• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

How reliable is Graphology?

yairhol

Graduate Poster
yairhol
Joined
Jan 16, 2007
Messages
1,401
Hi Gang,

Here's a question for anyone who knows on the subject:
How reliable is graphology?
Is it like psychology which is not considred a science but many people rely on and use in everyday life or is it mostly woo?

Regards,
Yair
 
I think you should reconsider your definition of psychology WP. However, from what I can see on the internet (quick search), there doesn't seem to be much scientific support for graphology, so I'll vote woo.
 
I don't think psychology could be labeled a science although its knowledge is acquired by scientific methods.
Taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
"In the broadest sense, science (from the Latin scientia, 'knowledge') refers to any systematic methodology which attempts to collect accurate information about the shared reality and to model this in a way which can be used to make reliable, concrete and quantitative predictions about events, in line with hypotheses proven by experiment. "

Psychology cannot predict events in 100% of the cases (I think much less than that) and is not in line with hypotheses proven by experiment since it is not 100% accurate. So I'm differentiating between a field which uses scientific ways in order to broaden its knowledge and between what is considered as science.

However, from what I can see on the internet, there doesn't seem to be much scientific support for graphology, so I'll vote woo
Click to expand...


I've looked it up on the internet too and there is as much saying that graphology is science and that it is very accurate as those saying that it's woo.
If it is not taught in universities as a course on its own but maybe only as part of some psychology course then does it strengthen the woo or accurate observation of graphology?

Regards,
Yair
 
There is much evidence and experimentation that supports psychology. Your understanding of the scientific method and how it is applied to psychology is flawed. Are you sure you are not confusing psychology with psychics?

I'll continue to look, but I have yet to find any supportive reference to graphology in a legitimate scientific journal. Can you?
 
The scientific study of graphology (handwriting analysis) has had a long history. Many practitioners believe that graphology is a valuable selection aid and use this technique in a selection context, and in some European countries it is quite well thought of. While a few articles have proposed that graphology is a valid and useful selection technique, the overwhelming results of well-controlled empirical studies have been that the technique has not demonstrated acceptable validity. A review of relevant literature regarding both theory and research indicates that, while the procedure may have an intuitive appeal, graphology should not be used in a selection context.
Click to expand...

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1468-2389.1996.tb00062.x

looks like a thumbs down....
 
From the Skeptics Dictionary

Graphologists believe such details can reveal as much about a person as astrology , palm reading, psychometry,rumpology, or the Myers-Briggs personality type indicator. However, there is no evidence that the unconscious mind is a reservoir of truth about a person, much less that graphology provides a gateway to that reservoir.
Click to expand...

I think the evidence is in...or rather the lack of it.

Also from Skeptics Dictionary -
Psychology is the science of mental processes and behavior.
Click to expand...
 
Skeptic Guy, can you really call Psychology a science as you would call Physics, Chemistry, Biology etc. a science?
The ones I have mentioned are 100% experimental and will always give the results you expect it to because you know the fundamental nature laws associated with them. In psychology there are no 100% predictions and if you will give a certain person two psychological tests at two different times, that person may get two different results based on his mood, tiredness, and what not condition he was in at that time. That is why I do not call it science. I refer you to:

www.arachnoid.com which states:

"...At this point it must be clear to the intelligent reader that clinical psychology can make these wild claims, offer these questionable therapies, only because there is no practical likelihood of refutation – no clear criteria to invalidate a claim. This, in turn, is because human psychology is not a science..."

As for graphology, I have not yet found a scientific paper which would confirm it but that does not mean there are none.
No experts on these boards in this field?

Regards,
Yair
 
yairhol said:
Skeptic Guy, can you really call Psychology a science as you would call Physics, Chemistry, Biology etc. a science?
The ones I have mentioned are 100% experimental and will always give the results you expect it to because you know the fundamental nature laws associated with them. In psychology there are no 100% predictions and if you will give a certain person two psychological tests at two different times, that person may get two different results based on his mood, tiredness, and what not condition he was in at that time. That is why I do not call it science. I refer you to:

www.arachnoid.com which states:


(SNIP)
Click to expand...

Yup, that's what I'm saying and as much as I would like to give "arachnoid.com" it props as the definitive authority on what and what is not science, I'm going to go with the publications listed below...

http://www.psychology.org/links/Publications/Experimental/
http://www.psychology.org/links/Publications/Clinical/
http://www.psychology.org/links/Publications/Cognitive/

Psychologists make observations of human behavior, develop theories to explain their causes, and design experiments to test those theories. So yes, they are scientists. I'm not sure where this idea of a "100% prediction" rate comes from, other than from Sylvia Browne's web site.

I think the confusion comes from people watching people like Dr. Phil and his ilk and confusing that with psychology.

And you're not going to find any scientific papers on graphology, I would consider it in the same catagory as the invisibility cloak.
 
yairhol said:
How reliable is graphology?

Yair
Click to expand...

Not at all!

A friend of mine, just a normal every day guy, and one of the gentlest and warm hearted guys I've ever known, went to Portugal to apply for a job, what job I have forgotten, I think it had something to do with selling properties. Anyhow, he was well recieved, the interview went splendid, and it all seemed a sure thing... Until, suddenly everything changed, he was suddenly treated like a paria and literally thrown out. What happened?

As a part of the application process they made him take a graphology test, and according to the test results he was a psychopath and had murderous tendencies. He took a flight home all devestated, and I think it took him quite a long time to get over that.

So, not only is it complete bogus and totally unreliable, it is also directly harmful when used like this, and I think it is rather common in parts of Europe to use it like this. It can mark people out as psychopaths and potential murderers without any base in reality at all.
 
Graphology qualifies for Randi's prize, if that helps-- the only thing people can tell better than chance from handwriting is gender. Not personality.

I never heard that some area must be 100% whatever for it to be deemed science.
 
No science predicts at 100%. There are inherent limitations in any means of observation--our predictions will vary within those limits.

Within the science of psychology, the methods and subject matter of different subdisciplines result in different levels of variability. Which area of psychology does the OP refer to?
 
Graphology qualifies for Randi's prize, if that helps-- the only thing people can tell better than chance from handwriting is gender. Not personality.
Click to expand...

As for the $1M prize I take that as a good enough proof for me that it is woo or otherwise somebody would have taken the challenge and won it.

I'm going to go with the publications listed below...

http://www.psychology.org/links/Publ.../Experimental/
http://www.psychology.org/links/Publications/Clinical/
http://www.psychology.org/links/Publications/Cognitive/

Psychologists make observations of human behavior, develop theories to explain their causes, and design experiments to test those theories. So yes, they are scientists. I'm not sure where this idea of a "100% prediction" rate comes from, other than from Sylvia Browne's web site.
Click to expand...
I never heard that some area must be 100% whatever for it to be deemed science
Click to expand...

As for the 100% chance of being able to predict an experimental result of known natural laws, that is absolutely true and a person saying it isn't so is obviously not working in the field of science. It would be devastating if for example Newton's gravitational laws were sometimes correct (or even most of the time correct) but not always like in all cases of psychology. So would Maxwell's EM theory. So no, psychology is not a science as I would declare physics, biology, chemistry etc... are.

Psychologists make observations of human behavior, develop theories to explain their causes, and design experiments to test those theories
Click to expand...
Again, as I have already stated, knowledge in psychology is gathered in scientific methods but that does not make it science per se.

No science predicts at 100%. There are inherent limitations in any means of observation--our predictions will vary within those limits.
Click to expand...
This is correct but not very relevant in this discussion because I'm not talking about experimental accuracy errors. It is obvious that we cannot measure anything in absolute accuracy.

A friend of mine, just a normal every day guy, and one of the gentlest and warm hearted guys I've ever known, went to Portugal to apply for a job, what job I have forgotten, I think it had something to do with selling properties. Anyhow, he was well recieved, the interview went splendid, and it all seemed a sure thing... Until, suddenly everything changed, he was suddenly treated like a paria and literally thrown out. What happened?

As a part of the application process they made him take a graphology test, and according to the test results he was a psychopath and had murderous tendencies. He took a flight home all devestated, and I think it took him quite a long time to get over that.

So, not only is it complete bogus and totally unreliable, it is also directly harmful when used like this, and I think it is rather common in parts of Europe to use it like this. It can mark people out as psychopaths and potential murderers without any base in reality at all.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry to hear about your friend and in fact what you wrote is the exact reason I started this thread. A friend of mine said that while recruiting employees to his company, he sends them to polygraph tests. I didn't think there was much to this and wanted to hear what others had to say about this.

Regards,
Yair
 
From what I gathered around in life:

The "analysis" is made with a handwritten text in which they ask you to describe yourself! No different from "cold-reading" than. Actually, steaming hot.

The kind of personality traits are extremelly vague, just like in astrology, and it has all those suspicious ad hoc protective shells. For example, if the letters are tilted front-wise they will say the person is upfront and likes to make things in a hurry. If that is not like the person, they will say she was like that when the thing was written, which can´t be proven wrong.

My father (major anti-woo) fired a guy that was hiring PAs based on handwriting, once.
 
-Fran- said:
As a part of the application process they made him take a graphology test, and according to the test results he was a psychopath and had murderous tendencies. He took a flight home all devestated, and I think it took him quite a long time to get over that.
.
Click to expand...

I bet that interview discussion was fun....

"Right we have a psychopath with murderous tendencies....who wants to tell him he's not got the job?"

:D

Im amazed that this sort of thing is taken seriously.....hopefully with the age of computers it'll die out - until they "learn" to analyse typing styles....
 
Im amazed that this sort of thing is taken seriously.....hopefully with the age of computers it'll die out - until they "learn" to analyse typing styles....
Click to expand...

Ha Ha....:D
 
yairhol said:
Skeptic Guy, can you really call Psychology a science as you would call Physics, Chemistry, Biology etc. a science?
The ones I have mentioned are 100% experimental and will always give the results you expect it to because you know the fundamental nature laws associated with them.
Click to expand...

When Frederick Kekule "discovered" the structure of benzine by having a dream about snakes biting their tales, was that a 100% experiment?

I also take it you've never heard of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

yairhol said:
In psychology there are no 100% predictions
Click to expand...

Yes, there are. Just because you don't know them doesn't mean they don't exist.

Perhaps you should get to know more about a subject before you comment on it.

If Psychology isn't a science, then how did I get a bachelors of sciences in it? Next thing you're going to tell me computer science isn't really a science, either.
 
strathmeyer said:
If Psychology isn't a science, then how did I get a bachelors of sciences in it?
Click to expand...

It's just a matter of taste - there is a fundamental divide between the social sciences and the natural sciences - one seeks to describe the world within, the other the world without...the latter strives to present an objective reality while the former seeks to describe our subjective reality. They can and often are grouped together but that does not mean that they must be. And to broaden the term yet further to include computer science, one must accept a rather amorphous "pursuit of knowledge" definition quite far removed from the term's historical implication - and vague enough to open the door to just about every other academic and practical study.
 
Last edited:
andyandy said:
It's just a matter of taste - there is a fundamental divide between the social sciences and the natural sciences - one seeks to describe the world within, the other the world without...the latter strives to present an objective reality while the former seeks to describe our subjective reality.ll.
Click to expand...
Not really. Our department is in the Science division and is housed in the Life Sciences building with biology.
Experimental psychologists study observable behavior. Some may speculate about internal mechanisms and are called "cognitive psychologists", but they still study behavior.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom