Talk:Graphology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Graphology article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
WikiProject on Psychology
Portal		 This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, which collaborates on Psychology and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading: The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit comments - comment history - watch comments · refresh this page)

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)
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 15/8/2006. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.
Other languages 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.
Archive
Archives
Archive 1 Sep 2004 - Dec 2007


Contents

[edit] Be careful reader this article is controlled by jonathon (talk)

[edit] Neutrality of "Validity" section

IMHO we can remove the "Neutrality" tag in the Validity section. Also we might include a basic definition of "Effect size" as the line is not intelligible to anyone who isn't familier with the term. thanks. Amit@Talk 15:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

did it Amit@Talk 17:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA?

Can we have a shot at sending this article for GA review? Amit@Talk 17:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Can we verify Freud's position first. (FWIW, the only thing I could find in Freud's writings implied he did not think much of graphology.)jonathon (talk) 05:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Couple of comments from a quick skim: The lead should be a bit longer (see WP:LS) and there are a lot of red links in the references - how many years will it be before they all have their own articles (assuming these people are even notable)? Also, I think this needs to be better integrated with the rest of the encyclopedia. A summary appearing in handwriting would probably be a good idea, for example (integration isn't part of GA criteria, but nonetheless a myopic view of articles won't make a good encyclopedia). Richard001 (talk) 01:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
The red link biographies probably won't become articles, due to the policies and practices of Wikipedia. I'd forgotten I'd said I'd find Marcel's paper for the citation about the problems with Barry's book. I can't find the cite by Klages in his material I have access to. (Criticism: Vagueness)jonathon (talk) 02:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
on a different note, this article might be nice with a few examples and pictures.

Duinemerwen (talk) 15:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 20080204 edits

Deleted Sigmund Freud reference, because the data suggests that he was not a supporter of graphology.jonathon (talk) 02:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Added citation needed tag to significant historical interest in India. Nothing I've read indicates that there are any systems of handwriting analysis that were formulated for the analysis of any Indus Valley writing system. By contrast, there are at least two systems of handwriting analysis designed just for the Chinese Writing System. (One dates back to circa 1500 CE, and the other to circa 1980 CE.) jonathon (talk) 02:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Deleted "or court evidence" in second paragraph. Case Law is that graphological testimony is not acceptable.jonathon (talk) 02:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Training: Added "currently" to the phrase the world that currently offer an. I don't have a list of accredited institutions that no longer offer degrees in graphology. (It is longer than the list in the history section implies.) jonathon (talk) 02:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Medical graphology: Kopp et al: Rewrote the paragraph. Half it repeated the prior paragraph. The other half was misleading in its implications.jonathon (talk) 02:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Medical graphology: Kanfer: Deleted " he treated patients". Kanfer did not treat people. Rather, he analyzed the writing of insurance policy holders, after their demise, to determine if the cancer was detectable when the policy was taken out.(I'll also point out that reliable but unconfirmed reports suggest that most of Kanfer's research was destroyed by the custodian of the material.) jonathon (talk) 02:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] First Paragraph About Graphology

Here is what I wish to add to the article (first paragraph).

Graphology is a scientific study of handwriting and handwriting analysis is an art of representing this empirical science.

The difference between forensic document examination and graphology may be discussed in a different paragraph as it dilutes the concept of graphology.

The grapho-theraputics related to medical graphology is a small developing branch of graphology again given prominence in the first paragraph.

Second paragraph negates graphology. This article is about graphology. Does an article about insurance talk about delayed claim settlements in the second para introducing insurance?

Two defenses. One claim by whom (by what authority) and second are the claims real? Where have the claimants or the claims referred from?

For example, anger for the opposite sex can be clearly seen in graphology through the stinger formation but its source (origin of anger) or manifestations (resultant action) cannot be told. When people start discussing source and manifestations they are on thin ice and that brings us to the concept of Handwriting Analysis being an art form of how you present the science of graphology.

All the wiki based errors are mine as this wiki concept new to me, but I am an excellent graphologist.

Bhekare (talk) 17:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

For further reading The lowdown on handwriting analysis

Bhekare (talk) 18:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The point of the first paragraph is to define what the article covers. The article is not about Forensic Document Examination, which a number of people do confuse with graphology. The easiest way to clear up that misconception is to direct people to that article in the first paragraph, if not before.
I can't tell if you want graphotherapy added to the first paragraph, or are confusing graphotherapy with medical graphology, or are trying to say something else. At any rate, medical graphology and graphotherapy are quite separate fields with graphology.
Graphology is general seen as a pseudoscience. The overwhelming majority of studies on the validity of graphology imply that it is not a valid means of determining personality. (To paraphrase one journal article: "This is yet another failure in a long string of failures to validate graphology. Any further research in this field would be a wasted effort.")
I can't tell what you are referring to, in your "Two defenses" paragraphs.
As far as seeing anger through a stinger formation goes, only one system of handwriting analysis makes that claim. Other systems give that structure a different meaning, depending upon what else is indicated.
The Psychology Today article is from 1992. The subject of that article does not have the credentials claimed in that article.jonathon (talk) 09:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear jonathon

Your para 1: Your response is on the dot. Please take action.

Your para 2: I do not want graphotherapy or medical graphology or any sub branch of graphology added in the first para. Rather the first para needs cleanup. Perfection is not about what you can add rather what you can take away.

Your para 3: I do not want to argue about classifying graphology as science or pseudoscience, I read the wikipedia article about pseudoscience and found they have added astrology as pseudoscience and this is where another argument can occur. Science is not an exclusive domain on the western world, yet the western world will look at everything within the ambit of its own scientific view and disregard scientific studies of cultures thousands of years old. The simple principle used is what I do not understand is not true. I will not get into an argument as it will only open a new can of worms, most unproductive. Again I am not here to blame any one. My mission is to represent graphology with honesty and do justice to the subject.

Second view, my personal view is that this article is authored by people skilled in the methods of wikipedia not graphology. For an article to get a flavor of originality a graphology chef is required with the help of experts in wikipedia methods. I believe it is the other way around.

In continuation with para 3, "This is yet another failure in a long string of failures to validate graphology. Any further research in this field would be a wasted effort." Please cite the source and this is a view of the author, a personal view like I have my own. They mean nothing.

Your para 4: The two defense para refers to two arguments for one wrong statement.

Your para 5: The beauty of graphology analysis is that only the person being analyzed needs to agree.

Find a person with a stinger formation and ask her about her experience about the opposite sex and they will have in their memories negative experiences about men and vice versa. Now, everyone gets some negative experience about the opposite sex in onces life time, yes. But the person with a stinger formation has been influenced by that experience and now has a unique thought (her perspective) about men.

There are manifestations of the stinger formations seen in women. They are as follows.

In a young woman, she will prefer physically strong men as mates. In a woman with a male child, she will be the best mother till the age of 7 after which she will hurt the child physically by using harsh methods. In a woman married, she denies nuptial pleasure to her mate and sometimes does not care to provide food.

There are different set of manifestations seen in men. Men too destroy the very women they truly love. They are on auto-pilot status, they mean good but their actions hurt.

The stinger formation goes into generations in alternation. So a harsh male will pass the stinger formation to his daughter (if he is an influence over her and if they have stayed together) and the daughter will pass of this formation to her son, she loves!

Also the graphologist has to consider the cultural differences in various societies and classes of people. How you describe the stinger formations manifestations is an art not science, this takes maturity and experience in the practice of the art of handwriting analysis.

Your para 5: "The Psychology Today article is from 1992." What date was the Newtons law of gravity stated? How does date have a bearing on the validity of an article?

The only objective of the article is to show that, experts are taking pains to understanding graphology with an open mind. They have no right to prove or disprove graphology.

Finally, my teacher says what can be experienced should not be discussed. The best way to prove graphology is to do handwriting analysis. Let me offer to do your handwriting analysis just to prove my point. You may visit Graphologist.Org for the same.

Bhekare (talk) 03:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The first paragraph currently defines what the term means, and what the term does not mean. For that reason both the reference to forensic analysis and medical usage should remain. The definitions might need to be tightened up.
Wikipedia content policy is for articles to:
  • Have a neutral point of view: NPOV. All major views that have support are to be represented in the article;
  • Be verifiable: WP:V.This means that recognized authorities in the field, have to be cited for any statements that might be "surprising", or counter-intuitive, or otherwise questionable;
  • No Original Research:NOR. This means that unpublished analysis, or synthesis can not be included;

Furnham, Adrian & Gunter, Barrie: Graphology and Personality: Another Failure to Validate Graphological Analysis. Personality And Individual Differences 1987, 8 , 433-435. is the article I was paraphrasing.

"The beauty of graphology analysis is that only the person being analyzed needs to agree." That premise violates the fundamental methodology of Daoist exploration, Vedic Science, and Western Science. All three require that the observations conform to a theory, and can be applied to other individuals with the same set of criteria. My major point was that only one of the roughly fifty systems of handwriting analysis that I can use, both accept that the stroke structure "stinger formation" exists, and has the interpretation that you provide.

I don't have the court cases which ruled that the individual's resume was a fabrication. :( That is the major reason why that article can not be considered to be credible.

They have no right to prove or disprove graphology. This article neither proves, nor disproves graphology. It provides a synopsis of the evidence for both claims.

The best way to prove graphology is to do handwriting analysis. All that does,is add weight to the theory that all graphologers are con artists, and that graphology is nothing more than cold reading.

jonathon (talk) 00:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear jonathon,

Please re-read your contribution and see you are duplicating the content, when you can simply point out the source. You are the uncontested expert on wikipedia methods!

They have no right to prove or disprove graphology. does not mean this article but people.

I believe graphology has greater problems to handle, beyond the scope of Wikipedia or even this article, like the occultisms tries to add graphology and handwriting analysis in its folds. This makes it easy for common people to believe that graphology is a pseudoscience. There are no major active formal organizations to validate, test or certify graphology professionals. These limits are circumstantial and do not effect the science of graphology.

Graphology and handwriting analysis is different. Graphology is the study of handwriting formations and relating them to the thoughts, science. Handwriting analysis is more about representing the thought back to the person being analyzed, art.

Contrary to your ideology, I believe in science, observation precedes theory postulation. Theories are then put to confirmation test. Even after a theory is proved it is put to further research to find out its limits, scope and variants.

Graphology has a collection of handwriting formations which have a meaning. When we do handwriting analysis, we uncover other thoughts and their formations. So its a cycle of knowledge and theory and research...

Handwriting analysis leads us to formations and traits. These formations have a meaning and they have a thought behind a formation. This is studied and proved by observation and testing.

How this formation is represented by the handwriting analyst is an art form. This is so because the manifestations or result of having such a formation is not clear, mostly unknown. This is where your claim of Cold Reading fits in.

For example, a running nose (formation) is the trait of common cold but how will one handle his running nose (manifestations), using a kerchief, sleeve of his shirt, a towel, sneezing out aloud, blowing his nose, etc cannot be predicted just stated and cold read.

Con artist is not an exclusive domain of graphologists, even wikipedia has its share of con artist for example John_Seigenthaler_Sr._Wikipedia_biography_controversy so your statement is irrelevant and intent maybe to confuse.

You are in the domain of graphologists, we are expert at analysis!

I take back my offer to do your handwriting analysis for free. If you have any claim of being a graphologist or even a handwriting analyst, please analyze my handwriting.

Thank you for your effort to edit the article.

Bhekare (talk) 05:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

This makes it easy for common people to believe that graphology is a pseudoscience. Binet criticized graphologists of his day for refusing to accept the results of the research that demonstrated that their pet theories were incorrect. Contemporary graphologists are equally prone to reject the findings of research that contradicts what their instructors taught. jonathon (talk) 20:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
There are no major active formal organizations to validate, test or certify graphology professionals. http://www.wmin.ac.uk/marketingresearch/graphology/2162abbrevs.htm is a list of organizations of handwriting analysts. Most of the national and international bodies offer certifications for professional graphologists. The issue is that none of those certifications have any recognition outside of the organization that issues them. jonathon (talk) 20:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Graphology has a collection of handwriting formations which have a meaning. Graphology has a collection of structures which allegedly mean something. There is no peer reviewed research that has been replicated, that demonstrates that a specific set of datapoints in handwriting corresponds to specific behavioural patterns in an individual. There are major disagreements within the field as to what type of structure one should pay attention to, when doing the analysis. (Look at the difference between holistic graphology, integrative graphology, and symbolic analysis, to see how discongruent their ideas on what the fundamental datapoints are.)jonathon (talk) 20:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
This is studied and proved by observation and testing. The best documented datapoint in the graphology research literature is also the most rejected datapoint by graphologists. There are 250 studies that indicate that this datapoint can be determined from handwriting, with no studies that are either inconclusive, or indicate that it can not be determined. This factoid supports the hypothesis that graphologists neither study their research literature,nor accept the results of peer reviewed research studies that contradict their instructors.jonathon (talk) 20:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
This is where your claim of Cold Reading fits in. Cold reading has nothing to do with the manifestation being unknown. It has everything to do with observation, and knowing how people usually behave. (If you adhere to what Singer states a graphologist needs to know, prior to an analysis, you have hot reading, not cold reading, because the person's life story is given to the graphologist, before the handwriting is even looked at.) jonathon (talk) 20:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear jonathon,

Your para 1: What is your point? How does that make the science of graphology obscure/whatever? There are people who make claims and there are people who disprove. This is how science progresses.

Your para 2: The link has been analyzed and many links are outdated, the domain names lost as it was created in 2002 and not updated. We are looking at 6 year old links base.

Your para 3: It means nothing to disprove the graphologists community. It rather proves there are active people, diverse thoughts and activities happening in the graphology front.

Your para 4: Please state your source and add more detail on this. This seems to be your view point.

Your para 5: Wrong claim. I offered to do your analysis without knowing you. Please respond.

Bhekare (talk) 03:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

After reading all that has been discussed I believe we (bhekare and jonathon) are at an impasse and to progress further I am initiating a process as per the Dispute_resolution protocol I am adding the Wikipedia:3O tag to this discussion. I will escalate this matter as is necessary. I really respect jonathon's ability as an wikipedia expert. I cannot accept his anti-graphology stand on an article explaining graphology. I want to accept his views but not on a graphology page, so I wish to propose another article which can be anti-graphology and linked to the graphology article.

Bhekare (talk) 08:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Taking your points in reverse order:
  • What would the anti-graphology page consist of, that could not be stated on the graphology page?
  • I'm sticking to NPOV here. That means that the article will contain criticism of graphology, if verifiable sources can be cited.
  • I don't see any justification for a request for dispute resolution at this point in time. For starters, what is the dispute?
  • I won't take you up on your offer, becuase I doubt that you'll be better able to analyze my handwriting than Charlie Cole, Emilie Stockholm, or any of half a dozen other published graphologers were able to do. I'll also point out that you retracted your offer;
  • The best documented datapoint is that physical gender can be determined from handwriting. You can read about that in the archives of the talk page;
  • Do you know what the difference between Holistic Graphology and Integrative Graphology is? It has nothing to do with diverse thoughts. So much so that adherents of either approach can barely discuss the subject with those of the other approach;
  • The point of that link was to give you the names of graphological organizations. Organizations that refute your allegation that there were no organizations that certify handwriting analysts on a professional basis. Maybe http://web.archive.org/web/20030306142141/www.eskimo.com/~hwa/faq/020.html would have been more suitable for your purpose, even though it omits most of the known certifications in the field.
  • I cited Binet specifically because the criticism he made of the acceptance of research in field by graphologers was essentially the same as that made by Barry Beyerstein roughly 80 years later. There has been zero progress in the field since Crepieux-Jamin, and, arguably, Michon wrote their material in the late Nineteenth Century. jonathon (talk) 03:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I just found out the other party is Jonathon Blake as jonathon and he definitely knows his subject more than I do. My attempt to edit graphology page overstepping jonathon's authority embarrasses me! My sincere apology and an appeal that my intentions were honorable. I rest my arguments and will like to have no say in this matter. Will still like to do an analysis just for the pleasure of practicing graphology :-)

Bhekare (talk) 08:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

After reading the discussion and seeing its progress toward resolution, I removed the listing from Wikipedia:Third opinion. Well done, both of you. — Athaenara ✉ 06:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] No pictures

How about some pictures? I'd like to be able to see all the different kinds of handwriting. 86.81.228.168 (talk) 09:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Without getting unencyclopediac, what would a picture of handwriting demonstrate? jonathon (talk) 10:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps we could have samples of connected vs disconnecred, garland vs angular handwriting etc. But the question is how to get such images. ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 16:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Images for most features are easy to obtain. (Either from my collection for which I do have permission to use for articles like this, or from scanning books in the field that are in the public domain.) jonathon (talk) 00:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
What I want to avoid, is turning this article into "How to analyze handwriting". There are 72 datapoints for the Wittlich Character Diagram. There are roughly 250 stroke structures in Graphoanalysis, 150 datapoints in DBTL, 1,000 datapoints in Erika Karoh's course on handwriting analysis. Each of those could easily be illustrated. To avoid that, I'd suggest specific criteria to determine whether or not a datapoint should have an image.jonathon (talk) 00:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Categories

I'd like the justification for including graphology in the category "Pseudoscience", since it fails the criteria for that category as provided by ArbCom. jonathon (talk) 23:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pseudoscience

An Encyclopedia of Claims, Frauds, and Hoaxes of the Occult and Supernatural

Introduction | "R" Reading | Curse of the Pharaoh | End-of-the-World Prophecies

Index | A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | Y | Z

graphology (also, graphiology, a spelling invented by the practitioners) Graphology is not to be confused with graphoanalysis, the art of identifying samples and classifying styles of handwriting for legal and forensic purposes.

Graphology is a pseudoscience by which it is claimed that the character, disposition, fate, aptitudes, and potentials of a writer may be determined. Slant, flourishes, pressure, size, regularity, and curvature are some of the features that are believed to reveal characteristics of the writer.

To quote John Beck, secretary of the National Society of Graphologists in the U.K., some practitioners are so accurate that “sometimes they can tell what a person had for breakfast that morning.” Graphology, he says, is “the most precise of the 'ologies,'” and it has shown that “99 per cent of persons in the U.K. are not in the right jobs.” He also says that graphology is a brand of psychology. In contrast, Professor Michael Rothenberg of the Department of School Services, City College, New York, defines graphology as largely “pseudoscience, closer to fortunetelling than serious research.”

In Israel and in Europe, many companies rely on graphologists to make decisions on employment, promotions, contracts, and other business matters. French psychologist Alfred Binet (1857-1911), the originator of a well-known IQ test still in use, embraced graphology as genuine and published material on the idea in 1906.

Though certain very obvious physical traits and failings of the subject (tremors, lack of co-ordination, dyslexia) can clearly be established by studying the individual's handwriting, graphologists claim that hidden thoughts and attitudes, weaknesses and hidden desires, can be revealed through their pursuit. The fact is that double-blind tests of graphology have shown that it cannot perform as advertised, and certainly does not serve to indicate career choices or capabilities. The percentage quoted by Mr. Beck is perhaps more indicative of the failure of graphology to correctly determine proper career directions.

However, Susan Morton, who professionally practices graphoanalysis (not graphology!) for the U.S. Postal Service Crime Lab in San Bruno, California, can indeed tell the future of one whose handwriting she identifies. If it matches what she is looking for, she says, she can clearly tell where the writer will spend the next four or five year

http://www.randi.org/encyclopedia/graphology.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.51.185.115 (talk) 12:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Graphoanalysis is a system of handwriting analysis, or graphology.To attempt to define it as QDE, is to misappropriate the registered trademark. Binet did research in the field, but did not embrace it. There are no peer reviewed published double blind studies in the field of graphology.jonathon (talk) 19:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

http://forensic.to/webhome/qdman/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.51.179.189 (talk) 19:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

That URL has nothing about Graphoanalysis in it. Nothing in either the article,or the talk page suggests that QDE and handwriting analysis for the determination of character are the same thing. jonathon (talk) 20:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Forensic Document Examination v. Graphology: http://forensic.to/webhome/qdman/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.51.183.184 (talk) 11:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

You've cited that page twice. Wikipedia is not the place for an indiscriminate collection of links, repeated multiple times. jonathon (talk) 17:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

That was the answer to your previous remark. 190.51.146.177 (talk) 20:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

That page neither addresses Graphoanalysis, nor makes any claims about handwriting analysis qua pseudoscience. jonathon (talk) 22:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

yes, it does about graphology (this article). But for you here is a page where graphology is a little more clearly classified as a pseudoscience Distinguishing Science from Pseudoscience 190.175.205.54 (talk) 23:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Beyerstein is interesting. He claims it is a pseudoscience, but also admits that his research indicates that it is statically valid. The significant issue is the effect sizė. IOW, his own criteria demand that it not be considered a pseudoscience. jonathon (talk) 00:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Hans Knoblock Graphologie: Lehrbuch neuer Modelle der Handschrifenanalyse Econ Verlag, Wien: 1971;Anne-marie Cobbaert Graphologie: Schriften erkennen und deutenAriston Verlag, Genf: 1973; F Girolamo Moretti, Die Heiligen und Ihre Handschrift F H Verlag: Heidelberg provide further proof that graphology is not a pseudoscience. jonathon (talk) 00:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying Beyerstein does not consider Graphology a pseudoscience? 190.51.184.153 (talk) 03:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Beyerstein's own research indicates that graphology is scientifically valid. If he is logically consistent, he would admit that graphology is scientific. jonathon (talk)

IOW, the studies you cite in fact say: graphology is a pseudoscience. by their own criteria graphology is a pseudoscience 190.51.178.67 (talk) 03:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Mueller, Enskat, Knobloch, Pulver, et al clearly explain why Graphology is not a pseudoscience,in their books that I cited. Their published research further supports the position that graphology is a valid science. Claiming otherwise demonstrates either total ignorance of what they wrote, or willful misunderstanding of what they wrote. jonathon (talk) 07:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

No, demonstrates that i was paraphrasing you and the proofs of graphology being a pseudoscience. 190.51.190.48 (talk) 08:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

No. Your position is one of pure malice. Willful and deliberate misunderstanding and misconstruing what is written, to support an invalid agenda. jonathon (talk) 20:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

If graphologists were logically consistent, graphologists and graphology would not exist. 190.51.188.78 (talk) 08:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The practitioners are at least as logical as the skeptics are. Furthermore, the professional graphologers consider it to be an art, not a science.jonathon (talk) 20:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

No, they call it science. And they are not skeptics: for them graphology works no matter what.190.51.139.126 (talk) 23:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Of the sources you cite, one of them fabricated the quotes and one of them is about the difference between forensic document analysis and personality evaluation. The third source is not based upon an examination of the data, but an axiom that prohibits the validity of handwriting analysis.02:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

No, demonstrates that i was paraphrasing you and the proofs of graphology being a pseudoscience. sounds familiar? 190.51.186.229 (talk) 09:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The graphologists admit that the scientific research isn't always positive. The skeptics deny that any scientific research supports graphology. jonathon (talk)

Why do you have to lie? 123456789qwe (talk) 16:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Graphologists tend to dismiss research that doesn't support the validity, but they do admit it exists.jonathon (talk) 16:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] External links

There is objection to the following external links.

Under Formal Organizations

What is the logic in the order of the above list?

Handwriting Analysts India

What makes it a formal organization? It is more geared to teach graphology like numerous other web sites.

Under Informal Groups

Handwriting-L – a handwriting analysts group

On the main page Copyright © 1997-2006 we are on 2008! The site is not active anymore.

Handwriting Events page is dated February 2 - 28, 2006

Graphology.ws – a graphology information centre

The group link just points to a collection of other sites.

Graphology Internet Clubs Where is any group activity?

Under Other Resources

Graphological analysis based on Moretti's method

This link is the only link for this method. Where are the other links to other methods?

Free Signature Study - free graphological signature self-test, a brief demonstration of the potential

Free analysis search on goolge gives 10000+ site so why is this site singly listed here?

I believe there is a huge bias demonstrated by the maintainer/s of this page. Someone please take due note!

59.182.64.127 (talk) 18:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The links in "External Links" are not ordered. For both Handwriting-L, and Graphology.ws, group discussion takes place on mailing lists. Group output appears on the websites. If you think links to other system specific websites should be added, add them. I'm not aware of any such sites. Editors can be bold. jonathon (talk) 19:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Its good to see the imperialists learn the democratic ways. 59.182.43.38 (talk) 02:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


Can we add http://search.dmoz.org/cgi-bin/search?search=graphology the DMOZ link as an external link?

Bhekare (talk) 04:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear jonathon, I am adding the DMOZ link to the main page. Please edit or delete the same if found incorrect. Bhekare (talk) 02:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

If you want to include DMOZ, use http://www.dmoz.org/Science/Social_Sciences/Psychology/Alternative/Handwriting_Analysis/, and not the general search string for "graphology". From my perspective, DMOZ is an unmoderated link farm. jonathon (talk) 18:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree about your quality issue. Please delete if not suitable. Bhekare (talk) 05:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mysticism and Graphology

It's my observation, that lot many websites related to astrology and other occult sciences are adding graphology to their pages and some websites even have people do cold reading stating that its graphology.

The above site uses graphology to bring people to its astrology services and is ranked within first 10 in a google search for graphology.

Register - This software is a POSTWARE ( Click here to know more about POSTWARE) and comes with certain limitations. You are required to register yourself on www.mysticboard.com and make at least 50 posts or a donation of US$9.95, which will help the community grow and to support the development of more softwares. For more details on registration CLICK HERE.

Please study the links given above and see the classification of graphology...


Its my belief that graphology is a rather pure science dependent solely on handwriting formations and their traits. Nothing to do with the occult.

So, we must have a small inclusion of text which differentiates between occult and graphology. Explicitly we have to show that there is no connection what-so-ever. This will educate people interested in graphology and expose the mis-informers. Some graphologists have used the occult methods to do handwriting analysis with some success, but this cannot be taught or duplicated by people without occult skills.

Please discuss and we can formulate some text here for addition to the main article after approval.

Bhekare (talk) 03:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

That is why the section Divination exists. Unfortunately for the profession, there are numerous books on handwriting analysis, and occult practices.jonathon (talk) 18:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
The closest that article comes to occult practice, is Barry's comparison of graphology with sympathetic magic. That comparison might explain symbolic analysis, but it doesn't even begin to explain Holistic Graphology. jonathon (talk) 18:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)