Meet The Author

Meet Dan Harris

Meet Dan's Family

Access Booklets

Hear Audio Clips

Use Related Links


Analysis of Dan Harris's Handwriting Based on His Two Letters

    Copies of Dan Harris's two handwritten letters, each four pages long which are reproduced on Pages 9 - 16, were sent without background or comment to three, well-known hand writing experts: Vimala Rodgers, PhD, Director of the Institute of Integral Handwriting Studies, Nevada City, CA, Batia Choen-Croitoru, of the online service, R-U-Write, and Curt Baggett of Richardson, TX, Co-founder of the Handwriting University. Their responses varied widely in content and length. Rather than reproducing them verbatim, their points of agreement that correspond with what is known of the character of Dan Harris from historical sources have been combined in a single summary. Listed separately thereafter are four plausible insights advanced by the graphologists and four deductions that seem objectively unsupportable.

    The three experts agree that Dan Harris was a man of considerable intelligence and analytical ability. He was a person of great determination who invested considerable energy in pursuing his goals. He was rebellious and stubborn, creating his own path to success and avoiding personal relationships that might deter him from it. He did not enjoy routine. He had little patience for those who disagreed with him. He tended to view everything as either black or white and lacked the ability to accept their coexistence and make compromises. Consequently, he missed nuances that could have served as danger signals. He was a much better talker than listener. He preferred a solitary existence. He was focused on real estate and he had a need to build. At the close of his life, Dan Harris was seriously ill and very unhappy. He evidenced a marked decline in vitality, a diminishing sense of something for which to live and a growing awareness of his mortality.

    Choen-Croitoru was the only one of the three graphologists to offer insights into the relationships which Dan Harris had with his family. She deduced that he lacked a close connection with to lead a life radically different from that of his family and to prove his capabilities to them and to the world.

    Several of the insights offered by the three analysts may be plausible, although not supported by objective evidence. Baggett concluded that Dan Harris had a self-defeating fear of success, a deep resentment toward organized religion and the evidence of an injury to the left side of his head. Choen-Croitoru postulated that Dan Harris was a very modest person who performed his work quietly and did not enjoy standing out or being in the spotlight.

    Four conclusions advanced by the graphologists do not seem to be compatible with what is known of Dan Harris from historical sources. Rodgers concluded that Dan Harris had a life-long penchant for manipulating both facts and people to achieve his purposes. Baggett postulated that Dan Harris had a tendency toward extreme mood swings. Coen-Croitoru discerned that Dan Harris was motivated by "a set of rare ideals and principles," which led him to help people in distress and to create change on a global scale, even to the point of sacrificing his own personal needs. Also, she concluded that he was generally well liked and that he exerted great influence over people.
< Discussion of Letters - Table of Contents - References >