Man, Barry Has Some Nice Handwriting:

[DAYoung]

Who is this? I can't read it.

 

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Mru2FVNRI8A/SM8Og0wK4jI/AAAAAAAADcg/_c4tiWQbcYY/s400/1940_00_00_winston_churchill_10_downing_st.jpg

[WhiskeyMan]

Who is this? I can't read it.

 

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Mru2FVNRI8A/SM8Og0wK4jI/AAAAAAAADcg/_c4tiWQbcYY/s400/1940_00_00_winston_churchill_10_downing_st.jpg

 

Ok. I'm going to say I made some good calls. What do you think?

[WhiskeyMan]

Ok. I'm going to say I made some good calls. What do you think?

 

Very different than Obama.

[DAYoung]

I see an optimist who is thoughtful/analytical. High Determination.

 

I think this person is secretive, and prefers (or maybe just ends up in) isolation. Perhaps likes to work alone? Doesn't care much for the opinions of others as he is more focused on his own. Not incapable of dealing with other people, but puts on a certain face and covers up what is most personally important.

 

I'm not sure on this one, but I think there may be issues with discipline.

 

Just speculation.

 

~WhiskeyMan

 

High determination, yes. Although odds on the writer was an important historical figure. Hence, someone of note: highly determined. Obama and Winston have this in common, as do most folks we bother to remember.

 

As for isolation and solitude, I'm not sure He spend a great deal of WWII 'in session', working with others. This also meant he was capable of listening to important advisors - so if he valued his own opinion (which he certainly did), he also relied on others'.

 

Putting on a face. I suspect so. But don't all individuals of historical significance? I'm most all your presidents have to.

 

As for discipline, possibly. His father saw him as a slacker. But as far as I know, he was disciplined as a soldier and leader.

[WhiskeyMan]

I see an optimist who is thoughtful/analytical. High Determination.

 

I think this person is secretive, and prefers (or maybe just ends up in) isolation. Perhaps likes to work alone? Doesn't care much for the opinions of others as he is more focused on his own. Not incapable of dealing with other people, but puts on a certain face and covers up what is most personally important.

 

I'm not sure on this one, but I think there may be issues with discipline.

 

Just speculation.

 

~WhiskeyMan

 

High determination, yes. Although odds on the writer was an important historical figure. Hence, someone of note: highly determined. Obama and Winston have this in common, as do most folks we bother to remember.

 

As for isolation and solitude, I'm not sure He spend a great deal of WWII 'in session', working with others. This also meant he was capable of listening to important advisors - so if he valued his own opinion (which he certainly did), he also relied on others'.

 

Putting on a face. I suspect so. But don't all individuals of historical significance? I'm most all your presidents have to.

 

As for discipline, possibly. His father saw him as a slacker. But as far as I know, he was disciplined as a soldier and leader.

 

OK. I'm not a historian, but I remember hearing that Churchill often did things differently than the rest of his peers. He used a different pistol, had different political opinions, strayed from his party etc. That indicates what I said.

 

Determination is something also seen in Obama's writing. It just wasn't mentioned because I wasn't doing a complete analysis.

 

Anyway, graphology reveals only the most personal attributes that someone reading a book about the subject may not see. Sure, he did what he had to do in a time of war, but does that reveal how he felt about it? He, like any other leader, is only remembered for the greatest moments.

 

Thanks for the sample. Keeps my skill sharp.

 

~WhiskeyMan

[DAYoung]

Anyway, graphology reveals only the most personal attributes that someone reading a book about the subject may not see. Sure, he did what he had to do in a time of war, but does that reveal how he felt about it? He, like any other leader, is only remembered for the greatest moments.

 

That's possibly true. But to back it up, you'd need to point to evidence beyond the text, e.g. biographical details.

 

Which illustrates one of the problems with graphology. On its own, it gives little compelling evidence - it needs more robust verification. And if this verification exists, the graphological evidence is redundant.

 

Of course, it might be considered a clue, e.g. a spur to dig deeper. Still, it does have its problems as a guide to character.

 

Having said this, it is good fun.

[penemuel]

As a fellow Leftie, I think Obama's writing is beautiful, neat, and shows a personal style that indicates individuality/strength of personality. I don't know much about graphology, but am curious whether it takes handedness into account when it 'analyzes' someone. Those who write left-handed despite the cultural bias against it, and those who write right-handed because they were forced to will have different writing than those who are naturally right-handed, and I'm not sure those differences are looked at as fully as they should be.