Page Title

Feature - Human Interest

(Carol Forsloff has studied writing since the late 1950’s, through college, as well through specialized
programs in language study, document examination and statement analysis, applying these skills to
teaching, counseling, evaluating and serving as a forensics expert in local, state, Federal and military
courts. In this article she outlines behavioral profiling principles used to evaluate a common behavior of all
the Presidential candidates.)

Become a Behavioral Profiler: Take the First Steps
Find Clues to Presidential Candidates’ Qualities

By Carol Forsloff

First impressions count. We drive through a town on our way to somewhere, look at a few houses,
watch the traffic flow, notice shops through our windows and say to ourselves, “I’d like to live there”
or “I wouldn’t leave home for that.” We apply those same generalizations to people also, looking at
how they dress, talk and act, then make a decision about whether or not we will or will not pursue a
relationship. Impressions need details and testing, but we use them as bases to start.   They are
the initial steps in profiling, that is making an outline of certain features about which we need to learn
more.

Similarities and differences among towns and people help us to first generalize, test out, and then
specify in order to form conclusions. We can apply many of these same strategies to specific human
behaviors, thus profiling that behavior. At the same time we must always keep in mind that the
more we know about a given behavior, and the more frequently we can observe or experience it, the
better our conclusions will be. And one of those conclusions might be about who’d be the best
President of the United States..

Let’s see how we can apply the principles of profiling to a behavior such as writing that can be
observed and that leaves evidence like other human behaviors. Furthermore we can tell the
handwriting of one person from another by characteristics that one person has that another does
not ordinarily and that helps us distinguish folks, just like dressing, walking and talking does.
Handwriting also has elements common to everyone who speaks and writes a given language and
who has learned to write within a certain set of rules. So let’s look then at the writing behavior of
some of our Presidential candidates to see what all that says. Most of what we’ll find is really
common sense.

When we first see Barack Obama’s writing, we notice it looks good and is easy to read. The lines are
straight, the words aren’t too close together or too far apart, the letters are made clearly without
intrusive lines, the top, bottom and side margins allow us to see the layout well. What might that
tell us? It’s likely that he wants to communicate so writes so he can.    Most of his letters are
midline based, that is the “value” of the letters are in the middle of what would be an imaginary line
across, with extenders neither too high nor too low nor made with superfluous strokes and curls.
What does that say? It suggests that he doesn’t get lost in distractions, keeps his eye on what he’
s doing now but will look at other things as he needs to. Or that he’ll shoot that ball right down the
middle, which often gets a strike.   He makes his personal pronoun “I” in the traditional way learned
in grade school that is simple and doesn’t call attention to itself.     Does that tell us he’ll use
tradition that works today while still meeting his objective and yet not make himself the center of
attention? Look carefully and you can also see how the writing moves quickly across the page,
letters linked with ease, open, clear and readable. What would that mean? Possibly that he can multi
task, sort and organize ideas in a fast, yet comprehensible way. He also doesn’t miss any details.
Notice he dots every “i” and crosses every “t” The only time that “t” cross is missed is when it ends
a word, in which case it’s made with simplicity, but we still know what it is. Does this appear to be
someone who would organize information with fluency and ease, the whole and the parts, and take
care of it all? Observe too that some lower loops on letters like the “g” in “hungry” as well as fluent
forms at the beginning and end of words are abbreviated, individualized forms that allow the writer
to form letters efficiently and fast. What do we think about that? Certainly he has integrated his
simple forms with new efficient ones, which allows him to use both what works from tradition and
what he can originally develop now that can help him with his task. Put all this together with the fact
Obama is left handed and that he has to compensate in a right-handed world. Now we know he
likely thinks fast, takes care of details, doesn’t call attention to himself when he’s trying to
communicate, has good concentration and makes it all look simple and comprehensible while
adjusting capably under difficult circumstances. Could how he completes this writing task predict
how he might handle other tasks?

The spaces between Obama’s sentences allows them to appear like they are separate ideas, while
some word endings have letters that stretch out as if lending a helping hand to the next idea or
thought.   When he does this it looks like he’s “putting on the brakes.” Again what could this tell
us? It’s likely Obama sees each idea separately and connects it to the next in an incremental way
that can work most of the time but might not if he has to make quick decisions. But we know he
writes and thinks fast which put together with incremental thinking adds to his skill as a
communicator. Consider then what it takes to write fluently, structure thoughts, maintain
readability, organize words and ideas into mature sentences and do it all in a visually pleasing way
while making the content meaningful in a world where you have to compensate at the beginning
because you don’t write like most everyone else. Certainly intelligence and qualities of making
adjustments in difficult circumstances seems probable.

We have seen that Obama wants to communicate with us since he takes the time to write clearly to
do it. It’s different with his signature. We can’t read it easily, and in fact if we didn’t know his name
already, we might not know immediately what it is. The first letter of his first name is considerably
larger than the rest of the letters so that it stands out. At first glance the rest of the letters seem
to flow into each other so we can’t tell one from another. A closer look shows us that the “b” in
“Obama” is an insert within the “O” with the stem moving upward and out at the top and the lower
part extending through the middle of the “O” as it moves across to form the rest of the name. This
is an efficient, creative way of synthesizing information, in this “face to the world” signature. We
know Obama is a politician and likely has to sign his name a lot, and under the pressure of time, so
likely does it fast for that reason. That happens to those in a hurry who have a lot to do, like
doctors, and often becomes habit. Still the large letters in the first and last name stand out in both
letter size and clarity so we know who he is. Look closely and you can see how the last name
resembles his logo and how both might indicate Obama as that special “brand” of person.

All together what might our conclusions be about Obama from his writing when we also know that
one type of behavior can also mirror other behaviors in that same person?   We recognize he has
good verbal and small motor skills; his writing tells us that. It shows that he can plan the small and
the large, organize, think about others in his communication, do a lot of things all at once while not
neglecting either the big picture or the details, bind the old with the new, and form a mission that is
unique and adjust as needed to do it.   Those are strong leadership qualities indeed.

The special nature of individual writing is demonstrated again when we examine the writing of Hillary
Clinton.    We don’t have as much writing as we’d like, so we can’t make too many assumptions. We
can see, however, that Clinton’s writing is clear and organized, but the individual words are further
apart than they need to be to be read. In addition her writing doesn’t look that different from
others we’ve probably seen around us. So what might that mean? It appears that each word
Clinton writes must be sorted out before the next one added. She wants to communicate, so she
forms her letters and words in a fashion that makes them readable. Yet she mixes cursive and
manuscript, the old and new as habit, in a way that slows her down. The writing is adequate, but
traditional too in its appearance.   So what does it mean when someone has particularly traditional
ways of taking care of a task like writing? Would this indicate that she might rely on what’s been
tried before rather than what’s challenging and new and needed?

Look carefully at Clinton’s writing, and you’ll see that one letter stands out from the others. Notice
how she ends the word “best” by a stroke that moves rigidly upward and downward with a terminal
“t” that is different from the three others in the paragraph. Rigid strokes take time to make, more
time than fluid, rhythmic ones. What type of behavior might that show, especially when the stroke
is almost as large as the capital letter that begins the word and seems unusually forceful and stiff?
Could that hint at some rigidity in the writer and a need to be protective, almost tent-like, when it isn’
t even necessary? Most behavior is learned, and lots of it becomes automatic and unconscious after
a period of time. Writing is one of those behaviors that becomes unconscious, that reflects what
might be going on in the mind while the hands and fingers form letters and words. That
unconscious stroke might tell us of a protective, aggressive, forceful feature of Clinton that comes
out when least expected, and that might not serve her well.

Clinton connects her writing with a certain degree of skill to make it readable, but when we examine it
closely we can see disconnections between letters within words. The “wi” in “with” stands alone; the
final letters are linked. This seems to be a pattern. What might this suggest? Certainly someone
who stops mid-word might do so to process something. That processing could come from a need
to examine one’s notions and feelings before making the next move, but whatever the reason, it
takes time from task. It also isn’t as easy to write that way as it would be to connect letters with
efficient strokes.

Hillary’s writing is organized but large for the space it occupies; the small details, like those “i” dots
missing. Does that look like someone who will see the whole but not the sum of its parts? Add that
quality to a mind that needs to process carefully before moving on from one idea to the next, and
still neglects those details, and you might find an individual who is looking out for what will work
rather than what will work better or best.

The signature is a place to look for special clues. In this case, we only have “Hillary”on an informal
note where she entirely eliminates her last name. We don’t know why she does it, unless it’s to
establish herself separately, as identity or disassociation from her spouse’s last name for deeply
personal reasons. But we do know that what is accented is what’s likely important. And that’s
Hillary.

So in sum what does Hillary Clinton’s writing say. We don’t have much writing behavior but enough
for some clues. She’s organized; we can tell that. She stops and thinks about each idea before
moving to the next, but in traditional ways. At times she can look deliberate, protective and
aggressive.   She needs to stand by herself, for whatever reason.    A “forest” perception might go
on while “trees” burn down just as she sees the whole, but not the little things in between that
might make a difference. So while skills of planning and organization are hers, Hillary needs more to
be a great leader. Still her writing tells us she’s a competent, diligent worker with clear
communication skills, which in sum says that she’ll likely work hard if elected President.

We have several samples from John McCain that are done on different dates.   We don’t have much
writing, but we have it over time. So we can see what’s habit and what’s not. It’s also important to
know that McCain, like Obama, is left handed and has had to make his own adjustments in a world
dominated by right-handed folks.

The three samples are copies, not originals; but we can tell at first glance that the writing seems
dark.   We don’t know why. There are several possibilities: (1) that he writes with a broad-tipped,
felt pen to make his marks full and dark so that he can make them bold with little effort and gain
immediate feedback from them, (2) that he writes with extra pressure using an ordinary pen and
does it because of left handed compensation, a stressor, or a high degree of emotion, (3) that he
does this for a number of these reasons combined. In any case, the writing stands out and calls our
attention. What might this suggest? Perhaps that McCain has strong feelings that he’s unafraid to
show and that they’re right there on the surface to be seen easily by everyone. It might further tell
us that he’s particularly bold and decisive, a quality good to have when those hard decisions have to
be made. And it’s standard McCain behavior since we see it on all three samples.

Let’s see how McCain plans, at least writing space, something he doesn’t do well on the samples we
have. Recall again, however, that McCain is a leftie who must compensate. Look closely and observe
that his baselines seem up, down, or floating. Letters change in pattern, size and quality, and he
mixes lower case with capitals. Those letters also don’t connect well; they stand separately, or at
irregular intervals. Although printing is used lots by military folk, this pattern of irregular, sometimes
undecipherable printing, spills onto informal space in a fashion that isn’t ordered or clear.   Writing
with regularity, with rhythm and balance, takes good concentration. What happens when we’re
tired, or sleepy or sick? We don’t write as well. Furthermore, McCain’s writing is neither visually
pleasant nor easy to read with its uneven dark strokes and irregular lines and spaces. So what
might that say about McCain? It might tell us that he’s the type who believes, “You don’t need to
understand what I say, just what I feel” or that he’s had his share of trouble with writing left-handed
and still struggles with it. But in any case he hasn’t compensated for it well because he loses
attention for the task at hand, which is to communicate with us. It also could make us wonder if he
has compensated sufficiently for his years of struggle, pain, sacrifice and loss and that he’s still
affected by them. Yet we must remember that he’s the Republican nominee for President, no small
achievement, and has made that achievement in spite of great obstacles. It also says he’s resolute
and will stay the course no matter what, the hallmark of a courageous man.

The signature tells more of the story. McCain’s is large, far larger than the body of writing. Even a
quick look shows that it seems indeed to dominate. That signature is full and complete but can’t be
easily read. In this case, however, given its size and irregular, inconsistent shapes, the lack of
readability in the signature may come from having to sign a lot of documents, as he’s had to do
both in Congress and as a political candidate, and/or that his problems compensating are right out
there visible to all.    It does suggest that McCain’s passions are both private and public and need to
dominate wherever he is.

So what does it mean when we have someone with emotions that seem near the surface, that could
spill over, with less than able concentration, who lacks a desire to communicate clearly or hasn’t
compensated well enough to do it? And for whom that is typical stuff? Maybe it shows emotional
and physical health so precarious that it might be difficult for McCain to take on stressful events,
which he’d need to do as President.

Someone who continues a task under difficult circumstances shows leadership qualities that are
useful when times are tough. But McCain makes little mistakes all along in his writing and resolutely
carries on, no matter. So it might be difficult for him to govern fairly and effectively, if he relies
mostly on himself without sufficient input from others, then makes mistakes that he either doesn’t
notice or doesn’t care about when he needs to solve difficult problems, not just boldly, but with
good planning and judgment.



So let’s return to those impressions, the foundation for profiling human behavior and the fact that
the more we know about a person from as many avenues as possible the better able we are to make
good decisions. Looking at the writing of Obama, Clinton and McCain has told us something about
each of them that needs to be put together with whatever else we know before casting our votes.
Behavior like writing gives us information that can be helpful when we add it to what we’ve learned
about these Presidential candidates from other sources. And that can help us choose one of them
who will do the right thing and be ready for the problems that lie ahead from Day One forward.