The Birmingham age-herald., 1923-11-04

wrote these are engaged to marry"
 They were.
 But Schermann does not need at all to look at handwriting. He will furnish excellent descriptions and analyses of the writer of a script which he has merely touched while blindfolded. I guarded against the possibility of finger-tip reading, of the type familiar to the blind, simply by using thin ink with a very sharp pen or pencil, The keenest touch could not discover any relief. More over, the result was the same if there was no writing on the paper at all Ii the writer merely went through the motion of writing with the butt end of a penholder. or an unsharpened pencil, without pressure on the paper Schermann, blindfolded. would pro- ceed with his analysis undisturbed He did not even know that no writ ing was visible on the paper. Ob- vfously some sort of energy unper- ceival%e to ordinary senses, but per- ceivabIe to Schermann's extraordin- ary sensibility, remained fixed on the paper
 In another instance I traced on paper certain figures or symbols with my finger. Schermann, blindfolded, felt the paper and said:
 There is a flourish (Schnorkel) here-it expresses an idea-it in- spires feeling-the feeling of wor- ship--if one sees this thing one raises ones hat"
 A journalist who was present, an iTraVarant nf clr eH Am if one wears no hat?"
 Then one must kneel down." said Schermann.
 And if one has no <nees?" pur- sued the journalist, bent on being witty.
 Then one must prostrate oneself.''
 The sign l had traced on the paper was the sign of the cross This ex- pertinent is extremely important be- cause it establishes definitely that Schermann's faculty is not simply mind reading or telepathy in the ac- cepted sense. The point is that while drew the invisible cross I thought, not of the symbol of Christianity, but of the mark made by illiterate per- sons on documents by way of sigma ture.
 Jut Scripts In Envelopes.
 The same conclusion is made in. evitable by the following experi- ment: l enclosed scripts by various persons in envelopes. Schermann. by touching the envelopes, gave analysis of the writers. This might be called the method of indirect touch. as distinguished from the method of direct touch. when Scher- mann, blindfolded, feels handwritins. But even more surprising was this: l enclosed sample writings in en- yeiopes exactly alike. and then shuffled them so that I myself had not the slightest idea as to whose handwriting l was offering, under seal, to Schermann. It made no diff ference. Schermann gave analysis, which, on opening the envelopes, were found to fit the respective
 Here, again, telepathy fails as an explanation. But Schermann's gifts include telepathy in the ordinary sense as well. This is proved by the following test: l eliminated hand writing Or paper altogether and merely thought of subject, mental, ly visualizing his picture. Scher- mann described and analysed the subject just the same. This test might be called the method of in dlrect reconstruction-for Schermann glVes the explanation that he first tries to reconstruct tue handwriting of the subject mentally visualized. and deduces his analysis from the handwriting thus reproduced or re- constructed
 Finally, schermann can furnish accurate analysis by looking at photographs of people. In these eases. too, he first reconstructs in ms mind the handwriting of the subject This is the method of di- rect reconstruction
 Most important of all my exneri ments with Schermann was the se- rles of tests, whereby I established an absolute standard for the accu- racy or Schermann's analysis The great difficulty in judging the per- formance of the ordinary grapholo- gist is this: There is no fixed stand ard whereby the correctness or ac- curacy of characterization could be controlled The question arises: what Is an exact characterization? :? Who is to say whether a description of mental traits is accurate? I have tried to illuminate this difficulty by submitting to graphologist of re- pute, the handwriting of a person Intimately known to me. This andy asked several of my colleagues, who also knew the subject to character ize him. There was an element of truth in each description, yet they were as different from one descrip- tion furnished by the graphologist. ! ~ .HciS w dS Ho obJecIlVe measure whereby l could pronounce one de- scription as right, and the others as wrong. If this is a difficulty, it 1 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.
 Used Various Methods
 Now, l procured from Schermanu analvsis of tho same subjects arr rived at by various methods: 1. by the ordinary method of showing the handwriting (sight method); 2, by the direct touch method; B. by the irolrect touch method; 4. by the method of indirect reconstruction. Ihe result was astounding. Scher- mann's descriptions Of the same sub Ject, arrived at by different method. at great intervals of time, coincided Ike photographic plates. Thus, for the ilrst time. an objective standard must emphasize that 1 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 mo- ments in period spanning two years. IL was humanly impossible for Scher- mann to know that he was perform ent method
 Still another test consisted in let ting Schermann, blindfolded touci, the Handwriting of various subjects ana then asking him to reproduce my name ln the respective script In this series the most fascinating experiment. was when. made him touch a type written sample He thereup proceed