REALL News - Vol 05 No 08 - 1997

Magazine Overview

Title: The REALL News
Issue: Volume 5 Issue 8
Date: 1997
Publisher: The Rational Examination Association of Lincoln Land (REALL)
Country: USA
Language: English

This issue of The REALL News features a detailed article by John A. Thomas titled "Graphology: Write and Wrong," which critically examines the practice of handwriting analysis for personality assessment.

Graphology: Write and Wrong by John A. Thomas

The article begins by exploring the author's curiosity about graphology, spurred by a newspaper article claiming widespread use by American companies. Thomas contrasts his limited experience with graphologists at psychic fairs with the idea of its use in personnel management. He questions its scientific validity and whether it is more akin to fortune-telling.

Historical Context and Development

The belief that handwriting reflects personality is ancient. The first systematic attempt to analyze handwriting is attributed to Camillo Baldi in 1622. Literacy's spread popularized handwriting analysis among literary figures. The term "graphology" was coined by Jean Hippolyte Michon in 1875, who systematized the practice by associating graphic signs with personality traits. Later, Alfred Binet conducted experiments suggesting handwriting experts could distinguish successful from unsuccessful individuals. The German school, led by Ludwig Klages, developed a more subjective approach. In the United States, "graphoanalysis," founded by M. N. Bunker in 1929, emerged as a compromise, and the International Graphoanalysis Society offers courses and claims a large membership.

The Core Assumption: Handwriting as Brain Writing

The fundamental premise of graphology is that handwriting is an expression of the personality, often referred to as "brain writing." Graphologists analyze features like letter slant, size, angularity, curvature, and pressure. A right slant is typically linked to extroversion, and a left slant to introversion. The shape of the "t" and other letters are also considered significant. Systems like Rosen's define 16 factors, including graphic elements and global features like "rhythm" and "tempo." Sheila Kurtz's "graphoprofile" uses slant, pressure, and t-formation to reveal a subject's thinking pattern and goal orientation.

Claims and Scientific Scrutiny

Graphologists make bold claims, suggesting their analysis can accurately predict behavior, gauge character, and even foretell future actions and intellectual performance. Some even claim changing handwriting can alter personality. However, the article contrasts these claims with the difficulties psychologists face in validating personality tests, especially for complex traits like honesty or integrity. Psychologists admit they lack reliable paper-and-pencil tests for such traits, raising the question of why graphologists should be expected to provide such evidence.

Lack of Correlation and Inconclusive Research

Scientific research has consistently found no clear correlation between handwriting behavior and basic personality patterns. Existing research is largely inconclusive or negative. A study on graphologists predicting sales success found no evidence of validity. A Dutch study of 2,250 graphological judgments concluded that while slightly more often correct than incorrect, it was a "diagnostic method of highly questionable and in all probability minimal, practical value" for judging individuals. A 1989 analysis of 17 studies suggested that any minimal correlations found could be explained by content-laden scripts rather than genuine graphological insight.

The Illusion of Personal Validation

Many graphology books examined by the author did not cite validating research. Practicing graphologists often consider the method "self-validating," relying on immediate feedback from clients. This personal validation creates a powerful subjective impression of truth. Vague or general statements can be accepted as unique by clients. Graphologists may also tailor readings using available information about the client, increasing the subjective feeling of validity. This process, described by Hyman, can make even corporate users feel confident in the results, despite a lack of objective validity.

Graphology as a Pseudoscience

The article firmly categorizes graphology as a "typical pseudoscience" with no place in character assessment or employment practice, citing a lack of scientific evidence. The author's investigation into the use of graphology in the Dallas-Fort Worth area in late 1988 found that most employers, including large corporations, airlines, and government offices, did not use it and knew of no one who did. The impression was that users were primarily individuals or small businesses.

Legal Ramifications: Title VII and Employment Discrimination

Large employers and governments avoid graphology due to the illegality of using unvalidated pre-employment tests that have discriminatory impact. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or reprisal. While allowing employment tests, they must be "professionally developed" and job-related, with validity demonstrated statistically, as upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Griggs v. Duke Power Co. Graphological assessments, even if free-form, are subject to these standards. If graphology is a pseudoscience, its evaluations are essentially character readings with a high chance element, and biases can skew results. Employers using such assessments face significant legal risks if discrimination occurs.

Licensing and Expert Witness Testimony

The article notes that the Institute for Graphological Science is the only graphology school licensed in Texas under the Texas Proprietary School Act. However, the author questions whether the statute's "objectives" should refer to teaching techniques or the actual assessment of personality. The use of state licensing laws by pseudoscience practitioners to gain credibility is a concern. Furthermore, despite claims, the author found no court cases where graphological testimony for personality assessment has been admitted as evidence. Courts have consistently held such testimony inadmissible for assessing physical or mental condition. To be admissible, graphological evidence would need general consensus in the scientific field and reliable practice, neither of which applies. Many graphologists attempt to qualify as questioned-document examiners, a recognized field, to gain respectability, but this is seen as bootstrapping.

Conclusion and Suggested Reading

There is no state certification or licensing of graphologists in Texas; any such claims refer to certification by a school or association. The article concludes that graphology is a pseudoscience lacking scientific evidence and legal standing for employment assessment. A "Suggested Reading" list provides references for further research on graphology, pseudoscience, and scientific standards.

Editor's Note and REALL Information

The "Editor's Note" indicates that this article is part of a series on single-topic issues designed to inform readers. The "From the Chairman" section discusses recent events, including the Illinois State Board of Education's science standards and an upcoming article on "Therapeutic Touch." It also announces upcoming meetings, including discussions on "High Weirdness By Web" and "serial killers and psychics."

The "From the Editor" section reiterates that the newsletter features original and reprinted articles, with this month's piece on graphology being a reprint from the North Texas Skeptics. It also mentions a popular class on science and pseudoscience at the University of Illinois at Springfield.

The masthead provides details about REALL, its purpose as a non-profit educational and scientific organization dedicated to rational thinking and the scientific method, and its primary region of coverage in central Illinois. It lists the Board of Directors, Editorial Board, and contact information. The newsletter also thanks its patron members.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring theme throughout this issue, particularly in the featured article, is the critical examination of claims related to the paranormal and fringe sciences using scientific methodology. REALL's stance, as outlined in its purpose and editorial content, is to promote rational thinking, objective inquiry, and the application of the scientific method. The newsletter aims to provide well-researched information on topics that often lack scientific support, such as graphology, therapeutic touch, and alleged psychic phenomena, encouraging readers to approach such claims with skepticism and critical evaluation.