Talk:Graphology/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Skeptic encyclopedia

Isn't refering to the Skeptic Encyclopedia for endorsement that something is pseudocientific kind of the definition of bias? OK, It's a actual book with ISBN etc. But does that alone qualify it as a valid reference? Uniemelk (talk) 03:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Validity and Date of Material

Graphology and Handwriting Analysis are more than what is documented in the article. Further, the time periods quoted throughout the article are pre-21st century.

It's been asserted that Graphology is "the pseudoscientific study and analysis of handwriting". Yet, most of the reference is to outdated material as well as personal conjecture.

Graphology encompasses more than simply job performance predictions. As I have been taught and achieved certification in the field of Graphology, nothing I learned related to the "prediction" of anything. The one repeated phrase in my learning is that the analysis provides insight to the writer at the time of the writing. There are no predictors.

As with many books, teachings and learning, there are "interpretations". Basically, there are 30 personality traits that can be identified through handwriting analysis. None of them relate to "predicting job performance". Based upon personality types one can confirm, through analysis, if the "type" of personality is one that is better suited for a commitment to an employer over another. But there is nothing in handwriting that will pre-determine job performance.

Graphology is a very valuable tool. As with any tool, if used incorrectly it's worthless. If used by a non-professional, the results will be less than desirable.

It's Graphology and handwriting analysis that's been used for many years in questioned documents to determine if a signature is authentic. I see nothing in any of the reference material that relates to questioned documents. Yet, the same people who provide "professional" handwriting analysis may also be used to authenticate a document.

The science in Graphology is in the writer. It's the brain that determines how letters are formed, the weight we use with the writing instrument, and the connect or disconnect of the writing. Those who disagree have that right. But quoting books that are also conjecture, interpretation or even uneducated in the field provides nothing more than personal opinion about a subject.

Therefore, I hope that Wikipedia recants this article as has already been suggested and replace it with more up-to-date material that will provide a better understanding of Graphology and handwriting analysis to the public.

LTCreations (talk) 23:18, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

citation needed

I'm quarantining the following claim here until someone cites a source.

Daubert standard for expert witnesses

The U.S. Supreme Court case Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals defined several criteria that expert testimony must meet to be admissible as evidence.

• Be verifiable, refutable, and testable;
• Be valid and reliable;
• Subject to published peer review;
• Held to standards within the field;
• Be generally accepted in the scientific community;

Depending upon the specific system of graphology that is used, it fails between two and five criteria.

What needs sourcing?p (talk) 14:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Graphology is an excellent diagnostic tool

I have been a professional graphologist for 35 years. It is vital that a note be added to the article on graphology.

I have worked with thousands of clients, personally and over the internet. I have worked with and trained many graphologists.

It is true; some 'graphologists' are not well informed. Many are. The 'tests' that were offered undoubtedly 'used' untrained graphologists that either simply stated they are graphologists and/or are not professional at it.

The real test is asking the graphologists clients. I have received numerous and excellent feedback from fellow graphologists' clients praising the accuracy of their evaluations.

I authored, "Handwriting Analysis Self-Taught" (Penguin Books, 1980)
Joel Engel
http://www.learngraphology.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.173.53.177 (talk) 18:12, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Joel, are you aware of any scientific research on the accuracy of trained, professional graphologists? The scientific world doesn't put much weight on asking happy clients, due to the ease with which such results are tainted by many forms of experimenter's bias. On WIkipedia, though, all we do is summarize reliable sources that have been published elsewhere. If you can find some, please post them here or summarize them in the article. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 19:20, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

For every published research study that indicates validity to handwriting analysis to determine personality, there is a published research study that implies that handwriting analysis is not useful in determining personality. However, shoddy research protocols abound on both sides, to the point that one can safely say that 99.9999% of the published research was a waste of time, effort, energy, and money. p (talk) 01:11, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Deleting basic tenents and etymology

The chapters about basic tenents and etymology consist of no reliable references and violates wikipedia's policy of WP:NOR. Please discuss whether or not we should delete them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lookinhotbra (talk • contribs) 10:20, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I didn't realize that using Greek words in an English language article would need a citation. Especially when the provided etymology is neither surprising, nor unexpected.

Basic Tenants is a paraphrase of material that can be found in virtually every textbook in the field. That includes the 30+ books cited in the article. It would be trivial, albeit time consuming, to add twenty references per phrase in that section, without repeating any books. (IOW, I could add 2,500 different books to that section, without trying. I'd have to reread the books, to get the specific page number. )p (talk)

Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability " Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." WP:PROVEIT. I will add a citation needed tag on the article, Please replace it with relevant references. Thanks. Lookinhotbra (talk) 13:19, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll add 2,500 citations to that section, simply to prove beyond any shadow of doubt that your request for citations is literally akin to request a citation for the statement "Paris is the capital of France".p (talk)

What matters is the quality of your sources. So adding one high quality source is much better than adding 1000 bad sources. It is wikipedia core policy for the article to have proper verifiability. Please add the relevant sources/refs. Thanks. Lokayata91 (talk) 14:54, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

How exactly is graphology related to psychology?

Please explain how exactly graphology can be related to psychology? What fields of psychology is applicable in graphology? Has any respected/ famous psychologist endorsed graphology? Claims like these do not belong in the starting sentence of the article.

Dream Eater (talk) 12:10, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Thank you for your suggestions. Yes, I too think that this argument is going in circles with no consensus. Investimate (talk) 10:35, 25 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)

Loaded question. Please rephrase. - Location (talk) 21:07, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Because its policy: WP:GEVAL. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:37, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

A reliable source?

A good RS supporting the validity of graphology [1] Investimate (talk) 13:10, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Tenhouten (the author) revised this 1999 article for the latest edition of this reference work, saying "graphology as it exists is at best a weak method for inferring personality traits and predicting future performance".[2] So, pretty much in line with what our article says now. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:33, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

You have taken that sentence out of context! The actual sentence is: "While graphology as it exists is at best a weak method for inferring personality traits and predicting future performance, techniques such as the Roman–Anthony Psychogram do make it possible to generate an overall view of the personality, and make possible inferences about cognitive and affective mental structure." The Roman-Anthony Psychogram is a system of graphology - an organized method of handwriting analysis. And the author says that the Psychogram makes it possible to generate an overall view of the personality and make possible inferences about cognitive and affective mental structure. (Not in line with what the Wiki article says)

Also, it says "Graphology, which exists both as art and as science, is the analysis of handwriting." That's also not in line with what the Wiki article says - its a pseudoscience.

Investimate (talk) 07:45, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I think Alex's summary of that sentence is a correct summary of the message that we should take from your possible source. And yes, it is a pseudoscience. Please could you also learn to use colons to format your replies properly. Thanks. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 08:23, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Our article starts "Graphology is the analysis of the physical characteristics and patterns of handwriting", so I don't see how that contradicts "Graphology, which exists both as art and as science, is the analysis of handwriting". Stuff about psychograms could go in our psychogram article, though claims of the granted ability to make "possible inferences" don't really amount to anything. Incidentally, I don't have access to this 2011 edition and am a bit uneasy working off an abstract. Does anybody have access? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:49, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

More and actual validity studies

We need more recent studies regarding validity. The text is not scientific neutral and the studies citated are from 80ths and 90ths now its the year 2015! I will search for more validity studies especially more metaanalysis. Please do the same in scientific journals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wicky media (talk • contribs) 18:22, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I suspect the repeated failure over decades and decades to provide results is the actual reason behind the lack of more recent studies. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:41, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Sept 4, 2016 changes

1. Rewrote sentence referencing British Educational Research Journal citation to accurately reflect paper; also relocated it to History due to age and content.

2. Added text and citation from Skeptoid to Status section. Added same Skeptoid citation to lede.

3. Fixed incorrect use of Scientific American Template (article name was missing, causing Tempalte citation error).

4. Deleted DMZ External Link as it was badly constructed due to Template error - as well as referncing dubious training literature. RobP (talk) 20:47, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

A better way to describe complex, creative, interpretive, (arts/crafts) ways of categorizing and predicting life (which is what we often call "science") in an unbiased and scientific way.

Look at the approach (in this case handwriting analysis) and describe what it has as a goal, then identify the most general methods used.

Look for the ways that this approach has been useful, and effective. Then look for the ways it has not been useful and has not been effective.

Nothing can be 100% wrong, because that would mean that the opposite is 100% right, and that's just not the way science works. Look for the ways that the biology and psychology of the human is expressed in fine motor skills and tendencies, and go from there. Certainly some handwriting behaviors are clearly psychologically effected, as the physiology of the body changes with different states, and those physical states include movement. So... for example, someone who is angry will naturally move more aggressively than someone who is calm and curious, and thus the writing will show at least some differences.

We don't need mainstream academic studies to talk about the general methods and ideas behind the craft of handwriting analysis, just like the architecture entry doesn't need to bother with them.

TurilCronburg (talk) 15:42, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think there's a lot of opposition to the idea that aspects of handwriting are affected by characteristics of the person. What's unsupported is that there can be any reliable backwards inference of those characteristics solely from analysis of the handwriting.  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:53, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

@TurilCronberg: Indeed we don't need academic studies justifying graphology to make the article informative. Graphology does not need any validity at all for us to write an informative article about it. The article should explain the theories and practices factually and forthrightly, without suggesting that the theories are true or that the practices work. Since psychologists have researched graphology, their main evidence and conclusons should be covered. If someone wants to know the main facts about graphology, they should be able to find them in this article. That's what an encyclopedia is for! See WP:WIS and then WP:NPOV. So, please don't hold back: go find a good source or two on the subject, and start summarizing! —Ben Kovitz (talk) 03:25, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

@TurilCronberg:: "Nothing can be 100% wrong, because that would mean that the opposite is 100% right, and that's just not the way science works". This in itself is wrong. Because that is exactly the way science works. It is basic logic. There are many claims that are 100 % wrong, just to name one: "The earth is flat". This is 100 % wrong, and the opposite: "The earth is not flat" is 100 % right. Likewise is the claim "Graphology can be used to determine a person's personality" 100 % wrong, and the opposite: "Graphology cannot be used to determine a person's personality" is 100 % right. Basic logic, there is no more to it! Erland Eschenwald (talk) 17:30, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Changes to lead

User:Geeveraune The WP:LEAD of each article in Wikipedia just summarizes the body. You keep trying to change the lead to give this more plausibility than the sourced content in the body allows. Please stop doing this and discuss here. Thanks.

Noting diffs and reverts:

• dif series 1 last one, 20:59, 26 October 2016
• mostly reverted 1 21:11, 26 October 2016, by Greyfell
• dif series 2, last 21:26, 26 October 2016
• mostly reverted 21:30, 26 October 2016 by Greyfell
• dif 3 21:39, 26 October 2016
• reverted 21:46, 26 October 2016 by Moriori
• dif 4 22:04, 26 October 2016
• reverted 22:07, 26 October 2016 by Jytdog
• dif 5 22:10, 26 October 2016
• reverted by me.
• dif series 6 last one at 22:28, 26 October 2016
• reverted by me.

That is already blockable behavior. Jytdog (talk) 22:35, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposed Changes to Lead

Graphology is the assessment of the physical characteristics and movement of handwriting indicating the writer's psychological state at the time of writing and general behavioral patterns. A combination of core elements such as the size; angle of slope; and pressure of the letters and words are measured and cross-referenced against various personality traits. Handwriting is an acquired skill (usually in childhood) and is taught from a template or Copybook from which the child copies letters and words as laid down in it. As graphic maturity

The term is sometimes confused with forensic document examination as original handwriting samples are the focus of investigation but the two disciplines are otherwise unrelated.

Graphology has been controversial for more than a century. Although supporters point to the anecdotal evidence of positive testimonials as a reason to use it for personality evaluation, most empirical studies fail to show the validity claimed by its supporters.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Geeveraune (talk • contribs) 9 November 2016 (UTC)

No because this omits the pertinent facts that graphology is pseudoscience that almost certainly doesn't work, and so is WP:PROFRINGE. We need to be upfront that this stuff is bollocks so as not to lead our readers astray. See WP:NPOV. Alexbrn (talk) 17:54, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your argument on leaving in the term 'pseudoscience'. However, I would like to point out that Graphology is not presented as a hard science and acknowledges that there are aspects of handwriting that cannot be accurately assessed. These include: the chronological age of the writer; the physical sex of the writer or even whether the writer is right-handed or left-handed. This information must be obtained whenever possible. However, there are aspects of Graphology which can lend objectivity to the assessment of a person - for example there is no indication of: race, religion, gender or physical appearance and this can be of help in making an unbiased decision about a person's inner qualities. In this regard Graphology may be better described as a 'study' of human character rather than linking it to a field of knowledge in which it cannot compete (i.e. Science). For this reason I feel that dismissing Graphology as a 'pseudoscience' is redundant in the Lead. By definition the 'Lead' serves as an introduction to the topic to allow the reader to explore the matter further. There is already reference to and some elaboration of the deficiencies of Graphology's in the 'Professional Status' section on the page. I submit the above comments in good faith. Regards, Geeveraune (talk) 22:04, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

WP articles are based on reliable sources. What are the reliable sources per WP:RS for your claims? Jytdog (talk) 22:15, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

The following is a list of definitions of Graphology from reliable sources:

1. Oxford English Dictionary definition of 'Graphology - The study of handwriting, for example as used to infer a person's character'

2. Merriam-Webster Dictionary definition: Graphology - The study of handwriting especially for the purpose of character analysis

3. Cambridge Dictionary definition: 'Graphology - The study of the way people write letters and words, especially in order to discover things about their characters'

4. Encyclopedia Britannica defines Graphology as 'Inference of character from a person’s handwriting'

5. Google search engine definition: Graphology is the study of the system of symbols which communicates language in written form. In its more popular sense, it is the study of handwriting. Geeveraune (talk) 20:07, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Citations

Those maybe get you the first sentence, and even the then Encyclopedia Britannica entry says "In general, the scientific basis for graphological interpretations of personality is questionable." There appears to be no credible evidence that graphology "can lend objectivity to the assessment of a person", but feel free to present some if you have it. As it currently stands, it is clearly a pseudoscience - the excuse that it's "not presented as a hard science" does not suffice when people are making testable claims. --tronvillain (talk) 21:53, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposed expanded description of Graphology

It is not as easy to categorise Graphology as one might imagine. In an assessment by a member of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) it was stated that studies of handwriting movements "'while not yet convincing, do make it clear that the value of graphology is not yet a closed question"' The Library of Congress (LC) classifies Graphology within its code range: BF889-BF905 which is designated to the components of Philosophy / Psychology / Religion If I may add that there is also a difference of opinion in the international versions of Wikipedia Lead descriptions on this subject. While the descriptions in English, French, Spanish and Dutch make reference to a pseudo-scientific aspect, the Lead Descriptions of the German, Italian, Polish and Greek make no such allusion. In the context of acknowledging a wider view of the study of Graphology, I would like to propose expanding the Lead by including the following "'While Graphology had some support in the scientific community before the mid-twentieth century, more recent research rejects the validity of this technique as a tool to assess personality"' Geeveraune (talk) 10:47, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

24 years ago the question may have been open; now it isn't as our sources makes clear. Alexbrn (talk) 11:06, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

References

new "principles" section

The following was added in this diff - moved here for discussion:

Principles

Graphology is based, for the most part, on the established norm that everyone is taught to write, usually as a child, in accordance with what is called Copy Book. This is a template from which the child attempts to copy out the alphabetical forms as laid down in it.

As the skill of writing is slowly mastered the degree of departure from the copy book style is influenced by the mental and physical development of the writer. Teachers invariably see recognisable differences in handwritings within their 11 year-old year-groups. These deliberate or unconscious variations in the script are assessed in terms of their dominance and intensity and classified in hierarchical order. Particular elements are grouped and correlated with behavioural patterns which derive from the inner dynamics of the personality.

The end product of a graphological examination is the report in which the scope and depth of the analysis is specified by the client. Typically, this may be for commercial purposes e.g. personnel selection, or for more specialised reports in response to specific requests.

Character analysis using graphological procedure is different from psychological test methods. Certain handwriting features can be quantified with exactitude (e.g. size; spacing; slant). Others are not measurable but are qualitative, for example: ‘expansive’, ‘controlled ‘, ‘original’, ‘copybook’. If handwriting samples are compared with each other it can be determined in which script a particular characteristic is more pronounced. Validity is only conditionally verifiable within standard statistical methods. “The graphological picture of personality is [a]...framework for incorporating other findings established through tests, interviews and so on.”

References

Of these refs:

• the first is in-bubble, from an organization dedicated to graphology
• the second is published by "IBC Books", which is apparently the self-publishing arm of the International Graphological Colloquium
• the last is published by iUniverse, which is a vanity press. This is a self published source and is not reliable in Wikipedia.

As discussed above, graphology is widely described as pseudoscience, and a whole section of in-bubble self-published sources like this violates the WP:PSCI policy. Jytdog (talk) 07:55, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Graphotherapy

It seems trite to place a flag Medref|section|date=October 2014 in the section on Graphotherapy requiring medical references to an article that claims to be about Pseudoscience. It would make sense to remove the flag or treat the article as something worthy of the flag. Just because a self-help modality includes the word therapy in the name does not mean that it purports to be a medical tool. Idyllic press (talk) 19:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

It sort of does. If it claims any biomedical effect it falls under WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 19:47, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

MedREF prohibits primary sources, which ensures that the relevant research won't be citable here. Likewise, most, if not all secondary sources are not citable, because they either outright fail WS:RS, or else, as the currently cited sources do, fail MedRef.p (talk)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Graphology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20100109171828/http://abiweb.obh.hu/dpc/index.php?menu=reports/2004/III/4&dok=reports/2004/222&nyomtat=1 to http://abiweb.obh.hu/dpc/index.php?menu=reports%2F2004%2FIII%2F4&dok=reports%2F2004%2F222&nyomtat=1
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bpilab.com/Characteristics%20Evaluated.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:59, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

The scientific basis of graphology

WP:NOTAFORUM. Alexbrn (talk) 15:33, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

In a nutshell, handwriting is created by movements of body parts holding an implement to make marks on paper or some other surface. The body parts used are virtually always the writer's hand and arm muscles. However, in case of disability, some writers use the mouth or the combination of foot and leg muscles. Because it is created by physical movements, handwriting IS a class of behaviors. Like all other human behaviors, these behaviors express the personality of the writer in characteristic ways. Those who would claim that handwriting does NOT express the personality of the writer in characteristic ways need to explain why and how handwriting differs from all other human behaviors in this regard. Together with the graphic arts, handwriting has the advantage for the analyst of comprising a record of the behaviors that created it. Thus, once created, a handwriting sample is available for analysis at any subsequent time to its creation, even centuries later.15:27, 17 July 2018 (UTC)15:27, 17 July 2018 (UTC)15:27, 17 July 2018 (UTC)~M — Preceding unsigned comment added by SIGgraphologist (talk • contribs) Two Differing Schools of Graphology There are two existing approaches to analyzing handwriting to determine the personality of the writer: The holistic method starts with an overall impression of the gestalt or general appearance of the writing to classify the personality according to its principles. It then looks at individual features of the writing in order to modify the overall impression, differentiating individual deviations from the general type in which it was classified in order to come up with a personality assessment. This method, which finds its roots in the work of early 20th Century German graphologists, is sometimes referred to as gestalt grahology.' The integrative method begins with identifying particular formations within the writing, associating these with specific trait complexes. The integrative analyst then considers how the various identified traits interact with each other leading to the integration of the traits into a personality assessment. This method, which finds its roots in the work of the late 19th Century French graphologist, has also been referred to as the "trait-stroke" and "single sign" method, usually by those who wish to denigrate the method as "simplistic," seldom by integrative analsyts themselves. The commercial trademarked terms "Grapho Analysis," later modified to "Graphoanalysis," are also used for this method. Both methods yield valid personality assessments, although they rely on quite different ways of perceiving the personality. They usually agree on major points, but often find different nuances based on the methodology employed. Differences and the fact that both are valid approaches can be accounted for by the principles of gestalt psychology concerning how we perceive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SIGgraphologist (talk • contribs) 15:58, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

笔迹学

以前维基百科上对笔迹学的定义是“笔迹学是对笔迹的物理特征和样式的分析，试图识别作者，表明笔迹时的心理状态或评估人格特征”，这本身就是需要修改的。 理由： 1、说笔迹学是对笔迹的物理特征和样式的分析，这是陈旧的观念。从1990年起，中国笔迹学界就认为，西方笔迹学是解剖尸体，正是指这种静态的对笔迹的认知和分析方法。中国笔迹学界认为，笔迹的本质是书写动作习惯，分析笔迹实际上主要应该分析的是书写动作习惯，中国韩进发明的临写法，就是主张贴近笔迹材料进行模仿性书写，通过直觉感知原笔迹书写者的内心世界。 2、“试图识别作者”，这句话不妥，容易与“Graphanalysis”混淆。 3、笔迹学（英语：Graphology）以笔迹为研究对象，以推测书写者人格特质内心世界等内容为宗旨，主张笔迹特征与书写者的内在素质有对应的关系，是一种各种笔迹特征和个性素质对应关系的知识系统；包括三方面：静态的笔迹特征与人格素质之间的对应关系知识，书写习惯（有些是无形的，如字距、行距、空白边等）与人格素质之间的对应关系，动态的笔迹特征与人格素质之间的对应关系知识。

至于栏目中说笔迹学以前缺乏科学证据，没有通过测试、考核等，第一，可能是以前这些专家技术水平确实不行；第二，测试的方法可能有问题，应该事先沟通，确保测试考核的方法是科学的，可以把有关测试考核的方法先公之于众；第三，应该说这些都是以前的事，不能代表今天笔迹学的技术水平依旧如此，永远如此。 希望维基百科的编辑和读者今后能用新的眼光看待笔迹学。 韩进 (talk) 07:02, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

While this appears on topic, I am unable to respond, as it does not appear to be written in english. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 09:36, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Gender and handwriting

I have just made some changes, but looking at some of the other references on the section Graphology#Gender_and_handwriting, I'm realizing that none of them are about graphology, they are about sex differences in handwriting or gender classification from handwriting. Of course those are related to the article: the fact that even the best current machine-learning algorithms can only infer the gender of the writer about 80%, show that, even though there are average differences in handwriting among males and females, there is significant overlap, so it is impossible to make a strong claim about even that from a handwriting sample and this hurts the whole premise of Graphology. That is, however, just a lot of OR, and shouldn't be on WP. Or am I missing something, here? VdSV9•♫ 13:36, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Whilst the studies all use the term "gender", what is meant is "biological sex".

The reason it is included under _legal considerations_ is that Dean's research, albeit completely discredited, points to gender from handwriting as being the most validated datapoint in the field of hancwriting analysis. So much so that no published research study even hints at it not being able to determine from handwriting. This being the case, can a handwriting analyst deny that connection? (If you want to get into a discussion of the problems with those handwriting and gender studies, go for it. I'm acutely aware that 99.9999% of them were a waste of time, effort, energy, and money.) With that datapoint as arguably the most validated item in handwriting analysis, can a handwriting analyst legally claim it does not violate EEOC.~~

Max Pulver

I noticed Max Pulver was removed on the grounds of _undue coverage_. His research is the framework for Holistic Graphology. If you want to understand the why of the Wittlich Character Diagram, The Psychograph, The Muller-Enskat Protokol, The Personal Worth Chart, Sisteme de Xandro, The Psychograph, or other holistic approaches, you need to understand Pulver.

Pulver, like Szondi, Moretti, Xandro. Wittlich, and Ploog were not discussed by the original contributors, and thus a US-centric pov dominated/still dominates the article. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100F:B07D:949B:E939:BD79:1C4:3BFB (talk) 20:05, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

"No good scientific evidences supports graphology" is still an absolute

I don't want to start an edit war, I am determined to be a pacifist here on Wikipedia, but I disagree with the good-faith "Simpler" edit of my edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Graphology&diff=1193791510&oldid=1193791003

My edit was specifically meant to remove the absolute, since proving an absolute is quite hard. You'd have to read the entire sources and show that none of what they examined was worthy of the adjective "scientific". And then you'd have to show that they examined everything out there.

You can have good scientific studies, good evidence for particular things, without making up an entire separate "graphology" science. An example of this is that male and female handwriting are graphically discernible by AI analysis, for example (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269992400_Automatic_analysis_of_handwriting_for_gender_classification).

So this is just to say that I still prefer my wording, and although I won't add it back, I would be happy if somebody did. Peace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Callmepgr (talk • contribs) 18:24, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

"No good evidence" is not "absolute" (unlike the previous "no evidence"). It's very common phrasing in sci/med for when evidence exists, but it too poor to matter. Bon courage (talk) 18:27, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

It just doesn't seem like a good sentence to use for such wide implications. Sure, "no good evidence exists that there is water in Neptune", for example. But you can't say that everything that was studied in this area for decades is of zero value. I provided an example above of good evidence, which breaks the absolute "no" (meaning zero good evidence). Other footnotes in the article provide similar things. I admit my example only proves that minor conclusion from the study; not the whole set of bogus claims from so-called graphology experts. Ok, but we don't have to rule out the entire science just yet. In fact, I believe that AI and large data sets will provide us with more useful scientific clues drawn from people's hand-writing. Why not?

See how the Britannica entry is so much more moderate, while still making the necessary warnings: https://www.britannica.com/topic/graphology Callmepgr (talk) 18:41, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

We need to follow good sources, and (unlike Britannica) to be clear when something is pseudoscience. The research article you link is not a reliable source for scientific assertions on Wikipedia and is, in any case, not about graphology. Bon courage (talk) 18:51, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I've rewritten the lead accordingly. Remsense留 20:27, 5 January 2024 (UTC)