let me help you out here...if you're on James Randi's show, you're gonna fail.

He seemed to make some fairly intuitive observations about the ladies based on their handwriting, but his placement of what they did based on those observations seemed off. For example, why would an introvert be in sales? Just dumb. And that has been "my two cents"!!!

I think it would have been interesting to see if the women identified themselves with the traits he assigned them based on their handwriting.

the sign behind mr. randi said "the penis mightier."

Hmmm. To follow Randi's skepticism, just because someone is of a certain profession doesn't mean that they're well suited for that profession. Therefore, the graphologist could have been correct in his assessments of people, and it could have been the participants who had chosen the wrong careers. It would have been more relevant if each of the participants said they were both happy and successful in their respective careers.

I don't necessarily believe in graphology, mind you, but Randi would want us to apply the same amount of skepticism to his methods as us to his guests...

Exactly what I was thinking, ridesallyridenc.

Downvote for a meaningless test: He's not a psychic who guesses what people already do for a living. His job is to identify people with personalities that employers consider appropriate for certain jobs. It's not logical to assume that everybody in a certain field will have all those traits, or any of them, for that matter, so the result was moot. Even if he was 100% perfect at his job --identifying personalities-- he may still have gotten 1/5 because there's no reason to believe that any of these women have the stereotypical personalities for their fields. He might have told them though, that their personalities made better matches for other jobs.

A better test would have been for him to have people take Myers-Briggs, or something like that, and see if his results came close to theirs. Problem is, you can't do that on television because you'd have to explain and prove Myers-Briggs first too, and something tells me that Randi doesn't approve of that test either. Or, they could have done a statistical analysis of how people selected to perform by their handwriting did versus those not selected by their handwriting. Again though, that would make a boring television spot.

Randi is such a buzz kill. I bet he never got invited to slumber parties as a kid cuz he wouldn't shut up about the Ouija Board.

"How would you feel if your career depended on the analasys of your handwriting?"

Easy, I only do printouts. Comic Sans MS for the win!

Graphology starts with the implicit assumption that whatever metaphors, symbolic meaning, or nuance that the features of a person's writing bring to mind are necessarily descriptive of the writer as well. This type of faulty thinking is present in most all forms of divining as well. So I'd say comparing this to a psychic who does cold-reading is not too far off the mark now that I think about it, because even THEY have a certain established methodology/set of guidelines to make these bogus claims or "guesses". Certainly there's a methodology to graphology, but this was only added recently with the onset of psychology to make it appear as a seemingly valid area of study and once again with the onset of computer technology to add to the air of respectability/seriousness normally enjoyed by other proven sciences. Before that, graphology was no different than any other form of divining (which it's roots are clearly in) in the sense that the claimed "expert" uses free association/symbolism to make a purely allegorical interpretation for the subject.

Thing is, there's also many different branching schools/types of graphology and graphologists now, each with it's own set of guidelines towards divining "the true you", making the whole thing even more confusing for a prospective employer/customer seeking to use these methods. One graphologist might show me to be a compulsive-liar who, by use of his methods, has discovered me to be sexually abused as a child without my own knowledge JUST by my handwriting mind you; while at the same time another may have me pegged as being a paranoid closet-gay with post traumatic stress disorder and violent tendencies towards a perceived enemy. Both equally false and outrageous. One school of thought may have slanty letters as being "passive-aggressive" while for another big-bubbly letters mean that. The whole thing is just utterly vague and ridiculous and subjective and people's lives and reputations are certainly affected by this process which is shown to have no strong empirically demonstrable links. The fact that it's actually legally used/endorsed in big corporations and has won favor in certain courts adds to the illusion of credibility. Also I would just like to add graphology is not to be confused with forensic analysis of handwriting used to investigate crime scenes, etc.

I agree with much of what you say Messenger, in that this could've been more thorough. I think it's more of an indication towards the ridiculously grandiose nature of graphology itself and what it claims to be capable of though. The initial premise of determining personality through hand-writing seems faulty enough, now attaching someone's job based on that ill-gotten, vaguely perceived personality based on largely stereotype makes it even faultier. He was a willing participant, he agreed to the parameters and that said "experiment" was a fair approximation of what it is he does, in an effort to prove his art true, and he failed. At least that's my take on it.

*magic

Adding video to channels (Magic) - requested by gwiz665.

*debunked

Adding video to channels (Debunked) - requested by BicycleRepairMan.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'the, amazing, randi, james, randi, skepticism' to 'the amazing randi, james randi, skepticism' - edited by xxovercastxx

Tags for this video have been changed from 'the amazing randi, james randi, skepticism' to 'the amazing randi, james randi, skepticism, graphology' - edited by xxovercastxx