3. Do you think?-How?

DO YOU THINK FAST OR SLOWLY? ARE YOU A LEARNER OR MERELY CURIOUS. WHAT HANDWRITING REVEALS ABOUT RABBI STE­PHEN WISE, NORMA SHEARER, BETTE DAVIS, WINNIE RUTH JUDD, HAZEL GOODWIN KEE-LER9 JOE E. BROWN, W. C. HANDY, S. S. VAN DINE, THOMAS A. EDISON AND OTHERS.

How you think is highly important to your success and happiness. It is equally important that you understand how other people think or understand, because if you possess a keen, comprehending mind it will be easy for you to think that others have your own capacity for understanding, and you may be frequently disappointed. Or, if you think slowly, accumu- lating ideas from which you finally formulate a plan of operation, you may be fearful of doing business with those who do not seem to think at all, but grasp ideas and formulate conclusions without apparent effort.

• THREE KINDS OF THINKERS

Every teacher has had students who never seemed to study but who made better than average grades. Parents and teachers have shaken their heads and muttered, but the boy or girl who did not seem to devote any time to study, but turned in good recitations was still there to be reckoned with. Educators puzzled, when there was no puzzle about it. The students who did not seem to study and still learned merely possessed exceptional comprehension. They could read a book, and because their minds were working very much like sewing machine needles, penetrating as they read, they learned without the slow steady grind of laborious study.

On the other hand the slower student who really has to work to learn is not necessarily slow or stupid. Such students merely think differently, because their minds are geared to a different type of approach. They are slow thinkers with less penetration—less comprehension, but they were still good students.

You may have belonged to either of these groups, or you may be one of those who were not satisfied with what you learned out of a textbook. You had a driving to learn, to find out why, and so you asked questions that possibly even the teacher could not answer.

These three classifications or groups are each important, and each has a vital part of your life and the life of your country. We must have the men and women who think and understand so rapidly that they do not seem to need to study; we must have men and women, young and old, whose desire to learn calls for them to ask questions, to inquire into, to investigate. And we need, just as much, the other group who must take their time to learn, and who are covered by the frequently repeated comment, "It takes a long time for him to get the idea, but when he finally gets it, he knows."

The first thinker is the one whose writing is filled with sharp, needle points. These points reveal comprehension in proportion to the length of the needle points above the line. They are most frequently shown in the m's, ns, r's and the upper point of the s, but may occur in any stroke com­bination. Plate 14, which was made especially for this book, shows what to look for.

PlatE 14. Sharp needle points reveal a penetrating, comprehending mind.

You will notice these needle points are long, penetrating, regardless of the size of the writing. In smaller writing the needle points are shorter but the writing is smaller. If the points in the second line were found in the writing of the first line, they would not show enough penetration to identify the writer as having a penetrating, comprehending mind. But in each of these lines the points above the line are long, penetrating, very much like a hypodermic needle.

In the third line, however, the points are not penetrating. They do not show penetrating comprehension. Instead, they merely prick the sur­face. Possibly this will be clearer if I give you the illustration that has been used by so many class teachers of grapho analysis to emphasize and clarify this particular type of thinking.

Plate 15. Grant land Rue achieved an international reputation as a fine observ-ant sports writer. His hand­writing contained many penetrating needle points, showing a sharp #rasp of his assignment.

If you have ever seen a loaf of bread dough, you know that after Ma­ting to raise it forms a tough outer skin. If you press on the dough with .i finger, you make a dent, or possibly penetrate the skin, but your finger, or the fork you use, does not penetrate the loaf.

Following are four illustrations that will clarify this penetrating think­ing for you. These have been chosen from various walks of life because no matter what a man or woman does, good, bad or indifferent, the individual shows more than ordinary comprehension. You analyze handwriting with­out outside information. You do not need it and should not be influenced by it.

The first specimen is the writing of Stephen A. Wise, which he sent me many years ago when the very idea of grapho analysis was new. You will notice that he was skeptical. He was entitled to be. There have been handwriting analysts for hundreds of years, people who read a book, or even wrote one, who depend on hunches to make their determinations. You are not doing this. You can understand for yourself without drawing pictures why the sharp points portray a comprehending mind. These strokes penetrate. They are long, and sharp, and like a needle go into a project deeply and smoothly.

Plate 16. Handwriting of Rabbi Stephen A. Wise shows an unusual depth of feeling.

The Wise writing is heavy. You already know that heavy writing reveals deep, absorbed emotions that pile up, and in his case there was no emotional expression. Just depth. Rabbi Wise was a doubter, but evidently his analysis must have changed his view, for his~ secretary wrote that they were amazed and promptly asked me to do an analysis of her own writing.

In plate 17 you have for study one of the long time motion picture actresses who remained a public favorite for many years. Norma Shearer's m's and n's, as well as the last part of the "h" in "wishes" are pointed. She did not have an initial stroke starting at the line and going up to the apex of the small "i's", so these two points must be counted too. The small "r" in "from" is sharp pointed, so that out of about forty strokes, not letters, ten of them are strokes that penetrate like a needle.

Both of these writers possessed the ability to learn without showing great effort. They could walk into a room, and mentally see all of the people there almost at once. They were comprehending, far above that of the average individual.

Plate 17. Notice the pointed m's and n's in Norma Shearer's handwriting.

In case you are a teacher, or supervisor and have children, or adults under your supervision, do not expect them to grasp ideas as quickly as Rabbi Wise, or Norma Shearer. They may need repeated explanations, but when they have finally mastered a subject, they will never lose it. And in mastering it they have accumulated a vast amount of contagious knowledge that will support their final conclusions.

You may say at this point that both are vertical writers, but that was mere chance, just as in the case of Bette Davis. Her publicity agent sent me just one line of her writing, and common sense told me that I should not have attempted an analysis. You may have seen handwriting analysts in public take a signature and analyze it. At least they said they were ana­lyzing the handwriting. Possibly they were telling the truth, but not all the truth. You cannot analyze what you do not have. A signature may be long, and in such cases there are strokes enough to identify a limited number of traits, but that is all. It is not possible to make an accurate and complete analysis from a signature or a few lines of writing.

At any rate, Bette Davis found my comments "very true in most re­spects," but that was not an accurate analysis. It was a well deserved re­buke. Very early you may fall into the same trap that caused my error. You have only a scrap of writing, and the evidence that you have all points one way, so you make a statement. If you had examined more writing you might have found other traits that either offset or at least affected those you had found, and the picture would be changed.

This consideration of the effect of one trait on another, sometimes emphasizing it, at other times limiting it, is called evaluation. It is evalu­ation that makes it possible to pin point even minor traits and their effect on the conduct of any individual writer.

Plate 18. Analysis of the Bette Davis signature alone was mostly correct but there was not enough writing for a complete analysis. Then she sent this longer letter.

You will have already noted one marked difference between plate 16 and plate 17. The first is heavy writing, showing deep emotions, strong prejudices, and lasting love or hate, or other emotion. The Norma Shearer writing is not quite as heavy as the Stephen S. Wise writing. It is smaller and the strokes are definitely lighter, but there is depth of feeling here as compared with the writing of Bette Davis.

Plate 19. Clear thinking is indicated in the writing of Winnie Ruth Judd, convicted of double murder.

You have two types of thinking in plate 19. In the second line there is a set of two sharp pointed in each word, the n's. In the line above and the line below the m's and n's are made like wedges, or inverted v's. In order to be absolutely accurate, take your pencil, and count the number of needle pointed letters just as you have already done in the four words in the second line, and you will again in the fourth line, and so on throughout the specimen.

This is the writing of Winnie Ruth Judd, who was convicted of mur­dering two women, and sentenced to the Arizona Penitentiary. She had been a perennial escapee, the efforts having their roots in a mere desire to get away, not to commit another crime. This writing shows that she must have been mentally busy. Penetrating thinkers must have something to occupy their minds. It may be association with people, work they like, hobbies, anything to keep their active minds employed.

Plate 20. This kind of writing indicates an in­tellectually thirsty mind.

In plate 20 you have a specially drawn illustration to show you what to look for when checking for a writer who explores, who seeks knowledge, whose eagerness to dig out facts is primary. Such thinking habits are identi­fied by the stroke combinations that look like the letter v upside-down. The true investigative mind has a great number of these combinations which may occur in the last part of the h, the m, n, or in some particular letter formation peculiar to the individual writer. Take plate 21 for example. This is a very fine example of an exploratory mind, a writer who is always looking to learn more, and willing to work at it.

This, by the way, is the writing of Hazel Goodwin Keeler, the success­ful novelist wife of Harry Stephen Keeler, whose handwriting you studied in the second chapter.

Hazel Goodwin Keeler started life as a magazine illustrator. She did good work but illustrating a story does not provide an opportunity to find out about things. Her mind required that she learn, inquire into, and she turned to fiction because she had to dig for background to build successful stories. As you use this principle you find that a great many highly skillful accountants make these inverted v's. Many medical men who are specialists have the same thought habit.

The eagerness to learn is also clearly shown in the writing of the long time motion picture favorite, Joe E. Brown. Some of the strokes in Joe E. Brown's writing, however, are not exploratory. Some of them, as in "hand­writing" show keen and immediate understanding.

Now, before we go any further with the study of exploratory minds, let us turn back and remember that you are not merely studying hand-writing. You are getting acquainted with people just as though they lived next door to you. Examine the Shearer, Davis and Wise specimens care­fully. Ask yourself if these three writers would jump at conclusions, or be curious about your affairs. If you started improvements on your lawn, or in your house, would they be curious to learn what you were doing? On the other hand, could you expect them to read a magazine or newspaper article, and understand it on the first reading if it were highly technical?

Plate 21. Written by one with an exploratory mind.

Plate 22. Revealing handwriting of Joe E. Brown, long-time movie actor.

If you have considered the poise shown by the vertical writing you know that not one of the three was highly impulsive because they would not jump at a conclusion. There is nothing exploratory in any of these three specimens so you could tear your house down on the inside and they would not bother about it. Further, because all these specimens reveal keen comprehension, the writers would be able to read, see a play, or watch a TV program, and understand it without difficulty.

• HOW TO RECOGNIZE FAST THINKERS

If either of these three specimens were written by an application for employment and you were handling personnel, either in your own home, or in business, you could safely make a notation, "You will not have to draw pictures to get them to see what you are talking about. They will be a step ahead of many when it comes to understanding." They will grasp ideas readily; they will not have to be told and retold, simply because they possess the type of mind that is frequently described in the phrase, "He thinks like lightning." Business executives frequently puzzle their associates because "they do not take time to think." The associate is mistaken. The sharp or needle pointed writer thinks so fast and so clearly that by the time they know the details of the project they understand it.

Rabbi Wise would understand and more because his comprehension points are longer than the Bette Davis specimen. Her page of writing shows that she would grasp just what was necessary to know. She would not necessarily be interested in understanding any subject fully. Why? Because the comprehension points are relatively short. They penetrate the surface of a subject but they do not probe.

At times Joe E. Brown would think so fast or comprehend so easily that those around him might think he was jumping at conclusions, but his emotional slant is not that of a plunger. He might understand fully and completely but it would be the result of penetration rather than an emo­tional reaction.

However, plate 22 shows far more desire to explore, and to learn than it does speed of understanding. Joe E. Brown's writing shows that after he had inquired into, had explored enough, he would then be able to compre­hend readily solely because he had first accumulated knowledge by ex­ploring.

Another man, famous in the world of entertainment, is revealed by the writing in plate 23. Study this specimen closely. There are a great many upsidedown wedges, and there are also some needle points that reveal great speed in understanding. This is the writing of the grand old man of the Memphis Blues, St. Louis Blues, and Beal Street Blues, W. G. Handy. His compositions were exceedingly popular in the early pert of the Twentieth Century and are still familiar to millions of music lovers. Handy built a huge musical publishing venture. He was a musician but he was also a business man, and an explorer. He kept learning, not just music but everything of interest to him. He got the answers, because he wanted to find them. When he had them, he made them part of his thinking, and then his conclusions were immediate. He was equipped with general knowledge, and a new project within the scope of his knowledge would be handled promptly. You may have heard the expression, "he sleeps with one eye open," and this fits W. C. Handy, whose musical compositions made him world famous, among all peoples and races.

Plate 23 & 24. W. C. Handy, composer of "St. Louis Blues" was an alert thinker all his life—this agrees with his handwriting analysis.

Your last illustration for study in connection with the learning or inquiring mind is this short specimen written by Dolores Del Rio, when she was at the height of her movie career. Her writing is large, and the inverted v's are long and sharp. If you had a spade digging into the earth you would get a lot of soil on the spade, if you dug as deeply into the earth as she did with these sharp wedges. Notice how she makes both the r's and the "s" in Dolores. They are both sharp wedges. Keep always in mind that it is not the letter that counts, it is the combination of strokes. You would not recognize that final "s" as an "s", but as you have studied the examples in this lesson you recognize it as a well developed combination of strokes revealing exploratory thinking.

Plate 25. Written by Delores Del Rio at the height of her movie career.

You have covered a great deal of ground only if you have given at­tention to the rules and the handwritings that illustrate them. Possibly you will agree that it is time to test your ability to observe, and recognize keen comprehension, and the exploratory mind.

Plate 26 was written by a one-time movie star, David Manners, and is an excellent combination of the two types of thinking—keen comprehension and the exploratory mind. Take your pencil, and check through carefully. How many strokes reveal keen comprehension? How many reveal the exploratory thinker? Some are needle pointed, others are inverted v's. When you are sure on each point, take your pencil and mark the number down carefully because if you were told now where to find the answers you might easily do like many puzzle fans, cheat by looking ahead. Study this specimen and make your own decisions. Keep your count because this simple specimen gives you an opportunity for self-examination.

You are now ready for a study of the slow, carefully, creative thinker who accumulates knowledge, and uses each bit gained much as a mason builds a stone wall. Every item of information or knowledge gained is im­portant, but the writer reaches his conclusions only after accumulation of knowledge. As a result, his handwriting reveals the effect of his building processes. This special illustration was, of course, drawn to give you an idea of what to look for as evidence of the creative mind.

PLATE 26. How many of these strokes on the David Manners handwriting reveal keen comprehension?

Plate 27. Good example of the handwriting of a creative thinker.

You have an excellent example in plate 28, which is the writing of the famous mystery novel writer, S. S. Van Dine, whose books sold in vast quantities in the early 20's, and are still worth reading if you are a who­dunnit fan. Almost all of the m's, and n's are broad across the top.

Van Dine was a slow, careful, cumulative writer. He fitted each word into its place. He created plots, just as carefully as if he had been laying the brick in a patio floor. Each piece had to fit. If he had not been a writer he might easily have been a creative worker, but he would never have been an artist, because this writing lacks many of the qualities that are required for natural artistic creative effort where lines or colors are concerned. We ordinarily think of a builder as one who works with his hands, but Van Dine was a builder with words, and created his stories just as a mason builds a wall. Each part had to fit.

Plate 28. S. S. Van Dine who created good mystery stories.

As you read in Oppenheim's letter, he doubted that his writing would reveal his character, his thought habits. He was using a pen for a special purpose, and he did not question whether his writing would reveal him. Instead, he merely doubted. However, he was honest enough not to try to add any funny curlicues to his page. His handwriting showed no love of show, and he was honest, so he submitted his normal, although infrequent handwriting. This was natural for him. These pen strokes show this fact, and when he found that his handwriting had told the truth he was equally frank. He had not believed. He saw what his writing said, about him, and he believed.

Because Van Dine and Oppenheim thought alike they worked alike. It was not a matter of genius, because you are not studying talent just now. Instead, you are learning to understand the thinking habits of each man so that you can understand how he wrote, not why. They did not write alike in the sense of what they said, but in the way they said it.

Plate 29. E. Phillips Oppenheim was a slow, careful, "thinking" writer. His handwriting shows it.

You too will have those who doubt that you can find anything in their writing. Some will laugh, or sneer, but when you know your rules and tell exactly what you find—when you are honest in what you tell from hand­writing, you will find most people will admit your accuracy, and you will have gained their respect.

In plate 30 you have an original of Edison's signature. The "m" in Thomas is an almost perfect illustration of the quiet, cumulative or builder type of thinker.

The actual lives of these three men show how perfectly their pen-strokes fit their ways of living and working. Edison never hurried. Instead he spent endless hours in his laboratory, proving each point before he attempted to produce what his mind had set as a project. Oppenheim was a slow, careful, almost tedious writer, fitting each sentence into its place with mechanical accuracy. Van Dine, too, created rather than wrote books. His writing shows none of the fluidity of thought that is so characteristic of Earl Stanley Gardner, and many other top fiction writers of today.

Plate 30. Perfect illustra­tion of the writing of a creative thinker.

Plate 31 does not resemble any of these three groups. The reason is very simple. The writer won a contest conducted by movie houses in a great central city. The young chap was sent to Hollywood, where the publicity department had to do something with him, so he was given small parts. Then he was sent on tour. He smiled and told jokes but he had never learned two things, and in a year he was forgotten. He was just one of the fellows who did not think. He breathed, he ate, and slept and played, but outside of a vivid imagination that he did not know how to use, he did not have anything. A ''nice" boy, but a lad without any mental cultivation. He was not a fast thinker because he had no mental aliveness. He was not an investigative thinker because he was not interested in learning anything. And he was not a builder or creative thinker, simply because he did not have anything he wanted to build.

• HOW TO IDENTIFY A NON-THINKER

This last specimen gives us reason to stop and think. You may easily find specimens of writing that you will examine, and find strongly resemble this page. You will find other traits, because every person is a composite of many traits of character, but when you look for the evidence of thinking you will not find it. However, such situations arc not hopeless. A man or woman can change mental habits once they become familiar with the need for change. If this young man's parents and teachers had insisted that he become interested in something while still in school, seriously interested in it, there is no reason to think from this specimen that he would not have become aware of the thrill of learning, and doing.

Plate 31. Handwriting showing no desirable traits.

As it was, this handwriting provides a picture of a chap who merely slid along from day to day, not interested in anything giving nothing to life, and getting nothing out of it. When you start the next chapter you will learn how to recognize pride, and you will be able to turn back to this page and find that he was very proud. He was happy when he got his movie contract after winning the contest. He was proud of having won, but when it came to the showdown he had nothing to offer simply because he had not learned to think.

Unfortunately you will find a great many writers who lack ability to think, not because there is something wrong with them, but because they have not been influenced or compelled to think. When they get a job they go through the operations of doing what they are told, or an operation where they can watch someone else, and copy what they have learned by observation, much as animals will do.

Plath 32. An analysis shows this to be the handwriting of a "non-thinker.

When you analyze such handwriting there is only one thing you can honestly do. Quietly and firmly urge the writer to become interested in something, some study, some activity where he will have to think to hold his own. It can be done, and inside of a year you will not recognize the writing of a fellow who follows your advice. Right in line with plate 31, here is another, plate 32—a lad who came to me for an analysis very early in the history of grapho analysis.

Jerry was not a bad boy. He was a thief, but it never occurred to him that he should not be a thief. He did not hesitate to pick a pocket, or wander through a department store and take away a dozen pairs of ladies' nylon hose when such hose were luxuries. He thought it was smart to roll drunks, and to disappear. He visited my office frequently, and we had many long talks. A friend offered to finance Jerry in high school. It did not appeal to him. He did want a shack by a river where he could swim every day, and where he could fish. He would go through periods of ambition, when he would ask to be sent to a farmer's home where he could work, and when such opportunities came along, he would always take along a huge roll of western stories. He read them, and forgot them as fast as he read them. They made no impression. He did not have a movie hero, nor a western hero such as the Texas Rangers that he admired, even from a distance.

He rarely stayed on with a farmer more than two or three days, pre­ferring to get up in the middle of the night and take off. He did not, however, steal from the farmer, because he recognized that the farmer was trying to help him. It was just too much bother to be helped. He did not have the usual boyish hobbies, and refused to be interested in them for more than the length of time it took to tell him about them. The last I saw of him was many years after I had given up the effort to arouse some sort of mental activity. He had drifted in marriage, and was pimping for a string of girls. It is probable that he never had a genuine thought in his entire life.

There are people like that in this world, and you will find some of their handwriting to be analyzed. You will not enjoy doing it, but there is a possibility always that you may, by being truthful, arouse a desire to think, a recognition that thinking is necessary.

• REPORT ONLY WHAT THE HANDWRITING SHOWS

There is one simple basic principle that every grapho analysis student has had to learn. Do not try to find what is not in the handwriting. And in cases where you do not find, do not improvise. If you have an active imagination, or a flair for showing off your knowledge, put a guard on what you say. Stick to just what you find, and you will gain accuracy, and your acquaintances and friends will recognize that you possess a skill which they do not have, and will respect you. Fake your analyses in order to show what you know, and that is how it will end. They will recognize you as a faker, and anything you may have learned will go down the drain. Fur­ther, tell the truth. You can say unpleasant things tactfully and the force of the truth will protect you. But before that, know what you say is actu­ally in the handwriting, and you are telling the truth.

EXAMINATION FOR CHAPTER 3

(Correct answers for this examination will be found in the back of the book.)

You can save yourself time, patience, money and happiness by recog­nizing from a page of handwriting how the writer thinks. When you are working with a stranger whom you must instruct in how to do a job, you can tell from only a few lines of writing whether he will understand readily or must be told over and over again simply because his mental response is so slow that he cannot understand from a single telling.

On the other hand when you can determine, as you can, that a man, young or old, has an eager inquiring mind you can expect him not only to understand when given instructions, but to seek to learn more.

If you have a friend who takes a long time to accumulate facts before arriving at a conclusion, it will be a real help if you can take his hand­writing and recognize this fact. Some people must think out a problem; they must gather facts before drawing a conclusion. They do not think as rapidly or form decisions like one with either keen comprehension or an exploratory mind and is continually striving to learn more.

Assuming that you have studied the illustrations and the rules in this chapter, you should be able to answer all these questions accurately. If you cannot, you should go back over the chapter, read it, study each specimen carefully and you will find where you erred. Then and only then, should you refer to the correct answers in the back of the book.

Does the writer of Specimen "£" in Chapter 2 show keen com­prehension or are there times when she comprehends easily and other times when she must think out a project before under­standing it?

a. Keen comprehension all the time. b. Sometimes keen,

SOMETIMES NOT.

9 . . Refer to Specimen "D" in Chapter 2. Study the specimen care­fully, then check below whether the writing showed comprehen­sion, exploratory thinking, or slow and logical thinking, based on accumulated reason.

a. Comprehending. b. Exploratory. c. Slow, logical.

10..Referring to the same specimen, decide which of the following statements most accurately fits the specimen.

a. Highly expressive of emotions that are quickly exhausted, WHILE HE THINKS WITH LIGHTNING SPEED.

b. Objective, does not show emotions, and has a very inquiring AND EXPLORATORY MIND.

c. Deeply and very expressively emotional, always eager

TO LEARN AND INQUIRE INTO.

Are You Ready To Move Onto The Next Lesson? Click Here...