Talk:Graphology

Surely shome mishtake

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Need to Revise the Article

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

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

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

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

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