Evening star., 1923-11-05
BY DIR. OSKAR FISCHER.
Professor of Psychiatry and
Neurology, German University e.
of Prague.

Neurology, German Unfversity
of Prague.
The same conclusion is made inevit-
able by the following experiment:
inclosed scripts by various persons
in envelopes. Schermann. by touching
the envelopes, gave analysis Of the
writer's. This might be called the
method of indirect touch, as distin-
guished from the method of direct touch.
when Schermann, blindfolded. feels
handwriting, But even more surprising
was this. I inclosed sample writings
in envelopes exactly alike. and then
shuffied them so that 1 myself had not
the slightest idea as to whose hand
writing I was offering, under seal. to,
Schermann. 1t made no difference.
Schermann. gave analyses which. on
opening the envelopes, were found to
fit the respective subjects.
Here. again, telepathy fails. as an
explanation But Schermann's gifts
include telepathy in the ordinary sense
as well. This is proved by the follow
ing test: 1 eliminated handwriting or
paper altogether and merely thought
of subject, mentally visualizing his
picture. Schermann. described and an
alyzed the subject just the same. This
test might be called the method Of in
direct. reconstruction. for Schermann
gives the explanation that he first
tries to reconstruct the handwriting of
the subject mentally visualized, and
reduce his analysis from the hand
writing thus reproduced or recon-
structed.
Finally. Schermann can furnish ac-
curate analyses by looking at photo
graphs OF people. In these cases, too,
he first reconstructs in his mind the
handwriting of the subject. This is
the method Of direct reconstruction.
Accuracy Standard Problen.
Most important Of all my experiments
with Schermann was the series Of tests
whereby established an absolute stand
ard for the accuracy of Schermann's
ing the performance of the ordinary
graphologist is this: There is no fixed
standard whereby the correctness or
accuracy OF Characterization could be
controlled. The question arises: What
is an exact Characterization? Who is
to say whether description Of mental
traits is accurate? l have tried to
illuminate this difficulty by submitting
to graphologist of 'repute the hand
writing of person intimately known
to me. This analysis was fairly good.
leagues, who also knew the subject, to
characterize him. There was an ele-
ment of truth in each description, yet
they were as different from one another
as can be, and they were also different
from the description furnished by the
graphologist. Yet there was no objec-
tive measure whereby I could pro-
nounce one description as right. and
the others as wrong. If this is a
difficulty, 1t is also the loophole through
which the ordinary graphologist slips
into achieving results His weakness
is his strength; he cannot help mov-
ing within generalities.
Now, 1 procured from Schermann
analyses of the same subjects arrived
at by various methods: First. by the
ordinary method of showing the
handwriting (sight method): second
by the direct touch method; third, by
the indirect touch method; fourth, by
the method of indirect reconstruction
The result was astounding. Scher-
mann's descriptions of the same sub
ject, arrived at by different methods
at great intervals of time, coincided
like Photographic plates. Thus for
the first time an objective standard
of characterization was achieved. ]
must emphasize that took. every
possible precaution to prevent Scher-
mann from knowing what was to
happen next-there was no sequel, no
system. tests were held pell-mell, at
irregular intervals, at unexpected
moments in a period spanning two
years. It was humanity impossible for
Schermann to know that he was per-