One of my methods for
demonstrating that Graphology is valid in all of my teaching materials
is to ask you to be your own guinea pig and see the logic of graphology
for yourself, as I hope you've begun to do.

Here's the idea: If
I asked you a question on a subject you knew nothing about, gave
you five seconds or less to give me the right answer from two choices,
and without any help you gave me the right answer, what would this
mean?

For example, look at
samples A and B below. One of them was written by a flamboyant salesman,
and one was written by a shy, introverted accountant. Which one
was written by the flamboyant salesman, A or B?

I'll bet you correctly
said that sample B was written by the salesman. Now, could the fact
you gave the right answer have happened just by chance?

Well, what if I asked
you twenty questions and gave you five seconds or less to give me
the right answer to each, and it turned out that you got all twenty
answers correct? Could that happen by chance?

What if I asked ten
thousand people a hundred questions, and it turned out that every
one of those ten thousand people, in less than five seconds, gave
me the right answers to each of the hundred questions? Could that
happen just by chance? Of course not!

Well, that is exactly
how in my books and videotapes I hope to show that graphology works:

1. Before giving
any explanations, I ask you a series of questions calling for
YOU to interpret graphic movement.

2. I give you five
seconds to answer each question, and I'm certain that you will
get nearly every answer right

3. When that happens,
I hope you will agree there must be some logical reasons why you
-- and everybody else who answers these questions -- get the right
answers.

At that point, I hope
you will also agree that there must be some logic to the science
of interpreting graphic movement. After all, everybody couldn't
get all the answers right just by chance, could they?

No. They could not.