quality of the books, and randomly selects something, and decides that since that word, and the word used in a standrd psychological test are the same, they must shre the same definition. The researcher then claims that graphology is invalid, since the results were not statistically significant. By analagy. Walk into Starbucks and ask for a cup of coffee, then walk into the local 7-11 and ask for a cup of coffee. Then claim that one of them (take your pick as to which one) does not serve coffeee, because they served different drinks
For all practical purposes, the only datapoint that one can say can be conclusively determined from handwriting is whether or not the writer is male, or female. This is simply because all of the 250+ studies on, or related to that issue, have reported that the sex of the writer can be determined at a statistically significant level.
3) Studies correlating handwriting to most of the psychological tests in common usage hve been extensively reported in the literature. With some tweaking, one can convert a score derived from handwriting, to that of a sub-scale of those tests. [How to do this has mainly been confined to in-person courses of handwriting analysis.]
4) Experimenter bias is a given. The few attempts by organizations of skeptics, to work with organizations of handwriting analysts, have resulted in the handwriting analysts withdrawing support, becuase the requirements set by the skeptical associations put the handwriting analysts in a "no win" situation.
[edit] Carroll v State
In section 3.4 (Criminal investigation) it is stated that
- Carroll v State probably will be best remembered for why graphologists should not be allowed to testify.
Why is that? Without further explanation this doesn't really add anything to the article. Also, I assume there's a more specific way of referencing a legal case than just "Carroll v State". --EldKatt 29 June 2005 16:31 (UTC)
The complete citation is in one of the first paragraphs.
[edit] Abbreviations
Might be an idea if the abbreviations EEOC and ADA (cited in the legal issues section) have after them what they actually mean. Very arrogant to assume that everyone who reads this article will know. Come on people, Wikipedia gets enough ctriticism, let's make it the best resource!
[edit] Obscenity
Can someone remove the cursing under the heading Employment Profiling please.
[edit] John Wayne's Signture
For graphologists, the blackened out lung in John Wayne's signature sticks out like a sore thumb. That visibility is the difference between somebody who has been trained as a graphologist, and somebody who has not had such training. [jonathon]
[edit] NPOV Status
Can somebody explain how/why this was tagged with NPOV status? And thanks to whoever removed that status. [jonathon]
[edit] What a bunch of crackpots (i.e. those who blithely call this a pseudoscience)
No one has answered my comments above! No one! Yet when this article was recently proposed for deletion, several of the people who voted "keep" (with whom I agree) called graphology a pseudoscience and acted as if that were the most uncontroversial thing in the world, with which only the unscientific could agree. I expect much of what is done in graphology is pseudoscientific. But that's not a reason to say graphology is a pseudoscience if there's the possibility of doing graphology correctly and scientifically. Has graphology been refuted scientifically? No. Has it been established scientifically? No. To pontificate from a position of ignorance is to be a crackpot. Does even one person who calls graphology a pseudoscience have rational grounds for doing so? Well, they still have not answered my comment above, several months later! Michael Hardy 22:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC) PS: Before making any weird claims about what I'm saying, please note that (obviously) I have not argued in favor of graphology nor said that it is scientific. Michael Hardy 22:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Wierd, even this one statement by yourself seems to contain internal conflicting statements. Even is hard to see at points if you are disputing if graphology is a pseudoscience (which it is), though I realise you do dispute this fact but only from getting the overal gist. Mathmo Talk 04:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Science or pseudoscience or something else?
Some people are calling graphology a pseudoscience by what seems like a knee-jerk reflex.
I expect that very much of what is done in graphology is pseudoscientific, and perhaps none of it is science—yet.
It is also commonplace to contemptuously dismiss alchemy as pseudoscience, especially considering its (now clearly erroneous) doctrine that "earth", "air", "fire", and "water" are the four "elements" of which other substances are composed. But see the New York Times science section of Tuesday August 8, 2006. Many practicing alchemists were doing empirical study of how substances react with each other to form new substances, and that information was useful not only for the industrial purposes of the time, but also eventually contributed to the founding of the science of chemistry.
I think graphology may well be in a similar state: a topic that mixes irrational pseudoscience with empirical information gathering that may eventually contribute to the founding of a new area of scientific study. Is there some standard name for that sort of thing? Michael Hardy 19:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
The definition that is used for "graphology" is crucial.
The people that publish papers (in peer reviewed journals) demonstrating how to use handwriting to chart, or diagnoze a disease, don't use the term "graphology". That would be professional suicide for them. AFAIK, they don't use a standard term. They say "examining the xyz aspect of the xwz part of the handwriting", where "xyz" is a description of wht is examined, and where in the handwriting it is found.
There have been at least half a dozen proposals to replace the word "graphology". Thus far, the proposed words have not seen much usge outside of the organization that proposed them. For the most part, the proposed words had definitions that were much narrower, than that of "graphology". For example "Graphoanalysis" is one such proposed replcement, but it is restricted to a specific system of handwriting analysis, from a specific approach. :: jonathon
I forgot to add that graphonomics is another proposed replacement for the word "graphology".:: jonathon
[edit] Eurgh!
This article reeks of bias against graphology. "Caveat Emptor." "a reason why graphologists should never be allowed to testify." "also displayed a distinct lack of professional courtesy to members of the other side." "far more common are studies like"
We need to cut out the weaselly and downright biased phrases that don't belong in this article. Graphology may or may not be a science, but that's a debate that must happen somewhere else; not in an article on Wikipedia. Wackojacko1138 23:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
- Before saying that "Caveat Emptor" is biased, consider the following:
- Anybody who wants to hang up a shingle saying that they are "a certified graphologist" can do so;
- Anybody who wants to hang up a shingle saying "Certified Graphology Instructor" can do so;
- There is no minimum educational requirement to take any course in handwriting analysis currently offered in North America;
- It is common for organizations that teach graphology to claim to be accredited, when they are not;
- More than one graphologist who teaches, has had their resume demonstrated to be a total fabrication, in a court case in which they were testifying as an expert witness;
- The only organization which might be able to hold accountable a graphologist for unethical conduct, is the organization to which s/he belongs. Due to the decline in membership of the various graphology associations in North America, a lack of membership can not be construed as being "unethical". Unfortunately, membership does not always equate to "ethical conduct" either.
- Textbooks in the field are riddled with demonstrable false data being presented as "factual".
- One trivial example: "Spencerian hand was the first copybook to be taught." A history of calligraphy would demonstrate the falseness of that statement.
- A not so trivial example: "Gender can not be determined from handwriting." A review of the literature, from 1850 to 2000 would cover 250+ such studies. They uniformly found that gender can be determined from handwriting.]
- The significance of Carroll v State [276 Ark 160; 634 SW 2d 99, 101-102 (1982)] is in its representation of the deep split between Integrative Graphology and Holistic Graphology.
- As far as the "far more common are studies like" sentence goes:
- Global validation studies indicate some validity for graphology;
- Psychological trait specific studies do not indicate validity for graphology;
- Meta-studies indicate that the effect size, if present, is negligible;
- Im going to do some research on graphology to find the cases of doing so that proves that graphology might have something to it, maybe not as science but a protoscience i will post the results on this talkagpe ageo smade pol coluld help. Smith Jones 23:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
i guess the article could be improved rather than rewritten, free information can be got from websites around like this one graphology but the problem is that they are not referenced —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 196.205.234.175 (talk) 4 March 2007
- Very few articles on graphology ---both online and offline --- are referenced. The best that can be done is to cite the source that claims "x", and then cite the source that claims "not x". Probably the best reference for finding those sources is Jim Miller's A Bibliography of Handwriting Analysis.67.136.147.168 07:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
