Bill Gates Handwriting Analyzed

Kaal Alexander Rosser writes "The BBC is reporting that a doodle left behind at a Davos press conference given by Tony Blair, Bill Gates and Bono shows the writer to be: "an unstable man" amongst other things. The Gates Foundation has confirmed the doodle was left there by Bill Gates."

Comments

Bear in mind...

[gowen]

Most of those assessments were made when the "graphologists" in question were under the belief the doodle was Blair's. So we should withhold judgement until we have second opinions from the Phrenologists, Dowsers and any other Pseudo-Scientific Charlatans who feel like chipping in with their worthless, substance less opinions...

The real scoop

[paranode]

For those of you who didn't bother to look at TFA:

A spokesman said: "Following the press conference given by the prime minister, Bill Gates and Bono in Davos on Thursday, a number of newspapers printed stories claiming that a page of notes and doodles left behind on the platform belonged to Tony Blair, and provided an insight into the mind of the prime minister.

"They were in fact doodles made by Bill Gates.

"We look forward with amusement to explanations by a variety of psychologists and graphologists of how various characteristics ascribed to the prime minister on the basis of the doodles, such as 'struggling to concentrate', 'not a natural leader', 'struggling to keep control of a confusing world' and 'an unstable man who is feeling under enormous pressure', equally apply to Mr Gates.

"We are astonished that no-one who ran the story thought to ask No 10 if the doodles were in fact Mr Blair's, particularly as it was obvious to anyone the handwriting was totally different."

In other words, graphology is BS and the people who analyzed it already had a preconceived notion about whose it was and made the appropriate BS analyses.

Re:The real scoop

[mrseigen]

I'm leaning towards "Really fucking bored". That's where all of my doodles come from.

Re:The real scoop

[eugene ts wong]

These remind me of lie detector tests. It's unfortunate that these ideas are given any credibility.

Re:The real scoop

[MightyMartian]

> These remind me of lie detector tests. It's
> unfortunate that these ideas are given any
> credibility.

Agreed. Polygraphs are so pathetically unreliable, but unfortunately if you refuse to take one (which I would seriously consider if I was charged with a serious crime) then somehow that makes you guilty; the classic "If you're innocent, you've got nothing to fear." Even the cops know that lie detectors are crapola, but it's a useful tool to smoke out a true believer who thinks the freakin' things can read minds.

People seem to give a lot of credence to this pseudoscience, though to my mind this sort of handwriting analysis is no better than phrenology and astrology.

This is juvenile

[CaptainZapp]

Look, I like a good microsoft bashing, just as most of my fellow slashdooters, but don't you think that this is a very cheap shot?

No doubt that Microsoft has some shady business tactics. There's no question that they provide shoddy products from a security perspective and then push responsibility for their goofs to on user community. There's the issue ,of corse, that they hound free software by the cheapest pr tricks in the book and the system Microsoft sucks shit! Well, hell! There's a lot of valid complaints when it comes to chastising Microsoft as a corporation

I really don't want to ideolize Mr. Gates and he is often guilty of wrong speak; willingly or out of ignorance.

But attempting a character analyses from a doodle he left at a conference (which potentially was boring) is just plain juvenile.

Hold your ammunition for the real issues, slashdot, and retain your credibility in the bargain...

Is this the Bill obesssion?

[Stunning Tard]

As the parent notes the story isn't really about doodles by Bill Gates, but about doodles that aren't by Tony Blair. And the ensuing BS because people assumed they were. The only thing remarkable about Gate's involvement is that he's such a clear proof that the graphology is crap. Him being a genius and all.

It's like when 2 students pass in the exact same assignment and get 2 vastly different marks.

It's interesting but why does slashdot care about some doodles? I'm sure most of us don't. It has nothing to do with tech or tech-related news. If, however, there was an improved version of quick sort hidden in the doodles we should all sit up. Is there a way to mod the original articles down?

Re:Is this the Bill obesssion?

[dgatwood]

No, it isn't proof that graphology is crap. It is just a reminder that ANY qualitative analysis will be influenced by your own preconceived notions.

But you're right. It is like when two students hand in the same assignment and get two different marks. The professor reads the paper and assigns a grade based in part upon the quality of the paper, but in part on preconceived notions of that student's performance. It's human nature.

Now if none of these people had the slightest idea that it was believed to be Mr. Blair's, then that would prove that either graphology is crap, those people din't know what they were doing, or Mr. Gates is unstable and not a natural leader. There's not enough evidence here to say more than that.

From everything I've read, Mr. Gates got lucky by buying MS-DOS from someone who didn't know its value, then used that as a springboard to buy other technologies and hire other people. That's not leadership. It's business. There's a big difference. Only the people directly under him can truly speak for his leadership skills or his stability. I don't see any volunteers coming forward, though.

Re:Is this the Bill obesssion?

[Anonymous Coward]

Then you need to read more.

Not to mention evaluate your own statements. Using the tech to springboard other technologies is smart. Hiring other people around you to support a moving product is smart. Mobilizing at the right time is smart. Amassing resources is smart. The middle two have factors indicating good leadership.

Frankly, organizing people well despite your flaws indicates quite a deal of leadership.

Heck, knowing a business opportunity and moving on it...yes, it includes luck, but also mobility in decision making. Yes, he has a rich father, yes, he was gifted with above average technical intelligence, but you still have to DO quite a number of things to amass the fortune and company he has. /. readers bash the rich for not doing anything with money; he did. He was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and still did something with his life. People bash the rich for not giving back; he did and does significantly through his foundation. /.ers frequently claim smarts is being underappreciated in the US; then why are you attacking him almost on those very lines?

Yes, business tactics do not indicate leadership by themselves. However, forming a multi-billion dollar company needs luck, intelligence, and leadership. Frankly, he's been on the front lines with Microsoft and was more so in the past, and despite all the MS bashing, he did make it into a monopoly, which surprisingly was his true miscalculation and the success was used against him.

iow, despite the millions of naysayers, the talk, the ability to mobilize as he did, the only way that he was was taken down was because he was too successful and manipulative of the power he had already amassed.

Further, why is it any surprise that Gates has his flaws? Maybe you are lucky and fortunate to have surrounded yourself with good people. But looking at the average person, and a comparison of the extremes to that average, Gates has fewer mental flaws than the norm. You just know about them because you and others like to nitpick at every damn thing.

Frankly, it's the /. bully tactics similar to those used against nerds in school--find someone you don't like, group together, and bash them for being successful, being smart, etc. You talk about leadership versus the business success as being different things.

The /. editors have gone on a recent run of anti-Gates the person run; you dislike MS? Then target the operating system. Don't target the man for being a human being and, *gasp*, having flaws. If you allow this to continue, you have little reason to be pissed if someone says you shouldn't use GPL software because Stallman is a dick.