Q&A: Graphology
Graphology
Question
Good evening,
I would like to hear the Rabbi's opinion about a story in which I was involved from beginning to end.
Following a painful incident, a person's handwriting was given to a graphologist, whom I personally know to be a responsible person who does not rush to conclusions. The graphologist examined the handwriting (with no prior acquaintance whatsoever and no knowledge of the story) and identified rare and exceptional traits, the kind that are not usually found, which seems to place this outside the range of the Forer effect or other cognitive biases. He stated the traits decisively, without room for double interpretation. He literally listed unusual traits and determined them in a sharp and clear way.
When those involved heard what he said, they did not believe it and thought it was charlatanism. But after some time, it became clear that every trait he mentioned was astonishingly accurate. How does the Rabbi explain this absolute accuracy?
I should note that I too, when I heard in real time what he said, did not believe it at all, both because I thought it was not a description of the person and because I do not believe in graphology (and still do not believe!), but later it became clear that every trait he mentioned was completely precise, with no possibility of interpreting it otherwise!
Thank you very much!
Answer
I don't understand the question. Even if the facts are correct, then apparently he knows how to see various traits of a person in their handwriting.
Discussion on Answer
I don't understand how, after what you're describing, you can say that you don't believe in graphology.
Of course there is a statistical possibility that he simply guessed correctly. But your prediction that the graphologist would identify traits in the specific case you encountered makes that possibility negligible. If you're rational, from now on you should believe in graphology.
It didn't convince me, because I suspect that if I were in your place I would see the facts differently from the way you describe them.
But about two weeks ago, a friend told me about an impossible magic trick he had seen. And from the details he gave, it really did sound impossible. A few days later, the "magician" happened to perform the trick for me, and I immediately noticed the trick. One tiny detail, which had seemed unimportant to my friend, was what made everything logical and made the trick possible.
It's important to note that if you've encountered graphologists many times, and only now someone surprised you, the evidence is significantly weaker.
I assumed from your wording that this was a one-time test with a prediction made in advance.
If graphologists have been wrong your whole life and now you happened upon one true thing… there's a good chance it was just a lucky guess.
David, this is the first time I've encountered graphology. The reason I still don't believe is because that's what science holds—what can I do?! That's why I asked here.
The traits he named were genuinely rare traits. And he said them with great confidence, despite the listener's surprise.
The facts were later discovered before the eyes of many independent people. And this is not about matching one fact, but at least six.
I have no position, because I haven't examined the matter. Of course, to form a position, systematic and controlled research is required.
Roi,
If you saw a miracle clearly with your own eyes, would you still not believe because "science doesn't hold that way"?
Rabbi Michi,
Certainly, controlled double-blind research with peer review is required in order to receive scientific confirmation.
But do you agree that a private individual should also base his beliefs on personal intuitions, private experiences, or anecdotal findings—as long as they have some statistical or rational validity, even if they do not meet the standards of scientific research?
If a person went to check, in a one-time way, whether graphology works—he asked one graphologist one time and got a result with statistical significance—does he need to be a scientist and ask himself whether he happened to hit on a one-in-a-million guess? In order to form a view for himself, does he need to launch a scientific study?
Without a doubt, you're right. But in a case where you are skeptical a priori in light of your experience, I would check more carefully than relying on an anecdotal experience.
But graphology is not recognized as a reliable scientific method, or at least that is what I had known until today, and that is why I was so surprised. My question is: does the Rabbi think graphology is a reliable tool? And if not, is there another way to explain it?