Validating Graphology with Science

by / 0 Comments / 370 View / September 12, 2013

A Graphologist at work

A Graphologist at work

Anyone with an interest in graphology has undoubtedly come across the nay-sayers and detractors of handwriting analysis.

I certainly have.  And I have found that it is futile to try to convince them about the real value and purpose of graphology.

The detractors of graphology are numerous and it’s pointless to attempt to convert them to our way of thinking.   There will always be sceptics and I don’t think it’s our job as graphologists to try to disabuse them of their long-held beliefs.

They will always find reasons to dispute and reject the most detailed of our explanations. So as graphologists we just have to put our heads down and get on with our jobs in our own particular areas of specialization.

New Information

However! Every once in a while, a new piece of information surfaces – information that serves to validate and brighten the long-term prospect of graphology.

But before I tell you about it let me say that I have always avoided subjects even remotely related to health or anything with a medical bias when it comes to graphology.

The reason is that I firmly believe that this is an area only to be entered into by graphologists who are sufficiently qualified in the medical field.

I am not one of them.

My fortuitous find concerns an article that I discovered which describes research done at an Israeli university with regard to the diagnostic properties of handwriting analysis in relation to Parkinson’s disease:

“Handwriting assessment can be used for early detection of Parkinson’s disease”

A Scientific Study of Graphology

A scientific study of the relationship between handwriting and Parkinson’s disease  was done “in cooperation with Dr. Ilana Schlesinger, head of Rambam’s Center for Movement Disorders and Parkinson’s disease, and occupational therapists.”

Here is an excerpt from the article by Judy Siegel-Itzkovich

“Analysis of the results showed significant differences between the patients with Parkinson’s and the healthy group. The diagnosis was correct (at 97.5 percent accuracy) for all subjects except one.

“Those afflicted by Parkinson’s wrote smaller letters, exerted less pressure on the writing surface and took more time.

“According to Schlesinger, validating these findings in a broader study would allow this method to be used for a preliminary diagnosis in a safe, noninvasive fashion.

“This study is a breakthrough toward an objective diagnosis of the disease,” she said.

“Publication of the study in the journal of the European Neurological Society aroused great interest at the International Congress of Parkinson’s Disease and Movement held last week in Sydney, Australia.”

Validation?

That in my opinion is validation enough and certainly encouragement for those who wish to study graphology.

It is also something to relate to those nay-sayers and critics of graphology.

Let me know what you think!

What do you think?

%d bloggers like this: