by Dr. Be'er Bar-Av

I see the conflict between graphologists and psychologists/psychiatrists along three dimensions: 1) education, 2) professional image, 3) research.

The issue of professional training and education is at the core of the conflict. While a psychologist or psychiatrists has to have a college degree followed by rigorous professional training, the graphologist typically may possess a high school diploma, or at best has some limited college education.

The gap in education creates a problem on both sides. The trained professionals with the advance graduate degrees on the wall, look down with contempt on the graphologists who pretend to know how a person is functioning and dare to make recommendations re job selection, marital compatibility and even issues of mental health. The fact that graphologists are frequently used successfully by major corporations around the world, or even by the Israeli Army, mystifies the professionals, threatens some, and forces others to make every possible effort possible to discredit the graphologists and his work.

When criticizing graphologists, one of the easiest targets is the behavior of many of our colleagues. Doing “quickies” at parties, or worse yet, on national TV, certainly adds little credibility to the individual or to what is supposed to be a profession. I cannot imagine to myself a psychologist doing similar appearances using one psychological test. Even in the case of a blind interpretation of the MMPI, a competent psychologist would always add a disclaimer, stating that indeed it is a blind interpretation and that in most cases it would be best to have it validated with history and clinical presentation.

While the professionals would do TV spots on a variety of subjects, in all but the few exceptions, the “advice” given is general and not intended to be the final clinical judgment. Even with radio psychologists, frequently the psychologist would simply suggest that the issue at hand is too complex or too important to be handled on the air, suggesting the caller seek professional help in person.

As recently as Tuesday, October, 20, 1998, on Entertainment Tonight, they presented a quickie on graphology and celebrities. Based on signatures, the graphologist made short characterizations on the celebrities. The one that sticks out is the signature of Elizabeth Taylor. He cited the big and elaborate E, concluding that the person is highly forceful and that states: “get out of my way.” Is that all there is to be said about Elizabeth Taylor, even if it is only based on her signature? What kind of credibility does it grant the profession of graphology?

The public at large, and especially the critics of graphology, seizes these opportunities to demonstrate to the rest of the world the ignorance of the graphologist and the fallacy of the field. The problem lies in the fact that the one doing the quickies enjoys the circus-like atmosphere, and presents his/her findings as if they indeed were magical. If they are magical, they are no longer professional and serious interpretation of the personality based on the handwriting. If you present yourself as a trickster and your skills as magic, why be surprised when your credibility seems as akin to that of the tealeaf reader in the circus?

As important as the above shortcomings may be in today's technological and scientific world, the lack of solid research is by far the greatest disabling factor in our lack of acceptance by the professional world. While we can cite some research to support the general claims of graphology or in support of a couple of narrowly defined features, the overall body of research is still miniscule when compared to any psychological test, even if it is one that has the least amount of research. We claim that in the right hands, the handwritten page can disclose as much information about the writer as the Rorschach and the MMPI would. Even with all the inherent limitations of any projective tool, and despite the fact that there are problems of reliability and validity, the projectives do have a body of research in support of the basic interpretive hypotheses, and in support of specific interpretations of form or content in the response of the subject. Compared to the work done with the MMPI and with the Rorschach, the research regarding graphology is in its infancy, as the field is still trying to justify its existence as a viable professional and scientific discipline.

How do we, graphologists, establish that graphology is a serious field of personality study, and how do we get the respect from the professions of psychology and psychiatry? Even under the best circumstances it will not happen overnight. In any event, even if we were talking about a long-term project of 10 years I would suggest the following:

Sharpening Our Professional Image :

Each national organization of graphology, similar to what has been done by the Vanguard, has to establish a strict code of ethics, and hold its members to it. While the organizations cannot prevent the cheap quickies on TV or in a party, each organization has to take a clear and strict stand on such appearances, discouraging them, and if possible penalize those who continue to practice the dubious art of cheap thrills. If and when making similar TV appearances, one must insist on having more than 10 seconds to present a meaningful and RESPONSIBLE statement on the writer of the sample to be analyzed.

The conflict between Gestalt and the Trait Stroke has to be resolved and national and international organizations must agree that neither approach provides a complete interpretation, and strive towards a synthesis of the two conflicting schools. While there is merit in the claim that specific strokes are indicative of specific personality characteristics, one is treading on very thin ice when one offers a broad interpretation based on ONE, mind you only one, feature of the handwriting sample. If I may, I would like to refer to my article on Gestalt that appeared in a recent publication of the Vanguard.

Each stroke is akin to one musical note. As we would not dare judge a song or a symphony based on one opening note, why should we accept similar practice in graphology? Even when listening to the opening notes of Beethoven's 5 th , as recognizable as these notes have become, how much can we tell about the entire symphony to follow? The need to take the whole picture into account when dealing with a handwriting sample, regardless of the so-called adherence to the political line, improves the quality of the overall analysis and cuts down on the criticism leveled against graphology by its opponents.

Education

Increasing the educational requirements is a much-needed element in the criteria for certification by any respected graphological association or certification body. Of course, we cannot require that the graphologists who have been practicing for 20 years and over to take college level courses in the field of psychology as a certification requirement. We can and should begin requiring the education of the upcoming generation and insist that the existing cadre of graphologists acquire formal education in essential areas of psychology, as a condition of continued certification. The courses that I have in mind are directly related to the daily work of the graphologist offering his/her services in the area of personality and personnel selection. The annual Vanguard conference had offered basic workshops in various aspects of psychopathology, an area most graphologists have little if any formal training. The goal should be the establishment of formal course of graphology on a college level, be it as part of the psychology department or independent of it.

While still online with a group of graphologists on AOL, whenever the issue of education was brought up, the resistance was loud and clear: “We graphologists do not need any formal education in the area of psychology!” The louder the objections, the clearer it was that the need for formal education for those practicing psychology without a license was too threatening for the practitioners. However, the narrow fears of some of those who practice graphology should not stop the development of the professional as a whole.

Research

As stated above, the need for detailed research is a much-needed element for the validation of the profession and the validation of the interpretive hypothesis. This research has to be sold in design, methodology, and measurements. The results of these studies have to be published or publishable in any of the appropriate professional magazines. We need to address the questions of the critics and prove them wrong. We need to demonstrate that indeed graphology does measure personality features, that we can determine intelligence, creativity, compatibility both personal and on the job, that we can predict acting out, and that we can detect depression, suicide potential, mental illness, dangerousness, and even address the various diagnostic categories are spelled out in the DSM IV or the ICD 10.

I am not suggesting that we take on this task all at once. I am suggesting that a national or international body of graphologists, such as the one assembled in Montreal, undertake the overall planning and implementation of the long-term research the field so desperately needs. It can be done in any country as long as we adhere to the strictest requirements of research design. We need to reconcile the two main fractions of the field, Gestalt, and Trait Stroke, and put both of them to the empirical tests of the appropriate research. Once we are able to have a couple of publications in the professional journals, the task of accomplishing recognition would be easier and easier. The research may even be funded by private or public companies that are using graphological analyses for personnel selection.

State Certification, Licensing

The ultimate formal recognition of the field would come when a given state decides that the time has come to license the practitioners in the field. If we are able to accomplish the above, if we have enough practical data and research to support it, we may be able to secure political interest in the legislation to license graphology and its practitioners.

When you review the enclosed correspondence on the Law and Psychology List, it becomes readily apparent that some of the psychologists and psychiatrists treat the field and the practitioners with contempt. I am not interested in establishing a dialogue with them. We simply do not need to waste time on them. On the other hand, those psychologists/psychiatrists who only demand hard proof that the field is valid and that the practitioners know what they are doing, are the professionals we need to concentrate on.

Any and all recognition by the professional and academic world begins and ends with our ability to demonstrate via research the validity of the field and the reliability of its determination.

In the meantime, it behooves all serious graphologists to acquaint themselves with the terminology of the fields of psychology and psychiatry. You can begin attending some of the professional conferences of psychology, both clinical and that of tests and measurements. If at all possible, no matter what country it may take place in, we may be able to have an interim that would compare the findings of psychologists to the findings of graphologists. We can specify those aspects of personality we as graphologists are secure in demonstrating, and put our findings to a test against the findings of either psychological tests, clinical observations or both.

The work done in Hawaii and published in the book Danger Between The Lines might serve as a model to follow.

© Dr. Be'er Bar-Av
October 1998