Taking aim at a myth

[Badshah Mamun]

Taking aim at a myth

By Jim Bright

The handwriting is on the wall for graphology, writes Jim Bright.

I rarely get an opportunity to use my prized Purdey side-by-side 12-bore shotgun, so I am grateful to a reader who this week wrote to me about the study of handwriting and argued that while it may not predict IQ, it can be useful in assessing emotional intelligence.

He wrote: "Do you see how it forms a useful tool in recruitment? Would you professionally agree it may have a place in the industry?"

So, with glee, I can take aim at graphology with both barrels. Graphology is the practice of discerning personality characteristics from samples of the subject's handwriting.
For instance, on the British Institute of Graphologists' website, it is noted that "large writing can mean almost anything connected with greatness".

According to a BBC report in 2005, about 3000 businesses in Britain use graphology in their recruitment processes.

But we should be wary of arguments relying on the popularity of a recruitment technique as evidence for the reliability of that technique, otherwise we might end up recommending family links to the boss as reliable predictors of ability.

We need something a little more compelling to persuade us of the usefulness of graphology. There is something intriguing about the possibility that we reveal ourselves through our handwriting.

Handwriting is distinctive, personal and is a behaviour that is typically produced spontaneously and is therefore not subject to conscious modification, so surely it must offer insights into our psyches.

Well, my fingerprints are also personal and produced without my conscious involvement but they say nothing about my personality (unless, of course, they are found on a murder weapon).

Arguments that rest on the individuality of handwriting are not sufficient to establish a reliable link between it and personality.

The next line of evidence tends to be the case study: the client who is told their handwriting shows they are "connected to greatness" and responds with awe at the accuracy of these insights.

This will not do either. It is well known in psychology that you can give people totally random feedback about their personalities and they will often believe it.

We want to see patterns and make links, we want to believe. In one well-known example, graphologists made a series of confident interpretations about "Tony Blair's writing", only to later discover it was Bill Clinton's.

So we need to turn to science ? and here the evidence is damning. The British Psychological Society conducted a thorough review of the ability of graphology (and other techniques) to determine personality.

It concluded it had "zero validity". In other words, you may as well toss a coin to make a decision.

One absurd response to this finding was that graphology's French heritage might have led to a British bias.

Well, bad news, the latest peer-reviewed study to damn graphology, which was conducted last year, was French.

The reader claims graphology may not predict intelligence but might be useful in predicting emotional performance. Sadly, there is no evidence to support this contention.

There is a caveat, however. If the handwriting on a prescription is illegible, you have a good doctor, and if your job applicant's writing is uneven and they overuse phrases like "I really love you", they are drunk.

Other than that, all the reliable peer-reviewed evidence concludes that graphology is, to put it technically, a load of crap. Click: Boom. Boom.

Published: 07 November 2009

Source: http://content.mycareer.com.au/advice-research/search/taking-aim-at-myth.aspx