A Video Interview of Graphoanalyst Irene Lambert

What can a graphoanalyst (a handwriting expert) tell a genealogist about his or her ancestors? Actually, quite a lot.

Graphoanalysis is defined as "a scientific system of identifying and assessing the character and personality of an individual through the study of his or her handwriting." Graphoanalysis is used by corporate personnel departments, marriage counselors, attorneys, psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers, and now by genealogists.

I recently had a chance to interview Master Graphoanalyst Irene Lambert for RootsTelevision. Irene described how she can analyze handwriting in order to learn about the personalities of your ancestors.

You can watch the interview at: http://www.rootstelevision.com/players/player_conferences3.php?bcpid=6933799001&bclid=22742332001&bctid=22631647001.

Comments

[boeufdaisy]

I'm sure Irene is a lovely, sincere woman, but, really, is this the sort of thing one wants to encourage? There's more than enough questionable research in genealogy already: why encourage the incorporation of pseudoscience into family history narratives?

I'd rather divine my ancestors' personality by casting their astrological charts and studying goat entrails. We should be honest enough to admit when we don't know something about our ancestors, rather than make up "facts" to fill the vacuum.

The thought that there are people telling employers not to hire someone based on their handwriting makes my blood boil. It's disgraceful.

Despite what "graphologists" will tell you, handwriting analysis has no scientific basis. A meta-analysis of 200 scientific studies of graphology by Geoffery A. Dean (published in "The Write Stuff: Evaluations of Graphology--The Study of Handwriting Analysis", edited by Barry L. Beyerstein and Dale F. Beyerstein, Prometheus Books, 1992) found that it was worthless as a predictor of personality. In terms of being acceptable testimony in court, a federal ruling, United States v. Saelee (2001), found that forensic handwriting analysis had seldom been subjected to scientific testing, and that such testing as has been done "raises serious questions about the reliability of methods currently in use". In short, if you want accurate data, you will avoid handwriting analysis like the plague.

[martin tolley]

Well said boeufdaisy. You beat me to it.

[Dae Powell]

Sorry, folks, but law enforcement uses it and it HAS been validated in the courts. People of Irene's qualifications DO know what they are doing. I'm an amateur graphoanalyst and have only dabbled in the science, and though I've accurately described many strangers' personalities to their relatives and friends I would not consider my efforts of Irene's calibre. Stating that "forensic handwriting analysis had seldom been subjected to scientific testing" is similar to opinions on DNA in genealogy or the value of the Internet in genealogical research. They are simply opinions -- mine included. The absence of scientific testing won't change the colour of the sky or the taste of salt.

I say use the tools at hand. In the end, each person determines what is proof and what isn't. Once they have their desired information from one or more sources, novices might believe they have proof of past facts. More-experienced genealogists, however, realize that evidence must be culled from many sources, evaluated, and used in specific ways before a semblance of proof is reached.

The same applies to graphoanalysis. For the average researcher, I'd recommend "Handwriting Analysis Guide for Genealogists" by Francis Hamilton. For those seeking more, try a few of the books listed at http://www.igas.com/books.asp.

Happy Dae·
http://ShoeStringGenealogy.com

[Fred]

It's in the same category as palm reading and tea leaf reading.

[Irvin LeClear]

I do know that for some government jobs handwriting is required on your application papers. I also know that requirement is never explained. (Retired)

[martin tolley]

It's actually not so good as tea-leaf reading.
Scientific Evaluation of "Graphology" Journal of Forensic Identification Volume:52 Issue:4 Dated:July/August 2002 Pages:463 to 474
Author: George J. Throckmorton
"Over a period of 11 years, more than 500 people participated in a series of blind tests to determine whether the principles of graphology (scientific examination of handwriting) were reliable.
Abstract: A total of 506 volunteers donated written material to create several blind tests to determine whether graphology is accurate and reliable. The participants were instructed to write a standard paragraph on a piece of paper using their normal handwriting style. Six graphologists were consulted. Four from various parts of the country had over 70 years of combined experience. Two master graphoanalysts (both from the midwest) had a combined total of over 25 years of experience. A written report was obtained from the analysts, and the results were evaluated according to five criteria: consistency, self-evaluation, peer evaluation, clinical evaluation, and comparison. The results of these tests showed absolutely no correlation between a person's handwriting and his/her personality traits. The research further demonstrated that the principles that relate to graphology are neither accurate nor consistent; they are, therefore, unreliable."

[Gary Goldberg]

Even the results of lie detectors, on at least some reseach has been done and for which there is a plausible explanation, are not generally admissible in courts.

[Mitch]

When I lived in South Africa, the family history society that I belonged to invited a handwriting specialist to our monthly meeting. I took along a couple of signatures; some I knew the people, some I did not. The woman was amazing. Do not knock it as a tool!
I used to think body language was garbage until I attended a class one day and the instructor told me that was what I was thinking. He was 100% correct; I did not believe a word he said until then. I have now studied it extensively and teach body language.
Handwriting analysis falls into the same category and is a very useful tool.

[Elizabeth Shown Mills]

In 1998, I commissioned Ms. Lambert, who holds the Master Graphoanalyst credential, to analyze the handwriting of a man I had intensely researched for fifteen years. Across those years, I had tracked him through some two dozen counties in six states, amassing reams of records that speak vividly to his character and personality.

The documents I asked Ms. Lambert to analyze were receipts written in the subject's own hand. One was filed in a court case and one in a probate settlement. I deleted the signatures from the documents and made certain that nothing in the text gave any clue to the identity of the writer or the case--information that could have been used to find outside evidence of the nature of this man.

My object was to present the results--negative or positive--in the _NGS Quarterly_ as a "test" of the validity of applying graphoanalysis to genealogy. Ms. Lambert took the challenge knowing that if we (the NGSQ editors) found fault with her interpretation, that would be the result NGSQ reported to its 15,000+ readers.

The result of that "experiment" was published in September 1998, should anyone care to evaluate the results for themselves: "Graphoanalysis and James 'Major Jim' Ball: A Genealogical Test of a Psychological Tool," NGSQ 86: 204-217.

Elizabeth Shown Mills, CG, CGL, FASG

[Jan Larnier]

Elizabeth: You come on high and mighty, as if you doing some "test" settles it, but don't even tell us what the result was.
We must now rush out and buy that magazine to find out?

Never mind your"results".
What you don't seem to understand that your "result" does not matter.
Your sample of one is not scientific.
It has no statistical value at all.

The many studies done with hundreds of samples are clear: handwriting "analysis" is a nonsense, a faith without basis in fact.
Anyone who tells you otherwise has been deceived or has an interest in deceiving you.