筆跡學

维基百科,自由的百科全书
跳转至: 导航搜索

筆跡學是一種研究和分析筆跡(英文)的偽科學[1][2][3][4][5][6],主要是藉此分析人的心理。在醫療領域,有時會利用筆跡分析來輔助大腦和神經系統疾病的診斷和跟進。筆跡學常被誤會是文件鑑辨

一個多世紀以來,筆跡學一直是有爭議的。雖然支持者提出不少證言指它可用作性格分析,但多數實證研究未能顯示其支持者聲稱的有效性[7][8]

分析方法[编辑]

分析方法主要有三種:綜合方法、全面方法和象徵分析。

綜合筆跡學
這種方法認為,具體的筆劃結構與人的性格有關。在這種方法中的大多數系統使用的由筆劃形成組合,以取得特定的人格特質。此方法下的系統包括:固定的標誌、筆劃的特點、法式系統和筆跡分析。這種方式被描述為從內到外的分析。
整體筆跡學
這種方法根據形式、變動和空間作出分析。它是從外到內的分析。在這種方法中,個別的筆跡特質(如可讀性)並未分配的具體含義,但根據整體的情況而有不同的含義。
符號分析
在這種方法中,分析者在筆跡中尋找符號。這可以分為主要象徵主義次要象徵主義
  • 主要象徵主義是筆劃在頁面中所反映的意義。
  • 主要象徵主義指依據筆劃所繪製的圖畫所透露出的意義。例如,約翰·韋恩的簽名顯示了熏黑了的部分,代表他的肺癌。

有效性[编辑]

筆跡有時用來作為招聘工具,在評估過程中用作甄別候選人。雖然在二十世紀中葉之前筆跡學在科學界有一定的支持,但近年的調查發理以筆跡分析性格和工作績效並不準確[9][10][11][12]

文件鑑辨[编辑]

筆跡學與文件鑑辨不同。在司法系統中,文件鑑辨用作確認某一文件的筆跡是否真的出自某人。

參考[编辑]

  1. ^ Barry Beyerstein Q&A. Ask the Scientists. Scientific American Frontiers. [2008-02-22].  "they simply interpret the way we form these various features on the page in much the same way ancient oracles interpreted the entrails of oxen or smoke in the air. I.e., it's a kind of magical divination or fortune telling where 'like begets like.'"
  2. ^ The use of graphology as a tool for employee hiring and evaluation. British Columbia Civil Liberties Association. 1988 [2008-02-22].  "On the other hand, in properly controlled, blind studies, where the handwriting samples contain no content that could provide non-graphological information upon which to base a prediction (e.g., a piece copied from a magazine), graphologists do no better than chance at predicting the personality traits"
  3. ^ entry in The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience.
  4. ^ Thomas, John A. Graphology Fact Sheet. North Texas Skeptics. 2002 [2008-02-22].  "In summary, then, it seems that graphology as currently practiced is a typical pseudoscience and has no place in character assessment or employment practice. There is no good scientific evidence to justify its use, and the graphologists do not seem about to come up with any."
  5. ^ James, Barry. Graphology Is Serious Business in France : You Are What You Write?. New York Times. 3 August 1993 [18 September 2010]. [失效連結]
  6. ^ Frazier, Kendrick. Science and Reason, Foibles and Fallacies, and Doomsdays. Skeptical Enquirer. Committee for Skeptical Enquiry. Volume 22.6. November/December 1998 [18 September 2010]. 
  7. ^ Driver, Russel H.; M. Ronald Buckley and Dwight D. Frink, Should We Write Off Graphology?, International Journal of Selection and Assessment. April 1996, 4 (2): 78–86 [2007-08-28], doi:10.1111/j.1468-2389.1996.tb00062.x. 
  8. ^ Furnham, Adrian; Barrie Gunter, Graphology and Personality: Another Failure to Validate Graphological Analysis., Personality and Individual Differences. 1987, 8 (3): 433–435, doi:10.1016/0191-8869(87)90045-6. 
  9. ^ Roy N. King and Derek J. Koehler, Illusory Correlations in Graphological Inference, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied. 2000, 6 (4): 336–348, doi:10.1037/1076-898X.6.4.336. 
  10. ^ Fluckiger, Fritz A, Tripp, Clarence A & Weinberg, George H, A Review of Experimental Research in Graphology: 1933 - 1960, Perceptual and Motor Skills. 1961, 12: 67–90, doi:10.2466/PMS.12.1.67-90. 
  11. ^ Lockowandte, Oskar, Lockowandte, Oskar Present status of the investigation of handwriting psychology as a diagnostic method, Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology. 1976 (6): 4–5. 
  12. ^ Nevo, B Scientific Aspects Of Graphology: A Handbook Springfield, IL: Thomas: 1986