Donald Trump's signature reminded me of a writing I worked on several years ago. I just looked at the sample from my files, remembering some difficulties the man had. (He was then about 40 or so.) Originally the writer held a position that suited his brilliant mind. I am not free to show his writing here so you will need to look at Trump's while I describe it. The formations of the writing strokes were all angular structures too. The letters, the connections between letters and between words. Not one curve in the entire page of writing. He had a slight right-slant, (more logical than emotional) and heavy writing (feelings stay a long time.) There was a slight bit more lateral breathing room than Trump's signature, which shows no space between letters. (See post below.)
Later you will learn more about how handwriting shows mental patterns, that is to say, the process a person uses to learn. In this man's case he was a very thorough, deep mental explorer, very attentive to detail with strong analytical ability. He didn't miss a thing. The combination made for a brilliant mind so he was an ideal fit for the kind of work he was originally hired to do. (I did his sample as well as several others being considered. The company used the analysis report as just one more help to make their choice.) He loved his work, which was very solitary and allowed him unpressured time to investigate—simple, fast or cursory information never satisfied him. He was sifting and sorting information all the time. Nothing much got past him. He wrote in-depth reports, which was easy. He rarely had any errors so he was famous for putting out high quality work. He had little reason for interaction and he seemed very pleasant when he did. That position was an occupational winner for him.
He did so well he became a candidate for a managerial position. He had seniority and seemed the obvious choice. Later I heard through the grapevine that he got the position. (I had nothing to do with the promotion evaluation.) Right away he starting having problems with people. Rather, they had plenty of complaints about him. They said he criticized everybody and every piece of work they did. Disaster. He didn't last long in that position or in the company. I never did know what kind of work he did later.
His critical thinking was a gift when directed it toward problem-solving. It proved to be a liability when he used it to focus on what was wrong with people. He could always find something wrong because he expected to and he attracted the negativity in kind. Word had it that no one could remember a single time he found something good to observe about a project or an individual's efforts. Workers ducked when they saw him coming.
About 2 years passed and then I got a call from him. Surprise! He said he was impressed with my analysis from years before. Seems that he and a woman, whose writing I had also done in that company, were dating. He wanted to know about getting a compatilibity report since the big "M" word had been raised by her and he wasn't so sure he wanted to get married, he said on the phone. They sent fresh authorization sheets and samples, although I didn't find them to be much different from the samples I had retained. (I usually keep personnel reports.)
Wow! His new writing content was full of suspicion about her "standards and motives"—seems he saw her as shading the truth. They saw life very differently. Her personality was expansive and she was very imaginative, given also to exaggeration in expressing herself. He saw things very literally so he felt uneasy about her outgoingness and "fish stories." She was a pleaser-type person, somewhat emotionally needy and so she was trying too hard. She was likeable. She tended to see things as she wanted them to be. She admired his mind (she included that comment in her sample content) but seemed oblivious to his critical nature.
If either one of them had had a high Emotional Intelligence Quotient they could have figured out the whole thing. It wasn't my favorite analysis. My job was not to say "you are made for each other" nor to say, "run a mile, Honey, and go fast; you don't need this kind of trouble" but guess which one I was leaning toward? No. I just pointed out the potential strengths and stresses of the relationship without getting negative.
I heard later she married someone else. So, at least she got smarter with time.
Comments