Talk:Graphology

Surely shome mishtake

"Graphology is the pseudoscientific[1][2] study and analysis of handwriting, especially in relation to human psychology. In the medical field, the word can be used to refer to the study of handwriting as an aid in diagnosis and tracking of diseases of the brain and nervous system."

The second sentence alone invalidates the first. Furthermore, later we have:

"There have been a number of studies on gender and handwriting.[70][71][72][73] Uniformly the research indicates that gender can be determined at a significant level. The published studies on ethnicity,[74][75][76] race,[77][78][79] age,[80][81][82] nationality,[83] gender orientation, weight, and their relationship to handwriting have had mixed results, with a tendency to indicate that they can be determined from handwriting."

It therefore looks to me very much as if (in the first sentence) the comma after "handwriting" should be deleted, along with the following "especially". This would make the article consistent, and would also accord with my own understanding of the matter. Paul Magnussen (talk) 18:12, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I just made a couple changes to the lead. I rewrote our definition to match the OED's definition: "the study of handwriting". And I made the point about pseudoscience a proposition about theories and practices that try to relate handwriting to personality, rather than part of the definition. I think this fixes the worst problem with lead, but there is still a lot of work to do. After fixing the easiest problems in the lead, I figure the wisest course is to improve the body of the article and then go back and summarize the rewritten body in the lead (as suggested by WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY). The body of the article is a huge mess, but it does have a lot of sourced information. To see how to organize it all, I briefly tried looking for a book that provides a good overview or history of graphology, but I didn't find anything that jumped out as obviously comprehensive and authoritative. Do you know of one? —Ben Kovitz (talk) 18:18, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

For a history of graphology, your starting point is Jim Miller's Bibliography of Handwriting Analysis: A Graphological Index Whitston Publishing Company: Troy, NY: 1982 ISBN 0-87875-184-X. There are a couple of reviews of the field in psychology journals, but I don't remember the citations. One major issue with the reviews of the field found in general psychology journals, is that the reviewers omit, either by design, or accident, the research done by professionals within the field. Consequently, their reviews imply an invalidity that is not objectively present.(Research by non-graphologers usually ends up doing the functional equivalent of using the attributes of a lemon, to determine if an item is a motor vehicle.)p (talk) 06:18, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

rofl - uhhh, yeah. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:06, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Fluckiger, Fritz A, Tripp, Clarence A & Weinberg, George H: A Review of Experimental Research in Graphology: 1933 - 1960. Perceptual and Motor Skills 12: 67–90; is probably the best review of the field, that was published in an academic journal.p (talk) 16:48, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Need to Revise the Article

This is an outdated article which needs to be revised. I tried to edit the article but it seems that I made too many changes and hence, I was advised to write in the talk page. I do not agree with the contention that graphology is a psuedo-science and that most empirical studies fail to show its validity. Please do look up the website of the International Graphological Colloquium which has a list of peer-reviewed research studies, most in foreign languages which support its validity - http://www.igc-grapho.net/research-in-graphology. I know you'll point to the Beyerstein book but I strongly advise you to read the book "The Beyerstein Book: A Critical Examination" written by Marcel Matley. It talks about the various drawbacks in Beyerstein's "research" and how he has misunderstood various concepts of graphology. I'm not talking about the graphology in which one stroke means one trait and in which the interpretation does not change. I'm talking about proper scientific graphology in which the whole handwriting is considered and each element is considered in relation to another. The fact that handwriting is expressive movement, as explained by Harvard professor Gordon Allport, the founder of the psychology of personality, clearly demonstrates that handwriting is revealing of personality. Also, an accredited degree is offered in graphology in four universities and in the US, The Library of Congress took Graphology out of the occult section of the Dewey Decimal Classification and placed it into more respectable sections: Diagnostic Psychology 155.282; Documentary Evidence 363.2565; and Selection of personnel by management 658.3112. I won't argue that graphology is a pure science. Like any other behavioral science, graphology cannot be 100 percent accurate. But it certainly can reveal the mental, emotional and physical states of the writer at the time of writing. This is how graphology could be defined : "Graphology is “the analysis of the physical characteristics and patterns of handwriting as a means of identifying the writer, indicating his psychological state at the time of writing, or evaluating his personality characteristics” according to the Longman Dictionary of Psychology and Psychiatry (1984, p. 324, R.M. Golden, Editor). ". 182.72.155.182 (talk) 09:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.72.155.182 (talk) 07:05, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, the statement that graphology is pseudoscience is properly sourced. Most independent studies have shown that the concept has no validity (see relevant section in the article). On Wikipedia, we follow what the highest quality sources tell us (WP:RS). Also, keep in mind that not all point of views have equal weight (WP:WEIGHT). Please read WP:FRINGE as well, as it applies to this article. --McSly (talk) 16:07, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

McSly, the link you mentioned says "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered". However, in this article, there seems to be no space for the viewpoint of the graphologists and those who do support graphology, definitely significant. Also, by doing so, the readers get a wholly one-sided story of its validity as a whole lot of studies in support of graphology by respected scientists (including Allport, Binet etc.) and published in respected journals such as Perceptual and Motor Skills by Ammons Scientific are just ignored (I'll be glad to give you the list). Wikipedia should present a more unbiased article and hence I strongly believe that this article should also talk about the studies which support it (Please note that I'm not saying that it should present only supporting studies). Graphology is not at all like astrology or palmistry. Handwriting is expressive behavior and it is well known that expressive behavior is revealing of personality.

As Pseudo daoist mentioned, " A Review of Experimental Research in Graphology: 1933 -1960" (Fluckiger, Fritz A, Tripp, Clarence A & Weinberg, George H: A Review of Experimental Research in Graphology: 1933 - 1960. Perceptual and Motor Skills 12: 67–90) is a good review of the experimental research in the field and it certainly doesn't say that graphology has "zero validity". Here is the link so that you too can go through it: http://www.amsciepub.com/doi/pdf/10.2466/pms.1961.12.1.67 . This is more like what the Wikipedia article should be - presenting both drawbacks and successes of graphology.

The first portion that needs to be edited is the definition of graphology. An accurate and concise definition would be " Graphology is the analysis of the physical characteristics and patterns of handwriting as a means of identifying the writer, indicating his psychological state at the time of writing, or evaluating his personality characteristics” according to the Longman Dictionary of Psychology and Psychiatry (1984, p. 324, R.M. Golden, Editor). 117.222.148.242 (talk) 11:29, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

nnope, we present it as the mainstream academics view it - as a pseudoscience. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:24, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree that mainstream academics in the United States views it as a pseudoscience, however, in Hungary, since 1994, graphology has been officially recognized by the state, as a “Profession of High Education”. In order to obtain a professional certification of “Diploma-holding Graphologist” one must pass governmental examinations. In Italy, graphology is recognized by the Ministry of Education. In 1996, the governmental “Office for Universitarian, Scientific and Technological Research” acknowledged graphology studies in universities within the faculties of sociology, psychology, law, and other professional courses. University diploma programs were opened in 1997 as three-year’ courses in the Faculty of Education at L.U.M.S.A. University, Rome and at Universita degli Studi di Urbino “Carlo BO”. Argentina - In 1995 Professor Julio Cavalli presented to the General Directorate of Education of Buenos Aires a project to recognize graphology as an autonomous discipline with its first academic program. This was approved in 1996, Argentina had the first official training programme in graphology, and consequently it is a recognized profession. Graphology also has support among psychologists in countries like Switzerland. 117.248.28.3 (talk) 14:18, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

show that those hugarians represent any significant voice within academia - ie their peer reviewed studies showing any consistent and repeatable results. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Considering that you deleted the ee

Please google that and you'll find your answer. Regarding graphology, the Hungarian psychologist-graphologist Dr. Klara G Roman conducted several experimental studies in Budapest on pressure, speed and continuity using a device called a graphodyne which could accurately measure them. She also developed along with Dan Anthony, the Graphological Psychogram, a scientific method of handwriting analysis. 117.196.168.186 (talk) 03:54, 21 September 2014 (UTC) I'm also guessing that the article on Neutral Point of view which says "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic" doesn't "apply" to this subject..... 117.248.28.3 (talk) 14:45, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Of course it does. and the majority academic view is that the claims are hogwash which is what we need to present. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:25, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

How exactly does ignoring all the studies from reliable sources about the significant view of graphologists ensure that NPOV is maintained? Investimate (talk) 17:53, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

It would be really useful, if the people that edited the article knew something about the topic. Even reading the cited material would be helpful. That way, accurate data won't be consistently deleted, and replaced with inaccurate data.p (talk) 16:59, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. It seems like many don't have any background in handwriting analysis. Investimate (talk) 17:58, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I would like to bring your attention to the Wikipedia article about Fringe theories:

" Not all pseudoscience and fringe theories are alike. There is an approximate demarcation of fringe theories and pseudoscience:

• Pseudoscience: Proposals which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification. For example, since the universal scientific view is that perpetual motion is impossible, any purported perpetual motion mechanism (such as Stanley Meyer's water fuel cell) may be treated as pseudoscience. Proposals which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community, such as astrology, may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.

• Questionable science: Hypotheses which have a substantial following but which critics describe as pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect; however it should not be described as unambiguously pseudoscientific while a reasonable amount of academic debate still exists on this point.

Alternative theoretical formulations from within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process. They should not be classified as pseudoscience but should still be put into context with respect to the mainstream perspective. Such theoretical formulations may fail to explain some aspect of reality, but, should they succeed in doing so, will usually be rapidly accepted. For instance, continental drift was heavily criticized because there was no known mechanism for continents to move and the proposed mechanisms were implausible. When a mechanism was discovered through plate tectonics, it became mainstream.

To determine whether something is pseudoscientific or merely an alternative theoretical formulation, consider this: Alternative theoretical formulations generally tweak things on the frontiers of science, or deal with strong, puzzling evidence—which is difficult to explain away—in an effort to create a model that better explains reality. Pseudoscience generally proposes changes in the basic laws of nature to allow some phenomenon which the supporters want to believe occurs, but lack the strong scientific evidence or rigour that would justify such major changes. Pseudoscience usually relies on attacking mainstream scientific theories and methodology while lacking a critical discourse itself (as is common among Biblical creationists), relies on weak evidence such as anecdotal evidence or weak statistical evidence (as for example in parapsychology), or indulges a suspect theoretical premise (such as the claims of water memory made by advocates of homeopathy)."

Does graphology have a substantial following? Definitely. Does graphology have supporting research? Yes, it has experimental and clinical studies supporting it. The link is given above. Does graphology involve proposing changes in the basic laws of nature to allow some phenomenon which the supporters want to believe occurs? Absolutely not! Handwriting has been clearly described as expressive behaviour by Allport. There is nothing mystical about graphology - no fortune telling and it is founded on empirical research by French priest Jean Hippolyte Michon. Graphology clearly fits into the Questioned science section and accordingly, it should NOT be described as a pseudoscience. Investimate (talk) 17:46, 20 September 2014 (UTC) Hence, it is quite clear

References

There is no reasonable amount of academic debate.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:03, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

The neutrality policy requires that we present the topic as being given no validity by the academic community. The fringe theories guideline is even more explicit. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

The three "core" content policies are Neutral Point of View WP:NPOV, Verifiability WP:V and No Original Research WP:OR. This article fails to be neutral as it does NOT represent " fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Graphology has several supporting RELIABLE and VERIFIABLE research: http://www.igc-grapho.net/research-in-graphology.

Wikipedia should not give more importance to PSEUDOSCIENCES than it deserves and should represent only the mainstream academic view. In order to determine whether it is a pseudoscience or not, in the article on Neutrality WP:NPOV, it says "See Wikipedia's established pseudoscience guidelines to help with deciding whether a topic is appropriately classified as pseudoscience." which leads to the Fringe Theories article mentioned above. Graphology is not appropriately classified. According to that very article graphology clearly comes under QUESTIONABLE SCIENCES and NOT PSEUDOSCIENCES. Read the argument above. There is definitely "reasonable" amount of academic debate. Are you not aware of that?

Hence graphology must NOT be represented as a pseudoscience, but rather as a Questionable science. Investimate (talk) 04:17, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

"Ideas supported only by a tiny minority may be explained in articles devoted to those ideas if they are notable." Supporters of graphology are not a tiny minority but a significant minority. ("If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents" - Allport, Binet and many other prominent scientists have helped to develop it and graphology also has support among psychologists in various countries. Also, it is accepted by government of some countries) And Wikipedia says that the view of the majority and the significant minority must be represented. And of course, the above comment of it being a questionable science rather than a pseudoscience. 117.196.168.186 (talk) 04:54, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

they are not a "significant" minority . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:15, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia on significant minority: WP:DUE . Graphology has both reliable supporting studies and prominent adherents. Status of graphology in various countries: http://www.igc-grapho.net/the-status-of-graphology . This article mentions those who support graphology. Yes, supporters of graphology do form a significant minority. If you didn't know, Freud and Jung were also among those who supported graphology. 117.196.168.186 (talk) 05:32, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

just because some famous people believed in something over 100 years ago before scientific studies have failed to validate claims does not make it a significant current view. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:42, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry but did you read the link? The link lists CURRENT SUPPORTERS of graphology. Please do go through it. You will see that there is "significant" support for graphology in many countries. 117.196.168.186 (talk) 05:53, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

that whole list would not represent a significant voice within Hungary let alone world wide. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:00, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Support from Italy, France, Hungary, Germany, Netherlands, Argentina is not even a significant voice in Hungary? I'm quite confused... These are the facts:

1) Graphology has several validating studies: http://www.igc-grapho.net/research-in-graphology (Also, most of the supposedly invalidating studies have several flaws related to faulty analytical methods and are carried out by those who have minimal knowledge and understanding of the subject)

2) Graphology does not involve anything mystical or supernatural

Graphology, fits better as a questionable science and not as a pseudoscience. These parts need to be edited and the view of graphologists and supporting studies must also be included. Remember, I'm not saying that the article must only support graphology, but it must also express their viewpoint. This article does not maintain NPOV, which is core to Wikipedia. Investimate (talk) 10:47, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

NPOV means we present it according to the mainstream academic view. The mainstream academic view is that it is hogwash. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:30, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

No, no... NPOV says "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic" which is NOT done in this article. Many significant reliable sources are ignored. "Without bias"? That seems impossible for you who seems to have no knowledge about this subject. The mainstream academic view says that for pseudosciences, you must represent the mainstream academic view and not give the subject more credibility than it deserves. In order to determine whether something is a pseudoscience or not, Wikipedia gives guidelines: (I have said this many times, but I'll say it again) - "::To determine whether something is pseudoscientific or merely an alternative theoretical formulation, consider this: Alternative theoretical formulations generally tweak things on the frontiers of science, or deal with strong, puzzling evidence—which is difficult to explain away—in an effort to create a model that better explains reality. Pseudoscience generally proposes changes in the basic laws of nature to allow some phenomenon which the supporters want to believe occurs, but lack the strong scientific evidence or rigour that would justify such major changes. Pseudoscience usually relies on attacking mainstream scientific theories and methodology while lacking a critical discourse itself (as is common among Biblical creationists), relies on weak evidence such as anecdotal evidence or weak statistical evidence (as for example in parapsychology), or indulges a suspect theoretical premise (such as the claims of water memory made by advocates of homeopathy)." Now, does graphology have a substantial following? Definitely. Does graphology have supporting research? Yes, it has experimental and clinical studies supporting it. The link is given above. Does graphology involve proposing changes in the basic laws of nature to allow some phenomenon which the supporters want to believe occurs? Absolutely not! Handwriting has been clearly described as expressive behaviour by Allport.

You also keep reverting edits, this time saying pointing to WP:RS. I'll quote it for you "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered." HOW ARE THE SIGNIFICANT MINORITY VIEWS COVERED? Reliable experimental studies are ignored and you say that? Moreover, you have used a wrong citation. Fluckiger, Fritz A., Tripp, Clarence A. and Weinberg, George H. (1961), "A Review of Experimental Research in Graphology: 1933 - 1960", Perceptual and Motor Skills 12: 67–90, doi:10.2466/PMS.12.1.67-90 is used for: " more recent research rejects the validity of graphology as a tool to assess personality and job performance." Read the study yourself: http://www.amsciepub.com/doi/pdf/10.2466/pms.1961.12.1.67 and please tell me where you find that. Rather, this study says that graphology CAN determine intelligence, personal interests, vitality, neuroticism, anxiety etc. Another major error in the current article. 117.196.157.166 (talk) 12:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Investimate, NPOV requires that we do not give equal validity to pseudoscience, as determined by independent sources. This discussion seems to be going in circles with no chance of changing consensus. May I suggest that you seek outside opinions at the Fringe theories noticeboard if you remain dissatisfied with the treatment of the topic at hand? - 2/0 (cont.) 12:06, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

The lead still sucked

so I am changing it. Although rephrased, the second sentence says what the first sentence says. So I am removing it, and the article will look a little less like it grew like Topsy. Moriori (talk) 01:19, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Pseudoskepticism

Can somebody explain why the only acceptable POV here is that of pseudoiscepticism? And why NPOV for this article means that non-pseudoskeptical positioins are not tolerated?p (talk) 20:31, 24 September 2014 (UTC)