Handwriting Expert on Bill O'Reilly

[HappyCat]

Did anyone see the handwriting expert on Bill O'Reilly tonight? His guest was Michelle Dresbold, who was apparently trained by the secret service in handwriting techniques, claimed that by analyzing someone's handwriting, you can tell if they are being deceptive or not. She analyzed OJ Simpson's handwriting and said the way he forms his Os means he is a deceptive person, and Scott Peterson is an ambiguous person. She also declared that there is a 2% chance that Patsy Ramsey did not write the ransom note, a possibility that police examined and ruled out IIRC. I have never heard of this type of ability before, but it sounds like nonsense to me. I know that you can match handwriting samples to samples from whom the author is known, and determine who wrote it like that, but being able to tell how deceptive someone is from their handwriting alone? Is there any documented evidence that this works? Bill O'Reilly claimed he bought it, but Bill's word doesn't go too far with me . He also claimed this ability is used in law enforcement and in the secret service to track terrorists. Is this true?

 

[Slimething]

I don't think it holds too much water but I haven't researched it myself.

Ages ago, I completed an employment application before an interview at ICI (Imperial Chemical Industries), the large British petro firm, and part of their form was very unusual. You were asked to write something, anything as long as it was at least 50 words or so. I asked about it during my interview and was told that ICI actually had handwriting analysis run on it. I passed muster but I didn't get the job regardless.

Later on, I heard that ICI had come under fire for that very thing. Not only were they putting candidates through it but they were also using it as a test for promotions. BBC did a documentary on four ICI executives vying for a plum position who were basically set up for a week of what can only be described as psychological torture, and their wives were included.

I think that ICI has given up these practices now but they were really hammered by the skeptical elements of the press. Someone on the board must really believe in this crap.

 

[Quinn]

BBC did a documentary on four ICI executives vying for a plum position who were basically set up for a week of what can only be described as psychological torture, and their wives were included.

Was that the one where the last guy staggers back into the room, his hair mussed and his shirt ripped, and says, "The friggin' gun was loaded with blanks! I had to strangle her!"?

But seriously, I think you should consider the possibility that you're better off not working for a company that places that much stock in such things. After all, you wouldn't want to get the job only to be let go a year later because the company astrologer determined that your zodiac sign wasn't compatible with the direction the company is moving...

 

[Gilmar]

Handwriting expert, in this case, = graphologist.
http://www.randi.org/encyclopedia/graphology.html

 

[Cuddles]

Did anyone see the handwriting expert on Bill O'Reilly tonight? His guest was Michelle Dresbold, who was apparently trained by the secret service in handwriting techniques, claimed that by analyzing someone's handwriting, you can tell if they are being deceptive or not. She analyzed OJ Simpson's handwriting and said the way he forms his Os means he is a deceptive person, and Scott Peterson is an ambiguous person. She also declared that there is a 2% chance that Patsy Ramsey did not write the ransom note, a possibility that police examined and ruled out IIRC. I have never heard of this type of ability before, but it sounds like nonsense to me. I know that you can match handwriting samples to samples from whom the author is known, and determine who wrote it like that, but being able to tell how deceptive someone is from their handwriting alone? Is there any documented evidence that this works? Bill O'Reilly claimed he bought it, but Bill's word doesn't go too far with me . He also claimed this ability is used in law enforcement and in the secret service to track terrorists. Is this true?

Handwriting is very difficult to copy exactly, and even if it looks the same you can usually tell real from forgery by analysing the speed of writing and the pressure on the paper, since forgers tend to work slowly to ensure it is accurate. This means it is entirely possible to give a chance that someone did or didn't write a note, given examples of their writing. I would be suspicious of an exact figure, and I suspect that 2% simply means "Very small chance, but possible.". It would also be possible to track terrorists, but you would need samples of their writing beforehand, and since most communication is electronic I wouldn't have thought it would be that useful.

As for being deceptive, the way you tell it here, this is graphology as Gilmar says, and is utter cow poo. It is not possible to say that someone is a deceptive person from the way they normally form their letters. On the other hand, it can be possible to tell if someone is being deceptive in a given instance if their writing is not the same as normal. For example, when under stress most people will write faster and more messily. This is much like telling if someone is lying when they talk, it is not especially reliable, but there are clues that can help identify the mental state someone is in when they communicate, whether through voice, writing or whatever.

 

[TsarBomba]

This kind of crap gives handwriting analysis a bad name. Handwriting analysis is an important part of forensic analysis to see who wrote a document, like a check, or what have you. But this, this is bullsh*t.

 

[Garrette]

This kind of crap gives handwriting analysis a bad name. Handwriting analysis is an important part of forensic analysis to see who wrote a document, like a check, or what have you. But this, this is bullsh*t.

I've had this discussion several times in real life. Forensic analysis of handwriting is legitimate but is entirely different from the bogus field of graphology which claims to be able to determine personality, reliability, integrity, etc.

I got into a long email exchange with a rep from a graphology company to which I was required to submit a handwriting sample before the company they represented would consent to interview. (I told the company in the meantime that I would not work for a company that used such practices but that I would submit my sample to the graphologists as a test to see if their analysis revealed that tidbit about me.)

 

[joesixpack]

...He also claimed this ability is used in law enforcement and in the secret service to track terrorists. Is this true?

I imagine that some form of handwriting analisys is useful when there is a question of forgery, or to compare two samples to see if they were written by the same person, but the rest of it is BS.

Which is not to say that law enforcement doesn't ues it. They've been known to use other forms of psuedoscience like dowsing devices, psychics, and polygraphs.

 

[Bikewer]

We have (as have other departments) made use of a Forensic Graphologist here in St. Louis. The purpose is only to determine the possibility of forgery or to determine if a given individual wrote a particular document.
There is no attempt to determine personality, character traits, or any other such thing.

 

[Sushi]

There is no connection between someone's handwriting and whether they are lying or not. I imagine that emotionality may SOMETIMES have an effect on how one rights (angery people might be more likely to press harder when writing) but you certainly couldn't tell if anyone was deceptive at the time or any other personality traits.

Yes, this is graphology and it's nonsense when it's not comparing for forgery, etc.

 

[Cuddles]

They've been known to use other forms of psuedoscience like dowsing devices, psychics, and polygraphs.

The matter of police psychics has been investigated many times here and elsewhere. As I recall there hasn't been a single verified case of police actually using a psychic (note that psychics often contact police and have their comments followed up, but this is no different from any other person having their comments followed up).

 

[wahrheit]

At the age of 17 I changed my handwriting completely. I had a Letraset catalog at that time and liked one of the handwriting fonts in it so much that I decided to change my handwriting to it. I trained it until I could write like the font in the catalog, and still do today use some very significant detail found in that catalog font.

My personally didn't change within the two weeks of changing my handwriting, though.

Analyzing the personality from handwriting is just another form of reading tea leaves.

 

[joesixpack]

The matter of police psychics has been investigated many times here and elsewhere. As I recall there hasn't been a single verified case of police actually using a psychic (note that psychics often contact police and have their comments followed up, but this is no different from any other person having their comments followed up).

I think you're right about that. I thought I remembered some case where police asked a woo for help in a case, but looking back on it, I recall it was the woo him/herself that made that claim.

 

[Rrose Selavy]

I got to read up on about 3 or 4 Graphology "how to " books many years ago .
Apparently the two things you could not determine from handwriting are age and sex although there were certain character formations that for example, suggested "female homosexual" according to the textbooks.
I have to say that from the view of appearing accurate in some ways there appeared to be some interesting things going on , but I don't know what was actually at work - maybe I simply got good at repeating "Barnum" type statements with common sense , intuition and remembering the odd striking coincidence. The entire graphology premise appeared not to be based on anything reliable - where did they actually get the idea that a strong left slant means introspective/suspicious/few friends? When.where were those studies done? Were they repeated and verified?

You also can't say that writing reveals an "introspective suspicious personality" unless such a personality actually exists and is able to be determined or measured by other scientific means.

The question of personality is difficult one, what actually is "personality" and is it fixed and measurable anyway?
Randi once did a UK TV program where handwriting was supposedly matched to jobs , but that implied that only a person with a particular personality or set of traits is most suited to a particular job which is nonsense - very different types of people can still do the same job - also there was no guarantee that those who were in those jobs in the program were actually necessarily any good at doing them!
I would say that handwriting might at least , in common sense general terms. suggest the state of mind of the person at the time.

I treat it as a bit of fun which usually confirms what you already know about a person, with the occasional seeming insight - but purely anecdotal and personal so can't be called a science - it certainly shouldn't be used for recruitment.

 

[The Atheist]

I've had this discussion several times in real life. Forensic analysis of handwriting is legitimate but is entirely different from the bogus field of graphology which claims to be able to determine personality, reliability, integrity, etc.

I got into a long email exchange with a rep from a graphology company to which I was required to submit a handwriting sample before the company they represented would consent to interview. (I told the company in the meantime that I would not work for a company that used such practices but that I would submit my sample to the graphologists as a test to see if their analysis revealed that tidbit about me.)

Ugh!

I'm a recruiter and had to have some stern words with one of my consultants a few years back. I'd wondered why she ALWAYS had cvs posted in or dropped off before arranging interviews and asked her about it. (Normal practice is anyone any good is interviewed the same day)

She told me that she "analysed" applicants' handwriting! I quickly dissuaded her from using that approach. I went over some examples with her and interviewed a couple of applicants with her - it only took a couple to show her just how off the mark her notions were.

Please, NOBODY mention NLP...

There's one born every minute.

 

[Solus]

Did anyone see the handwriting expert on Bill O'Reilly tonight? His guest was Michelle Dresbold, who was apparently trained by the secret service in handwriting techniques, claimed that by analyzing someone's handwriting, you can tell if they are being deceptive or not. She analyzed OJ Simpson's handwriting and said the way he forms his Os means he is a deceptive person, and Scott Peterson is an ambiguous person. She also declared that there is a 2% chance that Patsy Ramsey did not write the ransom note, a possibility that police examined and ruled out IIRC. I have never heard of this type of ability before, but it sounds like nonsense to me. I know that you can match handwriting samples to samples from whom the author is known, and determine who wrote it like that, but being able to tell how deceptive someone is from their handwriting alone? Is there any documented evidence that this works? Bill O'Reilly claimed he bought it, but Bill's word doesn't go too far with me . He also claimed this ability is used in law enforcement and in the secret service to track terrorists. Is this true?

I can't believe people watch that guy's show anymore. Probably the most arrogant windbag on television. There is so much dirt on O'Reilly I won't even bother pulling it up.

 

[Dark Jaguar]

Sad thing is, I've talked with someone, in-depth, about some really stupid judgement call based on some idiotic "personality test". I'll get them to confess that, yes, in the end that PARTICULAR qualification is utterly meaningless for the job in question, or any part of it. However, when pressed with the question "okay, you have two people who in all other ways qualify equally, but one of them doesn't get the required analysis from the test that you admit has no real basis in reality, who do you go with?". Unfortunately, rather than say "well from that I guess I'd just have to pick randomly" she says "well I'd have to go with the one who did better on the personality test, because I have to use SOMETHING to narrow it down". Apparently the very idea of being reduced to a random choice is so appalling that she would rather go with a quiz she admitted was baseless than come down to a coin flip. This personality quiz, by the way, was about as stupid as any of the "which Jedi are you?" tests you might find online.

Yes, graphology is stupid (this is the first I've heard of it by the way), and I'd hate to be denied based on something like that. I wonder how they judge "just plain aweful" (my own personal handwriting style) using their system?

 

[Dark Jaguar]

I can't believe people watch that guy's show anymore. Probably the most arrogant windbag on television. There is so much dirt on O'Reilly I won't even bother pulling it up.

Could you pull up at least a couple handfuls anyway though? Can't stand the guy myself and the more examples of hypocrisy I can point to with this guy, the better. The problem is, he's an IGNORANT hypocrite apparently, as in he seems to not even be fully aware of his own viewpoints on things and so he just sorta meanders with his gut with no memory of his past statements and how they may or may not contradict what he says.

 

[Kopji]

You might try here:
http://www.newshounds.us/
Their motto is "we watch Fox so you don't have to"

(I can only presume that they go home and lightly flog themselves every evening too, before settling in for some serious S&M.)

They even have a 'hypocrisy' linky, but you might need to manually cull out the O'Reilly ones from the rest.

My impression was that although graphology has ZERO acceptance in the US business world (and would certainly be a source of lawsuits), it is much more common in Europe. Some governments have official graphologists.