4 ms·

A real shame that Wolfram gives credence to "handwriting analysis" pseudoscience in what is otherwise an interesting piece. > “The writing style is entirely di

A real shame that Wolfram gives credence to "handwriting analysis" pseudoscience in what is otherwise an interesting piece. > “The writing style is entirely different. Personality-wise, the writer of sample B has a quicker, more intuitive thinking style than the one of sample A.” How can anybody of Wolfram's intelligence unquestioningly accept this nonsense?

fmihaila 7y ago
That question is actually interesting when not viewed as rethorical.
c3534l 7y ago
Because handwriting analysts tell people they are an accepted branch of psychology and there is not enough time in the day to question everything. At some point, I heard handwriting analysis was pseudoscience, so I looked into it and they were right. I've not looked into whether quantum physics is pseudoscience because the people in my life who appear to be experts in the subject tell me it's real and I don't feel like pursuing a physics degree to tell if they're full of it. Regardless of the perception you have of yourself as a critical thinker, for most things we accept thinds as true by default and only flag certain suspicious things for further criticism.
- knodi123 7y ago
  my magic 8 ball says "Insightful"
BucketSort 7y ago
I write a lot. I can tell from my own experience that what I'm feeling when I write translates into my handwriting in subtle ways. You may object to some particular method that I'm unaware of, but I don't think "handwriting analysis" in general is absurd. It's data and so there are models of it and inferences.
- michaelmrose 7y ago
  Personal feelings are not how we evaluate a scientific discipline. It's phrenology level nonsense. A coworker once told me that his chiropractor told him he could help him with hemroids. This not only made me dubious about her ability to cure hemroids. It made me dubious that she could do anything about back pain. Capable people don't spew nonsense within the scope of their capabilities. The second his analyst registered an opinion about the personality of the writer I became dubious that she could even tell who wrote it.
  - BucketSort 7y ago
    People felt the same way about Einstein's cosmic intuition. Things evolve in stages, from intuition and anecdotes to more formal developments or refutations. I didn't say handwriting analysis is a fully legitimate area. I said as a writer I see how my writing changes and don't find the concept as absurd as many here do because of my anecdotal experience. You may hand wave that away because I don't have a statistical analysis here that is peer reviewed, and that's fine, but to me saying something is nonsense without a proof that it's nonsense is equally bad. Everything that isn't completely rigorous isn't nonsense. It's not good science, but not necessarily nonsense.
  - elcritch 7y ago
    It’s not outside the realm of plausibility that certain chiropractic procedures could help with digestive issues linked to other issues. There’s been a decent amount of research recently into stimulating the vagus nerve for example and how it affects not only digestion but also mood and immune function. If a pinched spinal nerve is causing digestive issues perhaps it could lead to other issues. Curing every case? Likely not, but perhaps it could help some individuals. Now the chiropractic field is also full of half baked practitioners as well, imho.
kjhughes 7y ago
Your assertion that Wolfram "unquestioningly accepted this nonsense" is unfounded. Ignore the personality assessment element. Wolfram sought to identify whose handwriting the note was, so he asked a "professional handwriting examiner" that he happened to know. The quote you extracted was her relaying her opinion that the note was not written by Turing.
avip 7y ago
Equally interesting - have you read the research that (dis)credits handwriting analysis, or you just unquestionably accept that it's nonsense? Similar to other personality-related pseudopseudosciences, there's enough contradicting research to form any opinion (or, more commonly, to support your pre-existing one) [1] [2]. I think the popularity of this method is mainly the result of Forer effect [0] [1] https://sci-hub.se/https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/019188699290220J?via%3Dihub [2] https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/3af1/3afd31c55f87c2b1871afe6fc6633e2a2df0.pdf [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnum_effect

fmihaila 7y ago

That question is actually interesting when not viewed as rethorical.

c3534l 7y ago

Because handwriting analysts tell people they are an accepted branch of psychology and there is not enough time in the day to question everything. At some point, I heard handwriting analysis was pseudoscience, so I looked into it and they were right. I've not looked into whether quantum physics is pseudoscience because the people in my life who appear to be experts in the subject tell me it's real and I don't feel like pursuing a physics degree to tell if they're full of it. Regardless of the perception you have of yourself as a critical thinker, for most things we accept thinds as true by default and only flag certain suspicious things for further criticism.

knodi123 7y ago
my magic 8 ball says "Insightful"

BucketSort 7y ago

I write a lot. I can tell from my own experience that what I'm feeling when I write translates into my handwriting in subtle ways. You may object to some particular method that I'm unaware of, but I don't think "handwriting analysis" in general is absurd. It's data and so there are models of it and inferences.

michaelmrose 7y ago
Personal feelings are not how we evaluate a scientific discipline. It's phrenology level nonsense. A coworker once told me that his chiropractor told him he could help him with hemroids. This not only made me dubious about her ability to cure hemroids. It made me dubious that she could do anything about back pain. Capable people don't spew nonsense within the scope of their capabilities. The second his analyst registered an opinion about the personality of the writer I became dubious that she could even tell who wrote it.
- BucketSort 7y ago
  People felt the same way about Einstein's cosmic intuition. Things evolve in stages, from intuition and anecdotes to more formal developments or refutations. I didn't say handwriting analysis is a fully legitimate area. I said as a writer I see how my writing changes and don't find the concept as absurd as many here do because of my anecdotal experience. You may hand wave that away because I don't have a statistical analysis here that is peer reviewed, and that's fine, but to me saying something is nonsense without a proof that it's nonsense is equally bad. Everything that isn't completely rigorous isn't nonsense. It's not good science, but not necessarily nonsense.
- elcritch 7y ago
  It’s not outside the realm of plausibility that certain chiropractic procedures could help with digestive issues linked to other issues. There’s been a decent amount of research recently into stimulating the vagus nerve for example and how it affects not only digestion but also mood and immune function. If a pinched spinal nerve is causing digestive issues perhaps it could lead to other issues. Curing every case? Likely not, but perhaps it could help some individuals. Now the chiropractic field is also full of half baked practitioners as well, imho.

kjhughes 7y ago

Your assertion that Wolfram "unquestioningly accepted this nonsense" is unfounded. Ignore the personality assessment element. Wolfram sought to identify whose handwriting the note was, so he asked a "professional handwriting examiner" that he happened to know. The quote you extracted was her relaying her opinion that the note was not written by Turing.

avip 7y ago

Equally interesting - have you read the research that (dis)credits handwriting analysis, or you just unquestionably accept that it's nonsense? Similar to other personality-related pseudopseudosciences, there's enough contradicting research to form any opinion (or, more commonly, to support your pre-existing one) [1] [2]. I think the popularity of this method is mainly the result of Forer effect [0] [1] https://sci-hub.se/https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/019188699290220J?via%3Dihub [2] https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/3af1/3afd31c55f87c2b1871afe6fc6633e2a2df0.pdf [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnum_effect