If handwriting analysis is a pseudo-science as many people ignorant of the dynamics of handwriting analysis, claim, how do we account for the fact that we all receive the same tuition on how to write, as 5 to 6 year olds, yet some of us write as we were taught, while many more do not? Some of us prefer to simplify the copybook (the way we were taught), others prefer to use a right slant. Yet others write with very heavy pressure, while others write in capitals. Then again, there are those who like to use broad strokes while others write large letters. Is it not because of who we are…our personalities?
We all know ourselves better than anyone else does. We know our own thoughts, feelings, fears, ambitions, weaknesses, strengths etc. Handwriting analysis is able to reveal these unspoken elements of our existence. Time and time again, when I provide a report after an extensive and thorough analysis, the writer is astonished that their handwriting can provide so much information, often information that has never been revealed to others.
Don’t tell me that it is because of the Burnum effect or background information which the handwriting analyst has. I receive specimens of handwriting without any knowledge of the person who wrote it. If your handwriting reveals trauma from which you have not healed, is that trauma your imagination? If your handwriting reveals difficulty with relationships, is that your imagination?
Good solid research (not anecdotal evidence!) exists to prove that handwriting analysis is not pseudo-science. It surprises me that academics who should have open minds about unexplored, little known phenomena, should have so few questions and such little knowledge about these phenomena, yet be so dogmatic in their opinions about it.
There are many variables involved in an analysis and this requires higher order thinking. I would like to suggest, unless the researcher who is trying to prove or disprove the validity and reliability of handwriting analysis, has undergone extensive training, and by that I mean a course of approximately 3 years duration, he or she is not qualified to to do such research without any real credibility.