There's a lot of frivolous shit that runs on CNN, but the recent iReport handwriting analysis project has to take the cake for unabashedly and uncritically promoting the dubious practice of graphology.
But first, the science, and let's not mince words. Professional handwriting experts (graphologists) basically have a predictive ability of zero in comparison to an untrained layperson in determining personality traits. Handwriting analysis is of use in revealing some traits, such as gender and maybe age, but telling someone their own age and gender are somewhat less compelling parlor tricks.
Not surprisingly, the iReporters in the project (God, I hate that name) who had their handwriting "analyzed" were overwhelmingly convinced that the analyst had them pegged. And why not? Just like a horoscope, all the statements were vague enough to apply to anybody:
"Huge creative imagination and strong determination/powerful and unique personality/incredible honesty" - As opposed to a weak and generic personality. I got mine at the Apple Store.
"Strong knee-jerk reaction to silly rules" - Versus those of us who immediately embrace silly rules?
"Covertly subversive relating to authority" - So you secretly break rules sometimes, astonishing reach.
"Flexible attitude when it comes to deadlines and people" - We all have flexible attitudes. That's why deadlines exist.
Unfortunately, it is utterly predictable that people will think that their personal handwriting analysis (or horoscope) is spot-on; there is a human cognitive tendency to interpret vague, general statements as very accurate as long as they are told that the statement is tailored specifically for them. It's called the Forer Effect for the guy who described it, or alternatively the Barnum Effect (yes, the circus guy), because he once said something like "We have something at the circus for everybody." In the same way, in each one of the graphologist's statements, there is indeed something for everyone to grasp and apply to him or herself.
No comments:
Post a Comment