Talk:Graphology/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Aspect

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 September 2004 (UTC)

got any studies that support your claim?Geni 16:15, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The book "Handwring Analysis - Putting it to work for you" by Andrea McNichol makes such a point at several places, so agree with the user above. -- Amit 19:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't rewrite the entire article 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.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.40.54.64 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

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 coffee, 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.136.147.108 (talk • contribs) 23:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you cite some of the published papers you mention, so that I or others can look them up? Thanks. Michael Hardy 03:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Two articles that list studies can be found at http://web.archive.org/web/20030428145537/www.eskimo.com/~hwa/faq/532.html http://web.archive.org/web/20021201000921/www.eskimo.com/~hwa/papers/legal.html

To figure out the specific citation referred to in those two documents, you will have to hunt for them in http://web.archive.org/web/20021003203610/www.eskimo.com/~hwa/bibliography/index.html. 67.136.137.132 21:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Design Flaws

I'll add a list of studies with this criteria, and why/how it is met/not met, by the end of May. How many studies should be listed? 67.136.137.132 21:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Stockholm, Emile Statistical Data For Basic Traits of Graphoanalysis: IGAS Trait Norm Project. Perceptual and Motor Skills 1980, 51, 220-222

Stockholm, Emile The IGAS Trait Norm Project Journal of Graphoanalysis February 1980:

These two papers are essentially the same. 500 samples of handwriting were analyzed according to the principles of Graphoanalysis, to determine the frequency and intensity of the 125 traits listed on the IGAS Green Sheet.

Stockholm, Emile Research Department releases findings of new reliability study Journal of Graphoanalysis December 1983, 3-4

This is analysis of the reliability of the data that was obtained during the "Trait Norm Project"

Belling, Leah; Bongiovanni, Stephen & Chimera, Mary Ann The IGAS Trait Norm Project: What went wrong. Impact Magazine 1977 ( July ) 22 : 2-5.

This paper discusses the flaws in the methodology used by Stockholm, in the above three papers. The major issues are:

• Non-random subject selection;
• lack of standardized definitions for each trait;
• Lack of standardized method of scoring each trait;

Those would be "strange" criticisms to make of the Graphoanalyis. The issue is that one can score the trait either directly, or as a resultant of other traits. EG: keeps secrets is a closed "o". However, the same stroke formation, in any other middle zone letter would have the same general meaning. For the purpose of the project does a closed "g" middle zone loop count as a possibility? How about the letter "e" done in the same manner? A Graphoanalyst scoring it for a report probably would include it. However, the guidelines given to the project participants implied that it should be omitted. Secondly, if the "o" is made clockwise, rather than counterclockwise, should that be counted as an "opportunity",or not? Graphoanalysts writing a report would ignore it, but they aren't trying to demonstrate anything to academia. jonathon 02:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Studies in academia

I'll add a list of studies with this criteria, and why/how it is met/not met, by the end of May. How many studies should be listed? 67.136.137.132 21:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I got lazy and added them to the main article. I'll cover the issues with those studies later. jonathon 23:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Gender and other EEOC protected classes

I'll add a list of studies with this criteria, and why/how it is met/not met, by the end of May. How many studies should be listed? 67.136.137.132 21:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Barrow, N K & Scott, R H Validation of a Personnel Selection System to meet EEOC Guidelines. Journal Of Handwriting Psychology 1984, 1 (1), 15-17

This research was done for the purpose of demonstrating that handwriting analysis meets EEOC guidelines. The second paragraph states "Gender can not be determined from handwriting." The conclusion is that handwriting analysis meets the EEOC Guidelines. Nowhere does the article address research such as Binet's La sexe de l'ècriture, which was published inLa Revuein October 1903. [page 17-34], which did find a correlation between handwriting and gender. jonathon 02:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I still don't understand why being able to determine gender would violate EEOC guidelines. People who get resumes and conduct interviews with people know the gender of applicants. It's just that gender should not be used as a basis for a hiring decision. Many companies gather racial and gender data on applications to help ensure EEOC compliance, it would be the misuse of the data which would be illegal. Again it doesn't matter if the data is there, as long as it's not used as a criteria for hiring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.223.226.5 (talk) 2007-07-19 20:07:03(UTC)

EEOC Compliance forms are not part of the application process. That data (in theory) does not get reviewed by HR, except in the aggregate. The issue is whether or not handwriting analysis has a disparate impact. Since it can be used to determine the gender of the individual, the question is whether that knowledge is used used to either deliberately to discriminate on the basis of gender, or if such discrimination is the result of disparate impact, or if it really is irrelevant for personell profiling. [Ignoring for now the validity and reliability of graphology in the hiring process.]

There are no studies on whether or not handwriting analysis has a disparate impact, for any of the EEOC protected classes. There is no evidence to support the contention that gender does not play a role in the graphological report. Indeed, since handwriting analysts usually insist upon knowing the gender of the writer, it can be assumed that gender is used as part of the graphological evaluation process, and as such, will either have a disparate impact, or be used to deliberately discriminate on the basis of gender.

There is writing style known as "schoolgirl script", This crosses cultures, languages, and socio-economic boundaries, amongst other things. When it is found in the writing of males (any age) or in females younger than 10, or older than 25, it indicates a borderline pathological condition. Within the boundaries of 15 - 20 females it is a "normal" stage of life. When writing of this type crosses the desk of a graphologist, is gender going to affect the resulting report on suitability for employment? [The research states that gender can be determined from handwriting, and age probably can be determined. IOW, even if the graphologist is not told the age or gender, s/he can determine it from the script. If the sample is "schoolgirl script", it will have a negative effect on the graphological report.] jonathon 22:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Race and Ethnicity

Garth, T R: The Handwriting of Indians Journal of Educational Psychology 1931, 22, 705-719.

Garth, T R, Mitchell, J J & Anthony, C N: The Handwriting of Negroes Journal of Educational Psychology 1939, 30, 69-73

Geyer, L: Beitäge zur Graphologischen Technik. Derinnere Widerstreit der Bewusstseinsformen(Rassen), Kraftschwerpunkte (Naturelle) sowie Volksschichten als Urasache jeder unrhythmischen schwankungsbreite sämtl.Scrhiftelemente: Eine Lösung. Heidelburg, Selbstverlag, 1929.

Krieger, P L: Artmerkmale an ausländischen Handschriftenproben unter rassenseelenkundlichen Gesichtspunkt. Zentralblatt für Graphology 1935, 6, 95-105.

Krieger, P L: Rhythmus and Schreibinnervation bei Jugendlichen und Erwachsenen. Zeitschrift für pädaagogische Psychologie und Jugendkunde 1937, 38, 15-31.

Weisser, E A: A Diagnostic Study of Indian handwriting. Journal of Educational Psychology 1932, 23, 703-707.

The three articles in English conclude that race does not make a difference to handwriting. the three articles in German conclude that race does make a difference. Each of those studies suffers from the same flaw --- the data presented within the study contradicts the conclusion of the study. jonathon 16:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Handwriting and psychological tests

I'll add a list of studies with this criteria, and why/how it is met/not met, by the end of May. How many studies should be listed? 67.136.137.132 21:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Bachmann, J: Das Grapholgoische Gutachten und seine Bewährung. Ein bericht. Zeitschrift für Menschenkunde. 1937, 13, 3

Berna H: Die Graphologie und andere Testversuche. Schewizerische Zeitschrift für Psychologie und ihre Anwendungen 1943, 1, 270-273

Booth, C G: Objective techniques in personality testing Archives of neurology and Psychiatry 1939, 42, 514-530.

Brun, Birgitte & Reisby, Niels: handwriting changes following meprobamata and alcohol: a graphometric-graphological investigation. Quarterly journal of Studies on Alcohol 1971, 35(4 Pt A) 1070-1082

Cantril, H, Rand, H A & Allport, G W: The determination of personal interests by psychological and graphological methods. Character and Personality 1933, 2, 134-143

Cantril, H & Rand, HA: An additional study of the determination of personal Interest from psychological and graphological methods. Character and Personality 1934, 3, 72-78

Castelnuevo-Tedesco, P: Ratings of intelligence and personality from handwriting American Psychologist 1946, 1,455

Castelnuevo-Tedesco, P: A Study of the relationship between handwriting and personality variables. Genetic Psychology Monographs 1948, 37, 167-220

Chapman, L J & Wedell, Klaus: Perceptual-motor abilities and reversal errors in children's handwriting. Journal of Learning Disabilities 1972, 5(6), 321-325 jonathon 00:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Experimenter bias

I'll add a list of studies with this criteria, and why/how it is met/not met, by the end of May. How many studies should be listed? 67.136.137.132 21:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Medical research

I'll add a list of studies with this criteria, and why/how it is met/not met, by the end of May. How many studies should be listed? 67.136.137.132 21:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

TB

Kollarits, J (1933), "Über Sprach-und Schreibstörungen im allgermeinen und als "kleine Zeichen der Geistesschwächung" bei Tuberkulose und im Alter. Das Verhaltnin zwischen innerer Sprache und Schreibfehler.", Archiv für Psychiatrie und Nervenkrankheiten, 99 (2){{citation}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link) jonathon 16:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Death

Jacoby, Hans: Ūber die Veränderungen in schriften todnaher Menschen. Schrift 1935, 1, 56. This article describes the deterioration of handwriting as an individual approaches their death.jonathon 16:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Daubert requirements

I'll add a list of studies with this criteria, and why/how it is met/notmet, by the end of May. How many studies should be listed? 67.136.137.132 21:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

---

Thank you for your attention to this. Did you mean you'll list them in the article or here on the talk page? If the former, as many should be listed as would most improve the article.

BTW, please write either "This criterion" or "These criteria", not "This criteria". Michael Hardy 01:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

My theory is to list the bibliographic citation, and an abstract on this page,then decide which ones can be moved to the main page. My guess is that for each sub-category listed above, I can provide ten to fifteen abstracts with citations.jonathon 01:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Why is determining sex so important?

Hi everyone. Reading the discussion above, I can't understand why all of you consider it so important to tell the sex of the person. I have read a fair bit on the subject, and from what I know, graphology really canNOT find out the sex of the subject, and doesn't even claim to! For instance, "Handwriting Analysis Made Easy" by Jess E. Dines, a good beginner level book, explicitly states that what graphology cannot tell, amongst other things, the sex of the person, the age of the person, and whether the person is left-handed or right-handed. It CAN tell traits like maturity, sensitivity, emotional expressiveness etc, from which a the user could make a guess, but that would only be a guess, based on stereotypical generalizations. So ... why the debate, may I humbly ask. -- Amit 19:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

There are at least 250 studies on determining handwriting from gender. Every published study supports the hypothesis that gender can be determined from handwriting. There are no published studies that do not support that hypothesis. This datapoint (gender from handwriting) has more support from published research than any other datapoint in handwriting analysis. (My guess is that there are more published studies on gender and handwriting, than have been done using any single system of handwriting analysis.)

I can probably quote 100 graphologists who claim that handwriting can not determine gender. They all are ignoring the results of the published research in the field. jonathon 09:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.40.54.64 (talk • contribs) 18:02, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

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! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.92.168.163 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Obscenity

Can someone remove the cursing under the heading Employment Profiling please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.255.202.158 (talk • contribs) 02:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

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] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.40.45.210 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Question about redirect

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)

NPOV Status

Can somebody explain how/why this was tagged with NPOV status? And thanks to whoever removed that status. [jonathon] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.136.137.135 (talk • contribs) 01:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I have replaced the NPOV status as the attacks on Graphology are both blatant and insulting. I know next to nothing about Graphology which is exactly why I came here and the last half of this article reads like a freshman's temper tantrum. To quote:

Very often graphologists will state that handwriting analysis in the workplce is legal, and cite one or more of the following cases:

• Gilbert v California :388 US 263-267 (1967)
• US v Dionisio :410 US 1 (1973) 1973, Lawyers Edition, Second Series 35, 67; 93 SC 774
• US v Mara aka Marasovich :410 US 19 (1973)
• US v Rosinsky :547 F 2nd 249 ( CA 4th 1977 )
• United States v Wade :388 US 218, 221-223 (1967)

They are all related to obtaining samples for comparison with documents, sound recordings etc and used to determine whether the individual who provided the sample, is the same person as created the evidence that they have.

Nothing to do with permission to do a psychological analysis is implied.

That is making a legal and opinionated determination (i.e., nothing to do with permission to do a psychological analysis is implied).

Perhaps the most offending part is the following (from Graphology in court testimony):

Cameron v Knapp, 137 Misc. 2d 373, 520 N.Y.S.2d 917 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co. 1987) (handwriting expert may testify as to the authenticity of a writing but not as to an individual's physical or mental condition based on a handwriting sample) stands as current U.S. case law for the rejection of graphology as psychological testimony.

Carroll v State [276 Ark 160; 634 SW 2d 99, 101-102 (1982)] probably will be remembered for reasons why no graphologists should be allowed to testify. Both sides demonstrated that graphology has no scientific basis. In doing so, they also displayed a distinct lack of professional courtesy to members of the other side. Their calling of each other charlatans, frauds, and the like demonstrates both the antagonism, and lack of common ground that the major approaches in handwriting analysis have to each other.

There is no proof, there is no link and there is most definitely a strong bias against Graphology. This needs to be changed immediately. If no one has any objections I will do it in a few days. NoHitHair 20:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Article: And cite one or more of the following cases ... related to obtaining samples for comparison...nothing to do with permission to do a psychological analysis is implied

All of the court cases listed are related to the fifth amendment right to refuse to provide self-incriminating information, in a criminal case. Neither voluntary, nor involuntary psychological testing are hinted at, in any of those cases.

If one is trying to claim that the law allows for involuntary psychological examination, then the case law that needs to be cited is different. You won't find that case law cited in any books on handwriting analysis.

If one is trying to claim that the law permits the use of graphology in the workplace, then the case law to support that thesis needs to be cited. I'm not sure if there is any case law on graphology in the workplace. Neither Spohn (1997), Kohn (nd), Beyerstein & Beyerstein (1992) nor Ben-Shaker et al (1986) cite anything along those lines. jonathon 16:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Cameron v Knapp contains both a legal citation, and a synopsis of the judge's ruling in respect to graphology. That is the most recent case that makes a ruling on graphology, and hence stands as case law.

Carroll V State contains both a legal citation, and a synopsis of the testimony of the participating handwriting analysts. It is a black mark for graphological testimony. jonathon 16:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

NoHitHair: There is no proof, there is no link and there is most definitely a strong bias against Graphology. This needs to be changed immediately.

The legal citations do not support graphology. There are no legal citations that support the use of graphology. What I have omitted in this article is a discussion of the attempts to outlaw the use of handwriting analysis in various states, as I didn't think that they were relevant,

The datapoints that have been validated by peer reviewed double blind studies have been rejected by graphologists. The datapoints that graphologists claim can be determined from handwriting analysis have not been validated by peer reviewed double blind studies. In some instances they haven't even been validated by anecdotal evidence. jonathon 16:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, the Spanish and Dutch articles on graphology only cite the critics of graphology. jonathon 19:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

What, specifically, are the conflicting statements you're finding in what I wrote? Michael Hardy 03:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

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 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.136.147.108 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I forgot to add that graphonomics is another proposed replacement for the word "graphology".:: jonathon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.136.147.165 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you cite some of those published papers? Michael Hardy 03:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

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 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.136.147.108 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I've added the citation for the only 'citation needed' flag I found. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.136.147.108 (talk • contribs) 21:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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 worthwhile? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.136.147.108 (talk • contribs) 02:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC) jonathon 00:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

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;

jonathon 03:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

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 2knowmyself.com/communication_skills/Graphology_handwriting_analysis but the problem is that they are not referenced —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.205.234.175 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

Miller, James H Bibliography of Handwriting Analysis: A Graphological Index Whitston Publishing Company: troy, NY: 1982 ISBN 0-87875-184-X Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 80-52546 It contains 2,321 citations of graphological literature. jonathon 00:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

"Orthographical study"

The lead section's last sentence reads: "One may also say that graphology is an orthographical study, embracing the ideas that writing systems operate on style and form."

Does this belong in that section, and if so, what does it mean? ---Sluzzelin talk 14:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and deleted that sentence. To explain what that sentence means, requires a subsection of its own. If anybody wants to add it back, do so as a new section.jonathon (talk) 01:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

A suggestion for converging on NPOV

Hi everyone. I know this is not the place to discuss Graphology, but since there are already strong opinions being presented, I wish to suggest the following points which we could agree on, and proceed towards consensus.

1) The current state of development of Graphology is very substandard.

2) There probably is a scientific basis to Graphology, otherwise there would be no scientific basis to psychological tests like the Rorschach, which stress the importance of the subconscious.

3) Graphology may not be a pseudoscience, but it has not been researched and standardized enough to be raised to the level of a science. Therefore, people may have a valid point when they say that it is not usefully applicable.

4) Classification of graphology with pseudosciences like occult, numerology, astrology etc may have been a contributor to its gaining a bad reputation

5) Graphology has been usefully employed by FBI, Scotland Yard etc for finding important clues to identify perpetrators of crimes (Handwriting Analysis - Putting it to work for you - Andrea McNichol)

I have refrained from using my (and other peoples') useful application of graphology in the interest of No-Original-Research principal, and have tried to remain as neutral as I could.

I welcome other users to comment on the above point so that we can make the article more useful. Regards -- Amit 20:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

a) You are addressing the apparent anti-graphology bias in the article. That means that the field has to be discussed.

b) Research, or the lack of it, has been an issue in the field for almost a century. Research design and methodology (on both sides) tends to ignore important datapoints in the analysis of handwriting.

c) Alfred Binet was one of the first researchers to point out how graphologers could improve their field, by using the scientific method. His recommendations were almost universally dismissed within the field. Subsequent researchers have not fared much better.

d) The two major divisions in the field (Holistic Graphology & Integrative Graphology) are more intent on throwing barbs at each other, than doing scientific research to substantiate their claims.

e) The meta-studies indicate that graphology is valid for the general case, but the effect size implies that it is not valid in the specific case.

f) The link to astrology, phrenology, and the like might have hurt the field. The Library of Congress moved graphology out of the occult section roughly 25 years ago.

g) Most of the major organizations of handwriting analysts in the US have have an implicit, if not explicit prohibition against practicing both handwriting analysis, and an occult art, at the same time. The majority of people who practice graphology are not associated with any of the major organizations.

h) There is no verifiable data by reliable authors in the field to support the theory that Scotland Yard, FBI, and similar agencies use graphology for personality assessment to help solve crime.

i) There is verifiable data that the CIA and similar organizations use graphology.

k) Andrea McNichol is not a reliable source for information about the field.

jonathon 01:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jonathon. Thanks for your comments. Regarding your point (h), searching for { "andrea mcnichol" fbi "scotland yard" } (without the braces) will turn up many different links citing FBI etc consulting Andrea McNichol. The cases are described in detail in her book. I don't fully understand why you state that she's not a reliable source. Also I'd like to know what you're trying to imply by point (e) of yours; and what your opinion really is about Graphology's scientific standing. --Amit 15:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

1: Andrea:

a) The FBI has never claimed to using handwriting analysts for personality assessment. More to the point, their QDE people routinely dismiss graphology as being a pseudo-science, when they face a graphologist moonlighting as a QDE in the courtroom. [Both the NSA and CIA have publicly acknowledged using graphologists. The CIA has recruited graphologists at their trade conventions.];

b) Of the 583 listings for the search string you suggest, Google reduces them to roughly 60, omitting the rest as being duplicates/similar to the ones it has presented. Those it does present fall into one of three groups: Link farms, adds for her services, newspaper fluff pieces to generate publicity for a lecture she is giving;

c) The Sorbonne has never taught a course in graphology. It doesn't even fall into any of the fields which are taught there;

d) I'd go further into this, but WP:BLP kicks in, and I've forgotten the relevent case citations; jonathon 09:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

2: Effect Size

a) A meta study is a study of all of the studies that look at a specific aspect of something. Part of the theory behind metastudies, is that the bias, and errors in the individual studies will cancel themselves out. IOW, the results of the metastudy are less prone to experimenter bias/error than the individual studies are. Dean (1992) probably best exemplifies the results of metastudies.

b) If graphology is both useful, and valid,, then the effect size needs to be significant for both individuals, and the group. Thus far metastudies do not support that hypothesis.jonathon 09:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Graphology in Court Testimony

I've added a "Reads like a magazine" tag to this section. The second paragraph is not in the right tone at all. -- Amit 15:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

How would you rewrite that sub-section? The second paragraph describes a case that has been cited as a reason to reject graphology in tota, because of the conduct of both sides. jonathon 16:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear Jonathon, please don't get me wrong. I respect your authority on the subject. However, sentences like "probably remembered for why graphologists should never be allowed to testify ..." sound way too weasely. In fact every sentence seems to express an opinion. If the case described has indeed "been cited as reason to reject graphology in tota", then why you don't please cite that, er, citation. Regards, -- Amit 17:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

"Probably best remembered why graphologists should never be allowed to testify" is a paraphrase of the quote in Beyerstein & Beyersein. One of the CSICOP publications (I've forgotten which one) cites that case to demonstrate that graphology either has no scientific validity, or no legal validity. Skeptics cite it as a demonstration of why graphology is a pseudoscience. If it wasn't for the conduct of the graphologists, that court case would be forgotten.jonathon 18:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jonathon. I noticed you've added a reference. So I have removed the tag after some rewording. I have tried to retain everything you wanted to convey, while keeping the tone neutral. I hope it's acceptable to everyone. Cheers. Amit 06:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Works for me. There are 11 more sections, or 30 more sub-sections to go through. Which one do we do next? jonathon 17:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The "Legal Considerations" section could use some wikifying. Amit 07:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I think "Graphology in Court Testimony" could be made a subsection of the "Legal Considerations" section. Amit 11:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I moved "Graphology in Court Testimony" to a sub-section of "Legal Considerations". I also did a couple of other minor changes.jonathon 17:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I reinstated Privacy as a separate subsection. The court cases listed are related to Fifth Amendment rights, and conflating them with the cases about handwriting analysts testifying is will confuse the different issues that are involved:

• Privacy;
• Forensic Document Examination;
• Graphologists as Expert Witnesses;
• Graphology and Daubert;

I'm not sure what happened to the paragraph about Graphology failing the criteria defined by Daubert. (I'll rewrite it later on.)jonathon 18:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Improving the article

Let's start at the top.

I tried to wikify the intro and Basic tenets section. You may please review the changes.

However it still has inconsistencies. The second point seems to contradict itself. The language is fairly convuluted (e.g. "The significance of the cluster can be assessed accurately by tracing each component of the cluster back to their origins and adapting the meaning of the latter to the conditions of the milieu in which the form appears.")

I think the basic tenets can be summarised in fewer points, for intance:

1. Handwriting is influenced by mental condition

2. Handwriting is not significantly affected by the skeleto-muscular assembly once it's sufficiently adapted

3. A single graphological element can have multiple meanings

4. Handwriting is affected by both short term and long term mental states.

--Amit 17:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The Basic Tenets list is not exhaustive. Different systems of handwriting analysis have slightly different tenants that effect the resulting reports.jonathon 18:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

One graphological sign versus a single graphological element. Technically, the former is more accurate than the latter. (The difference is that in Holistic Graphology, a single graphological element is usually constructed of two or more graphological signs. In Integrative Graphology, there usually is a one to one correlation between graphological signs and graphological elements. OTOH, for all practical purposes, this is hair splitting.)jonathon 18:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Resultant Writing might be confusing. One of the early systems of Handwriting Analysis is The Theory of Resultants. jonathon 18:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, fine; we can revert those parts. Amit 18:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep the changes you made. If anybody is confused they can ask on the talk page. ( I was looking at this as if I was teaching an intermediate graphology course, and not an article for the lay person.) jonathon 19:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Jonathon, your edits make me sad. I used to love this, er, science :-( Amit@Talk 14:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite them. jonathon 08:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I suspect you meant "rewrote them". The tone seems way better now. Amit@Talk 08:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

New articles

I wikilinked Dr Fox Effect [28] and the Aunt Fanny Effect, but there are no articles on them as of now. The article seems much better now overall, thanks to Jon and others; though I still think something could be improved about the tone. Amit@Talk 02:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

"Validity" section POV tagged

Tagged this section for POV. The tone of the section implies strongly that the research with a negative result is flawed. I have no idea whether this is the case, but a more balanced assessment is needed. What mainly raises my alarm is:

Effect Size: This is Dean's(1992) only substantial argument against the use of graphology. The effect size is too small. In other words, the interpretations made for a specific individual may not be useful although they may accurately reflect characteristics found in many members of a large group.

Saying that small effect size is "Dean's only substantial argument" is misleading, whether true or not. Effect size is a huge point. Furthermore, the explanation of what small effect size means seems completely wrong to the best of my knowledge.

Beyerstein & Beyerstein (1992)surveyed studies finding no validity to interpretations of handwriting analysis, concluding that handwriting analysis was useless at best. They neglected to note the challenges involved in evaluating any complex motor behavior, and, in particular, they ignored glaring problems in research design, methodology, operational definitions, and assumptions of the studies cited in support of their argument.

Did they? It's not our job to evaluate research and blare out our analysis of it. I hope I don't have to explain why.

I lack the knowledge and time to do something about this, but it should be done. EldKatt (Talk) 10:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I made some edits to address some of your concerns, and made some other minor changes, besides adding a couple of {{fact}} tags. You may remove the neutrality tag if you find it OK now. Amit@Talk 13:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Good; it's getting there. I also removed the "in other words..." explanation of the concept of effect size. Dumbing a concept down when we can link to its article is unnecessary; dumbing it down inaccurately is worse. Regarding Dean, I haven't read the actual review (nor do I intend to do so any time soon), but I found an article on Quackwatch that references it a lot; he seems to have plenty to say about various methodological flaws, so while it might be safe to assume (considering the title) that effect size is the big one, I'm not sure whether the current representation is completely accurate. I'm leaving the tag for now as I'm not sure what I think. EldKatt (Talk) 16:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I added back the criticism of Beyerstein & Beyerstein. IIRC, it paraphrases Marcel's paper that analyzes the flaws of the book.(I'll look up the exact cite later.)jonathon (talk) 22:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to cite the "A larger number of studies[citation needed] such as" phrase. Simply adding up all papers cited by each side to support their position, will give more papers to the opponents. jonathon (talk) 23:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The quote about Formniveau is from Klages. I don't know which book it is from. jonathon (talk) 23:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed the citation needed tag from the "larger number" sentence and added it to the part you reinserted. I also added "According to a paper by Marcel ..." to its beginning. Amit@Talk 07:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Dr Fox effect

I created an article on Dr Fox Effect after collecting information from a couple of websites (no copying, my own words). However I don't know how it pertains to the discussion on graphology. Could someone please explain it? Amit@Talk 07:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

An over-simplification of the different phenomena is:

• Aunt Fanny Effect: This person is credible because some of their content resembles what another party I trust has said;
• Dr Fox Effect: This person is credible because they appear to have lots of credentials to flash around. Furthermore, they use lots of pretty pictures, and are extremely passionate about their field;
• Barnum effect: This person is credible because what they says appears to be reasonable;

jonathon (talk) 23:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

In graphology, an over simplification of how they are played out is:

• Dr Fox effect: Look at all these certificates I have to prove that I know what I am talking about. Also look at all these pretty pictures in your report that describe your personality;
• Aunt Fanny Effect: This report states something that my aunt once said about me. Therefore this report must be accurate;
• Barnum Effect: Some of this description sounds like me. Therefore this entire report must be both accurate, and about me;

jonathon (talk) 23:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Psychology article?

Shouldn't this article be a part of wikiproject psychology? Amit@Talk 07:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

It should fit within the scope of that project. However, US psychologists have traditionally been hostile towards graphology. OTOH, German psychologists do/did use it. jonathon (talk) 12:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I included it in the project. Perhaps we could add the psychology template(s) to the main article too. Amit@Talk 14:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I slapped a Psychology Navigation template at the bottom of the article.Not sure if that is the one you were suggesting, but it seemed to me to be the most suitable. jonathon (talk) 22:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah that's the one I was talking about. Amit@Talk 03:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Aunt Fanny effect

I removed the Aunt Fanny effect as it means the same thing as Barnum effect. Also could someone please make sense of the following sentence for me:

This too is a side effect of graphology having extremely high face validity.
It can only be overcome by individual handwriting analysts learning how to
write individualized graphological reports

Amit@Talk 15:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The following might clarify what that paragraph means:

• This too is a side effect of graphology having extremely high face validity:

• This too is side effect: Like the "Barnum Effect" validity is ascribed on the basis of believing that the person knows what they are talking about.The graphologist appears to have had extensive training, and credentials, and is teaching the individual more about themselves;
• Face Validity: Something that appears to be valid, simply based upon surface observation of the data. It appears to be reasonable, if one doesn't analyze it. Everybody's handwriting is different. Open middle zone loop structures indicate "open communications";

• It can only be overcome by individual handwriting analysts learning how to write individualized graphological reports:

• This entire sentence attempts to describe (incorrectly) how a graphologist can avoid having their clients falling for this type of "error".

"The Dr Fox" effect occurs when somebody is both passionate about what they teach, and does not provide high quality data. "High quality data" in this instance refers to individualized reports about the individual. (This criticism is mainly a slap at two organizations in the US, and one organization in India that teach handwriting analysis.) jonathon (talk) 23:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

As far as graphological reports are concerned, the difference between "Dr Fox Effect", "Aunt Fanny Effect", and "Barnum Effect" is more along the lines of hair splitting, than anything else. jonathon (talk) 23:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the explanation! Amit@Talk 03:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Pseudoscience?

Why is Graphology categorized as a pseudoscience? Admitted that it's not very useful as it stands today, but lumping it along with astrology and the occult is hardly appropriate. After all, it doesn't invoke anything "magical". Its rules may be arbitrary, but that can be said of tests like the Rorschach as well. Amit@Talk 03:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Whilst that categorization is incorrect, I didn't think it was worth an edit war. Beyerstein --- who is probably the best known current critic of graphology ---proclaims it to be pseudoscience whilst admitting that it does have some validity.jonathon (talk) 17:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Alright, thanks! Amit@Talk 05:05, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Graphology in India by Milind J Rajore

The graphologist Mr Milind J Rajore and Mrs Kalpna Rajore of India, has been teachin and doing research in the development of graphology for last 10 Years. They have around 15000 people, to whom they have taught graphology and art of handwriting analysis, around Mumbai and Pune. Mr Milind J Rajore have written five books on graphology. He has accomplished many assignments projects for Hospitals, Schools, Jail and Corporates. He has found the reasons (the thought process responsible for sickness)for many diseases (psychosomatic) like stomach upset, tooth ache, gynea problems, cancer, asthma, kidney stone, cancer, diabetes etc. He has been practicing graphology and handwriting analysis for 15 years now. His office address is Institute of Graphology and Personal Sucess (IGPS), 505, West Wing,Aurora towers, MG Road, Camp, Pune-411001, Maharashtra, India. Contact details: 91-20-26124974, 91-9325455758 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shuklamukesh (talk • contribs) 08:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear Shuklamukesh, thanks for your contributions. However, wikipedia is an encyclopedia, that is a repository of published, verifiable, notable material. So the part you added doesn't fit in here. While I don't doubt your intentions, the truth is you have made a mess of a perfectly good article. And now we have to fix it. Amit@Talk 11:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

There should be something about graphology in India, There are some apparently interesting developments there. None of the indigenous material I've seen comes remotely close to being usable as a reliable source.jonathon (talk) 05:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikification

There are a number of red links in this article after wikification. Pretty much all of the biographies are going to constitute original research. jonathon (talk) 23:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Freud

I didn't slap a "citation needed flag, but is there any reliable evidence that Freud supported the use of handwriting analysis. A source other than that of a handwriting analyst. jonathon (talk) 23:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary I think Freud did not support graphology: see http://www.wmin.ac.uk/marketingresearch/graphology/freud.htm

One report on Freud in his early seventies was written by Robert Saudek. Freud "stigmatized it as a bad joke" (Jones 1957.pg.160) These extracts are from the analysis: "His ambition is boundless, he believes in logic ... a monomaniac ... he overdoes things ... he cannot stand criticism and opposition ... what a suspicious old gentleman he must be".

Another report mentioned in Freud's essay on Telepathy, (1921) was produced by Raphael Schermann. Freud was again not impressed.

A third report is mentioned in Schweighofer 1976.pg.23: "In 1928 Viktor Von Weizsäcker presented Freud with a handwriting analysis that his cousin Lucy von Weizsäcker had done, but it made hardly any impression on him. This analysis was poorly equipped to convince him of the potentials of graphology".

I would be tempted to remove him as a supporter, Eysenck was more supportive although supportive is less the apt word than curious as to the potential. Bradlen Jan 2008 Bradlen (talk) 20:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

some empirical studies fail to show the validity

The rule of thumb is that if a study is "global" it tends to support validity. If the study is trait or character specific, it fails to support validity.jonathon (talk) 23:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't remember the exact figure. Claiming 70% of the peer reviewed empirical studies do not support the validity of handwriting analysis for personality analysis would be be a good starting point. "Some" implies less than 50%. "Usually" implies more than 50%. "Most" implies more than two thirds.jonathon (talk) 23:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Training

Should the Training subsection list:

• Only graphology courses that were part of an accredited degree?
• All graphology courses, regardless of academic accreditation?

New School for Social Research offered a diploma in graphology. That course did not have academic accreditation. The graphology courses that had academic accreditation were offered by a college in Lodi, NJ.

I thought that that was in this article, but I can't find it in the history pages.  :( jonathon (talk) 00:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Some Basic Examples

Should this section be left in place? I'm inclined to delete it on the grounds that as is,the presented data is, at best, misleading, and at worst, inaccurate. That the sources are inaccurately cited merely adds fuel to deleting the entire subsection.jonathon (talk) 00:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the section is misleading or inaccurate in many places. Perhaps we could could cut down the section so that only a few, non-doubtful examples remain. Amit@Talk 02:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Graphology/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I have added this article to the psychology wikiproject because it deals with the psychological aspects of handwriting. It's a new and relatively less important subject from teh POV of psychology, so i've rated it low importance. Also its B class on quality IMO. Others may please review.Amit@Talk 14:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 14:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 20:37, 2 May 2016 (UTC)