We’re about to dive into the crucial topic of thought processes, an area where graphologists from various camps of analysis have competed for generations without complete agreement on interpretation. The confusion that novice analysts experience when comparing different styles is understandable: signs and traits are labeled differently, and when considering patterns of thought and behavior, the focus of interpretation often differs sharply from system to system; many traditional forms of graphology (which are based on empirical observation) fail to distinguish between internal thought mechanisms and outward manifestations of attitude.
Words are composed of elements that fall into three categories: upper, middle, and bottom. We’ll focus on the zone areas’ fundamental values. The height of letters equals with the area of impact of our tiny (non-capital) letters correlates with the region of influence of practical or everyday things, and the baseline of our writing reflects solid reality (for this reason some graphologists refer to this area between the baseline and the tops of the smaller letters as the Mundane Zone).
Strokes that rise beyond the mundane zone are moving away from the immediate worries and practicalities of everyday life and toward areas that represent the -writer’s abstract or spiritual impulses. Strokes that descend below the baseline indicate material or physical tendencies; they indicate drives toward states of change or specific types of activity, and they can also indicate the writer’s reserves of assimilated practical experience, since any signs of imagination in this region are based on real experiences.
As you’ll see, the stroke shapes that inform us about thinking patterns aren’t limited to any particular zone, thus understanding the three zones of handwriting is critical if you want to correctly analyze mental processes.
The challenge of linking letters is inextricably intertwined with the subject of logical ability, hence most graphology systems focus on connective strokes to collect information about cognitive processes. It’s worth noting that older European techniques of analysis prefer to link them to externally manifested behavior and attitudes rather than internal intellectual processes. The American school of stroke-by-stroke analysis has different thoughts about this, believing that the inner workings of mind are far more valuable than the outward manifestations of behavior they generate. They also focus on the letter forms that provide the finest possibility for studying the stokes outlined above (h, m, n, r, u, and v).
Resistance can be equated to angular connecting strokes. Traditional graphologists describe such writers as brawny, vigilant, and tenacious. Inverted Angular, Angular, and Super-angular are three types of angular thought-strokes recognized by stroke analysts.
Inverted Angular – This V-formation (which stroke-by-stroke analysts refer to as an analytical stroke) demonstrates the capacity to sift through and evaluate available data in order to determine its true worth. This type of writer is less likely than the verified Arcade-style writer to take known facts at face value. To qualify for this interpretation without reservation, these V-formations must reach the baseline and be unretraced.
Angular – This inverted V-formation (dubbed an investigative stroke by stroke-by-stroke analysts) does not surpass the height of the mundane zone and demonstrates a desire to seek knowledge and information. This does not imply a desire to investigate or find new areas of knowledge, but it does indicate that the writer is willing to look into what he considers to be common knowledge.
Super-angular – This inverted V-formation (referred to as an exploratory stroke by stroke-by-stroke analysts) rises above the mundane zone’s height (i.e., it enters the realm of the abstract or unknown), and the strength of such strokes rises in proportion to their height above the tops of the small letters.
The arcade or rounded connection harkens back to the end of the copy-book styles we learned in school, and it’s usually indicative of a slower, more deliberate stroke pattern. It is seen by traditional graphologists as an indication of diplomacy and possibly secrecy (in a non-active fashion). This is referred to as a cumulative stroke by stroke-by-stroke analysts, who believe it is an indication of step-by-step reasoning, which is a slower, more structured manner of building known facts onto known facts until a conclusion can be formed. The presence of structures with broad or flat tops also matches this pattern.
Arcades might suggest a want to hide, a need for formality, control, or a desire to act as though one lives by a set of rules rather than one’s own. This person cares about appearances and tradition, but it’s all a ruse, a protecting gesture. Arcades are connected with putting on a show rather than being genuine. The arcade marker represents a hypocrite with a secret.
According to European graphologists, the style of garland/needle connection or retraced connecting strokes is a sign of an easygoing and friendly personality – the type of guy who trusts his intuition when creating relationships and friendships. Stroke-by-stroke This structure is known as a comprehensive stroke, and it is thought to be a sign of quick instinctive reasoning. They cite Sigmund Freud’s hypothesis that what appears to be smooth innate reasoning is actually only a flashback to earlier learning experiences in similar situations.
The significance of the Wavy-line Connection Pattern is widely agreed upon. If the forms sprawl and speed up, it means the writer is simply skimming the surface of the subject at hand, extracting only what he feels he needs. Of course, he doesn’t always get away with it, but he gives the sense of adaptability in general (though this formation can be interpreted as inconsistency in the presence of other negative traits).
Graphology in its earlier forms was especially severe on this type of writer. They used thread connections to suggest indecisiveness, deception, and even frenzy. This stroke is frequently interpreted by the modern analyzer as a more extreme version of the above writer. The thread-writer keeps a low profile and has a low self-esteem. Essentially, this writer is afraid of making bad judgments and of being judged by others; as a result, his work takes on a formless aspect until it is as unclear (and frequently illegible) as his goals.
