Talk:Rorschach test

More on methods of interpretation

For an informed discussion about the inkblot test, it would be useful to add more about the logic behind evaluating the answears. For example, the article states that those who see an animal in the example picture are more social. The idea here is that seeing a fox or two birds are common interpretations. If you see what others see, you'll probably get along better with others, or so the theory goes. It's easier to discuss this statement than "seeing animals = social". Another thing that's examined is whether the images you see refer to the whole image or portions of it. If you see something in the image as a whole, you'r able to "take in the whole picture" in life in general.

If this logic strikes one as flawed, one must in the end ask if any method of interpretation would work. In any case, the inkblot test is not based simply on statistical results among patient groups, as the article may seem to indicate. If so, new inkblot sets could be produced on demand from inexpensive trials and the secrecy of the old tests would not be an issue.

---

"Psychologists prefer that the general public not see them so that it will not skew results when the test is performed and copyrights on the images are vigorously enforced to try to prevent this." Is the above statement possible in the age of internet? What happen when the copyright expire? (Though not likely while Disney is around)

As a pscyhologist, I have to say, that I agree. Anyone who has seen the inkblots previously cannot be given the test again. So, whether it is an issue of copyright or not, it IS an issue of professional responsibilities. In order to purchase the inkblots and scoring materials, you have to show evidence of a doctoral degree in psychology. The scoring of the test is incredibly complicated, the most complicated of any assessment tool, I'd say. Regardless of the copyright law, any psychologist who allows their materials to fall into the hands of anyone other than a trained professional would be considered an unethical choice. I wish Wikipedia would honor the ethical requirements of the only professionals who have access to this material.

OK, the claims of copyright seem rather spurious to me. Hermann Rorschach died in 1922. Any ones he was using when he developed the test are well within the public domain. I don't recall how many, if any, in the set were developed after that, but the original ones are completely free and clear. All in all it appears to me to be yet another company trying to distort copyright laws to protect things that can't be protected. And, hell, even the ones under copyright can be used via Fair Use rules for comment and criticism. DreamGuy 18:10, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the copyright claim is spurious, is there a source for the claim? As you say, if the author was Hermann Rorschach and he died in 1922 April 2, then they are in the public domain, both United States and EU. See an attempt at copyright analysis here commons:User:Wikibob.

simulated ink blot

Meanwhile I added a GFDL simulated ink blot (green on black) from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Rorschachtest - click on the image for full details.

Returning to the copyright, these guys display the outlines of the official ink blots and full 'cheat' details with no worries at all about copyright. They say:

After repeated letters from dozens of outraged psychologists and psychiatrists
claiming that this page "violates the copyright on the Rorschach Test", we feel
compelled to post this notice:

The information presented here, including the outlines of the Rorschach
inkblots, is not in violation of copyright law. Please don't waste your time
writing us to complain or threatening to "turn us into the publisher".

-Wikibob | Talk 01:05, 2005 Mar 16 (UTC)

What those guys say may or may not be true. There is such a thing as copyright renewal (which is why, for example, 19th centrury novels are copyrighted) and the Rorschach's copyright was last renewed in the 1990's. Faustian 20:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Extensive references for future expansion of the Hermann Rorschach stub:

• many detailed references from History and Development of the Rorschach (pdf)
• short biography from the The Hermann Rorschach Archives and Museum

-Wikibob | Talk 01:13, 2005 Mar 16 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going agree with the psychologist on this thing- it is the ethical duty of a licensed mental health worker who has the qualifications to obtain this test to keep it under wraps. I was shocked to see this image on Wikipedia, as it's contributers are usually not only knowledgeable, but respectful of the topics upon which they are writing. Having this image up is a big problem in many ways. First, it makes this site, specifically this article, look unprofessional. Second, there's been decades and decades of blood, sweat, tears into testing the cards, norming data, running statistical analysis that are unimaginable to anyone outside of the field. You may think "Oh, its just a couple of cards." No. Each one is purposeful and cannot be changed due to reasons that are way too complicated to explain (and I certainly couldn't explain them all!) You may doubt its usefulness, but I assure you that as hokey as it may look to you (and it did to me before I spent years studying and administering it) it is reliable and valid as an IQ test (moreso, according to some data). Whether you appreciate it or not, the Rorschach is powerful in the psychological world of personality. Its used in courts, custody trials, diagnosis, etc, etc. Making images available on the internet will make it obsolete and we will have lost a helpful tool. I know people are often annoyed and resentful at psychologists for all our "secrets" and "games," but this test works, and has helped others because it has been kept "secret." As far as not having a substitute image- I beg to differ. There are plenty of sites that offer information that is appropriate for the public and they have Rorschach-like images. One of my Rorschach textbooks also has a few on the cover. I encourage the person who posted that image to substitute in order to renew the sanctity of test and make the article more informative and less "revealing."

Conflicting sentences

The following sentences from the article seem to be in conflict:

• Most, if not all, inkblots contain symbols and images that are supposed to be interpreted sexually.
• Secondly, because the blots of ink are inherently meaningless and subjective, evaluating the results of a test requires the blots of ink to have meaning in the first place.

I realize that there isn't a factual conflict, since even a portrait of Jesus Christ has no meaning until viewed and interpreted by someone. However, the second sentence implies that the designers of the test didn't include any images they felt would be likely to be interpreted in any particular way, while the first implies that they did.

What utter drivel! The Rorschach test is a so called "projective" test. You do not need to "project" any meaning on to a portrait of JC. Even if you take a picture of JC to a person, say in rural China, who may have not seen a portrait of JC before, he or she will be able to see that the portrait is of a man. Mooleh 22:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know which implication is correct, so I won't make changes, but this is problematic as currently written. --Yath 22:30, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I think the first sentence is questionable... think the idea is that they are all supposed to start out ambiguous but then they picked which blots to use in the test based upon the ones people picked sexual things on fairly often. Rorshach is definitely in one of the "Everything is sexual" camps. Of course then the question is if it really is still supposed to be meaningless if they expect certain answers. DreamGuy 02:24, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

---

I think that this little blurb is BS:

there is no reason to believe that images found in the ink blots represent some core
personality or self rather than feelings, past experience, creativity, or some other 
part of the mind that would not play a major part in the patient's actions.

Did you guys know that one of the cards is blank? Completely white. It actually gets some of the longest and most descriptive responses after being told that it isn't a joke and that it is a real card. They say it's a snow storm or a white dove over their vision or whatever. The point is, however, that this is direct evidence against the fellow saying that it doesn't reflect anything about the self. The only thing it could be is a reflection of the self. The card is flippin' BLANK for christ sakes; the only thing you can describe about it comes from within. Really I love that this card exisists -- it is a 100% flow directly from the unconscious. Very cool stuff. 128.114.172.101 17:04, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is defenitely no white card...... have you ever seen the test? anyway... there is no valid and reliable test to misure the "flow from inconscious".

and you know what? what is a person except for a sum of their past experiences and feelings? is that not what composes their self, their personality?

also if this guy is calling the rorschach bunk, then projection and transference would be too. there goes all of psychotherapy. i'm deleting it. JoeSmack (talk) 15:39, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Is there a black one? --Yath 18:13, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

None of the ten original Rorschach cards is blank. The Thematic Apperception Test has a blank card. --Georgius 14:22, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

LOL, you're right. I'd make an arguement that they are similar projective tests, but I only have about half of one foot to stand on left...so I think I'll just shove it in my mouth and shut up. ;) JoeSmack (talk) 15:25, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

My $0.02

Sorry to return to the issue of having card one shown in this article. It seems unnecessarily provocative to post this, especially when there is a suitable non-Rorschach card to be in its place. And the issue is not copyright. I guess this doesn't matter in Wikipedia as long as someone wants to do this, no amount of appeal will prevail.

Also there are some problematic statements: the test is not "outdated" because the cards have been put on the Internet. It may spoil test results, however having seen the card does not in itself ruin the results.

Also, the statement about turing the card means the person is brain damaged is not the case. No psychologica testing is that simple. So, either someone with little or no knowledge must have stated this.

Also, using the word "believers" is also provocative.

And as I psychologist, I have problems with the Rorschach. However, I have more of a problem when articles in WP are contentious. The validity issue of the Rorschach test has not been decided for many of the claims against it (e.g., Woods) have been challenged. Again, I am not saying I think that the Rorschach is valid or not but just that the article should show an informed position. Of course this means having the criticisms stated boldly but also the replies to this criticism. To do this, I think, raises the level of scholarship of the article. (The level of scholarship complaint is not only with this article but with many WP articles.)

Maybe I will add to this article but not if it is going to stir up the passions of the anti-Rorschach people. It's not worth an "editing war". So let me know if I should bother. Rsugden 14:41, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Is this a Freudian test ?

"Rorschach was a proponent of Freudian psychoanalysis, which emphasizes the role of the unconscious mind. More recently, the test has been used as a perceptual test"

In Rorschach's book, there are only few references to Freud, and his method makes me think to Exner rather than to psychoanalysis (he even writes that some clever persons guess thaht it is a perceptual test and not an imagination test). He looks at the number of answers, at the number of time patients look at small details, at the colours and so on, much like in Exner's CS, without anything which would remind me of Freudian theories. Apokrif 22:54, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Rohrschach, not Rorschach!

Re CORRECT SPELLING. Professor Rohrschach's name is taken from the idyllic little Swiss town of Rohrschach on the Bodensee (a.k.a. Lake Constance). Although the town's name and by implication the name of the famous psychiatrist have been misspelled so often by now as to have become so to say "official" language, I can see no reason why Wikipedia should perpetuate this glaring mistake.
Even the most cursory glance at the map of Switzerland will confirm that Rohr... is the correct spelling. Dozens of villages and towns can be found having a "Rohr" in their name, e.g. Rohrbach, Rohrbachgraben, Rohrdorf, Rohrmatt, Rohrmoos, and of course any number of plain Rohr in the Cantons of Aargau, Solothurn, Freiburg etc to mention just the best known. And this is of course no coincidence. The German word Rohr has many meanings: reed, rush, cane, tube, pipe etc etc, while "Ror" would not point to anything in the world but the spelling of an illiterate person.
Rohrschach is a very fittingly named place indeed. The name is composed from Schachen, which in Switzerland mainly denotes low ground or lake shore, and Rohr, which in this case stands for Binsen (E. rush, L. juncus).
We all know that sloppy spelling is not frowned upon anymore in today's media. Nevertheless, in judging the question at hand we should ask ourselves how we would feel if it were our own names that were being mangled. Speaking for myself, I frankly admit that whenever I am addressed in a letter as Mr Zolinger, Mr Bollingen or Mr Holliger the thought that I might one day be listed in an encyclopedia under one of these misspellings causes me distress. I therefore urge every Wikipedian to give Professor Rohrschach his due and repair the injustice done to him. --BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 14:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi... No... his real name was Rorschach. Period. Full stop. End of discussion. I don't care what the Swiss town is named, or where that name came from, as that's not his name. All of your ranting about misspelling of your name and so forth is completely irrelevant. DreamGuy 22:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Amen. By the same logic we could declare that the "proper" spelling of Zollinger is Zelënyye Gory, Dzhyuylyanger, Çilingir, or Jelina Gora. - Nunh-huh 23:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Re REAL NAME (DreamGuy). First let me say that I am extremely sorry to learn that my explanations have come across as a "rant". I can assure you that this was never my intention. Please put it down to my relative unfamiliarity with the American idiom. This might also be the reason why I have apparently not managed to make myself clear about Professor Rohrschach's "real name". Not only the town's name is Rohrschach, but also Professor Rohrschach's original family name. My grandfather, Alois Zollinger, who had the honor of being personally acquainted with the revered Professor, told us more than once how unhappy Professor Rohrschach, a learned and very tradition-conscious man if there ever was one, felt about the mangling of the name Rohrschach. So while I fully understand the difficulties that would present themselves if you were to attempt at this late date to correct the error in Wikipedia, I nevertheless would be happy if you would reconsider your position in this matter.
Re LOGIC (Nunh-huh). By stating that by "the same logic we could declare that the proper spelling of Zollinger is (...) Jelina Gora", you are, of course, 100% right. The logic of the process that you have in mind for arriving at one of these names cannot be faulted. However, the correct logic of a process by itself does not guarantee a correct result. And in this case your result would certainly be wrong: My family name is not, has never been, and cannot be read as a translation or rendering of Jelina Gora, whereas Professor Rohrschach's name was Rohrschach, is Rohrschach, and shall remain Rohrschach even if there were not one person left on earth to remember this. --BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 19:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

If evidence to support this claim was made available to our readers, then it would be included in the article. However, it is not Wikipedia's job to rewrite history, only to record it, so the name of this article would retain the "Rorschach" spelling because that is what the test is called throughout the English-speaking world. Details on article-naming policy are available at Wikipedia:Naming conventions; the policy at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) is particularly relevant.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 04:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

His name was Rorschach, as agreed upon by his own followers and how he himself spelled his name. See http://www.rorschach.com/ for a sample of his signature and other reference. Discussing some Swiss town or whatever is pointless. Claiming that he didn't like how his name was spelled based upon what you say someone else told you is nothing more than [[unverifiable original research, which is against policy and against common sense as well. DreamGuy 05:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Re NAMING CONVENTIONS (Saxifrage). Thank you very much for drawing my attention to this interesting information. I agree, of course, that the faulty spelling of Professor Rohrschach's name is at the moment dominant in parts of the English-speaking world and that his world-famous test is therefore in all too many places misnamed. Please bear in mind, however, that the way names are spelled has a tendency to change through the years even in America. If examples are needed you might want to have a look at the spelling of Chinese names now and a century ago. Apart from practical problems that might arise, there is therefore no reason why errors should not be corrected at any given moment.
Re FOLLOWERS (Dreamguy). You no doubt have a point there. But it does not seem to me to be a very relevant one. If you consider that disciples tend to change their master's name practically as a rule (our own Jesus Christ whose "real name" certainly was neither Jesus nor Christ is just one example), your point would on the contrary be one more reason for a correction.
May I also point out once more that the information about Professor Rohrschach's dismay on seeing the family name mangled was not given to me by "someone else" but by my grandfather Alois Zollinger. Also, the fact that Professor Rohrschach himself finally succumbed to the concerted attacks of the illiterates is no reason at all why Wikipedia should not put the record straight.
One more fact that you might want to look into: Professor Rohrschach was not only an eminent scientist but also a great lover of music and an expert also in this field. Of all the innumerable musical societies that have sprung up in his honor, e.g. Stadtmusik Rohrschach, Maennerverein Frohsinn Rohrschach, Orchesterverein Rohrschach (run by the famous Nelly Bischof), to mention only the best known on an international scale, I do not know a single one that did not get Professor Rohrschach's name right. A glance at the excellent Swiss music site www.music.ch will yield all the confirmation that you might need. --BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 20:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Again, Wikipedia is not about correcting errors that the rest of the world believes are not errors. Yes, Chinese spellings have changed, and Wikipedia's article names regarding Chinese subjects reflect this in many cases (and in many cases have not changed, depending on common usage). These changes in Chinese spelling are recognised by reputable sources outside of Wikipedia. However, the spelling of Rorschach in the context of the test has not changed in the English-speaking world, and so Wikipedia must adhere to that spelling.

Furthermore, your comment to Dreamguy is missing an important point: your information on the spelling of the Professor's name is a personal source unavailable to this project and its readers. Therefore, we cannot incorporate it into the article. See Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Cite sources for policy regulating information sources.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 00:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Re AVAILABILITY (Saxifrage). Puzzled by your remark about the supposed unavailability of the sources given by me, I have gone over my data once again and have found to my great dismay that an error has occurred indeed. I deeply apologize. Frohsinn Rohrschach is of course not a "Maennerverein" as erroneously stated in my last post but a Maennerchor (or Männerchor as it should correctly be spelled. I shall however also in future spell out the German Umlaute in order to avoid confusing readers whose systems are not equipped to handle such letters). A Maennerverein could of course be any kind of congregation, whereas in a Maennerchor people get together to sing.
This said, I do not think that you will encounter any more difficulties in checking my sources. Full data with addresses and phone numbers are freely available on the internet for the 3 societies mentioned (Stadtmusik Rohrschach, Maennerchor Frohsinn Rohrschach, Orchesterverein Rohrschach) and the www.music.ch will not let any person down who is seriously intent on research and not on defending preconceived notions about a subject he knows very little about.
Finally I would like to point out a glaring omission in the article. Professor Rohrschach was of course a deeply religious man with a profound interest in religious poetry. All serious witnesses agree that his Psychodiagnostik cannot be understood at all without this background. Absolutely none of this comes across in the article. Not even his favorite poem is quoted or even mentionned. Now, before anyone would want to complain about sources being "unavailable" he would do well to go to some reputable library, which I am sure can be found also in America, and read at least some of Professor Rohrschach's essays (beside the Psychodiagnostik of course) and look at least at a few pages of the excellent memoirs of the great man by his sister A. Berchtold-Rohrschach. Yes, I know, the situation being what it is, the books will probably be still listed under the faulty spelling. All the more reason to do something about it here. --BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 13:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Those don't qualify as sources for Wikipedia, because Wikipedia does not accept original research. (See Wikipedia:No original research.) Consequently, there must be some third-party source that says, in effect, "The name of the test is wrong because it is based on the name of the Professor, and obviously his name is Rohrschach because all the institutions named after him spell it that way." Lacking such a document that Wikipedia can cite means not including the information in the article. Wikipedia only documents established knowledge and is not in the business of correcting it or synthesising new knowledge.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 21:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Re QUALIFICATION (Saxifrage). Well, at least now I know that Professor Rohrschach's own words as documented in his essays, his handwritten letters, his poems, his songs, and the testimonies of his family members and colleagues (all collected in Gesammelte Aufsaetze, Verlag Hans Huber, Bern und Stuttgart, 1965) do not qualify as sources for Wikipedia. And I also understand the reasons behind it.
I do not want to sound ungrateful. I truly appreciate your comments (no irony intended). On other pages I have encountered the same stubborn unwillingness to correct undeniable errors and inexcusable omissions. But there there was not even an attempt at explanation. On the page of a famous writer for example I have pointed out in vain that it could not possibly be true that he was born in 1880 and died in 1946 at the age of 62. Now I realize that, just as Professor Rohrschach, also this American writer will have to wait until someone presents a paper at some congress stating that in his opinion the data on which the leading theory is based, while not being exactly wrong, could also be interpreted to support an alternative theory according to which the writer died at the age of 49. This "third-party" paper would then, in your words, constitute knowledge established enough to be documented in Wikipedia. --BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 09:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

SPOV (the Swiss point of view)

Re SOURCES. Users DreamGuy and Saxifrage have been so kind as to instruct me on what at the moment is taken to qualify as a source for Wikipedia and what is considered information worthy of incorporation in an article. It is certainly not, nor has it ever been, my intention to break any rules here or suggest any changes of policy. Allow me, however, to explain how these matters are regarded elsewhere.
Beside the Professor's own works cited above, the following are considered in Switzerland to be not only sources but indispensable sources:
- Kerner, Justinus: Klecksographie, 1857
- Hens, Szymon: Phantasiepruefungen mit formalen Klecksen bei Schulkindern, 1917
- Behn-Eschenburg, Hans: Psychische Schueleruntersuchungen mit dem Formdeutversuch, 1921
Without these writings, how could anybody know what the Professor's Tolggengeschichte (sic) was all about? How could anybody guess that the tool (ink blots) that the Professor employed was in common use in his time and that he would never have dreamt of claiming exclusive rights on it? How could anybody understand that his "followers" have taken the work of a decent and honest man and turned it into a travesty and a scam? How could anyone ever find out that these "followers" have to be classed in the same category as clairvoyants, fortune-tellers and all the other practitioners of voodoo science and medicine?
Now, if users Saxifrage and Dreamguy feel that the SPOV on sources and their content should not be heard even on this Discussion Page, I shall be glad to examine their evidence for that too. If I should find it as convincing as the one presented by them so far regarding the article proper, I would in future refrain from bringing this SPOV up on this page, of course. --BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 11:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Naive skeptics

You know, little annoys me more than the obstinantly uninformed derisiveness of so-called "skeptics" on wikipedia for any controversial topic they can find to dump on. So far I've found wikipedia articles on philosophy, psychoanalysis, the Rorschach test, and many other subjects infested with this pseudo-"skeptical" garbage, always with the obligatory link to that esteemed and,I am sure, rigorously peer-reviewed source of knowledge, the "Skeptic's Dictionary." Hey skeptics, why don't you turn your skepticism back toward yourselves and ask yourselves why you continually trash ideas about which you have no expertise or detailed knowledge? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.139.7.250 (talk • contribs)

Moreover, the beginning of the controversy section probably needs to be taken out, as the two points made there are basically completely irrelevent in modern psychological assessment. This cannot be emphasized enough! Faustian 13:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Seeing Nothing

The article seems to ignore the fact that some people (myself included) honestly see nothing when looking at a Rorshach test. Does anybody know if this applies to enough people to affect the validity of the results? Symmetric Chaos 02:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

It's possible, but Wikipedia only contains information that other reliable sources publish. We'd need some peer-review article or a good journalism piece on that subject before the article could stop "ignoring" that. — Saxifrage ✎ 23:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Re VALIDITY. Yes Symmetric Chaos, there are, unfortunately, some people who can't see anything. Professor Rohrschach called them the Sehbehinderte. But I can assure you that the validity of the results is in no way affected by this.--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 08:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Those who claim to see nothing are simply not revealing what they see or have such strong defenses that they cannot find anything that they would deem "appropriate." We react all the time. Those who don't are in comas. --Annalisa579 05:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Outrage

I am a student psychologist that is outraged by this page. Regardless of whether or not these inkblots are copyrighted has absolutely no bearing on the ethical issue at hand. It takes years, sometimes decades, to provide the service of creating a new, creative, reliable test. The Rorschach is one of these tests which has long been regarded as a hallmark of psychology. A test such as this cannot be veiwed by the public, simply because it is based on first impressions. You are ruining this novelty by posting the first card on the internet. It is an injustice to psychologists who still consider the Rorschach as an integral test. If Wikipedia ever wishes to be a viable source of information, they will seriously consider becoming an ethical one as well and removing the inkblot picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teenyshan (talk • contribs)

I am a student of psychology as well and I disagree with the dissemination of the inkblots in general, but while at Wikipedia I leave my bias behind as much as I can and edit according to Wikipedia's rules. One of these rules is that Wikipedia must remain neutral by not choosing sides in real-world disputes such as this one. Speaking as an editor, I think using a silhouette of only one of the inkblots is a good compromise between the camp that believes the inkblots should be known to all and the camp that believes they must be kept strictly secret.

Of course, this isn't the only possible good compromise, so constructive suggestions about how Wikipedia can illustrate this article in a neutral but informative way would be appreciated. — Saxifrage ✎ 22:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Viewing the original image may invalidate the test, impacting client care. There is no reason to place the controversial image there; interested people can find the link after having been warned about it, rather than have the image pop up immediately when they look at the wiki page. It is truly irresponsible to place that image here, just because one can.Faustian 19:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the image of the blot the last time I visited this page, but it was restored. I will continue to remove it every time I visit. Placing the image in a public forum compromises the validity of the test for all the reasons previously discussed. I believe there are several images that are similar but not identical to the actual blots that can be placed on this page instead, for purposes of illustration. --Monnica Williams 15:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Inkblot

Does anyone else think the inkblot really really looks like Cyril Sneer? Or does this make me ill? Skittle 00:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I can see the resemblance. :) — Saxifrage ✎ 19:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The Ro(h)rschach name Discussion

The great thing about Wikipedia is that the above discussion about Ro(h)rschach can be read in the screen unlike more conventional encyclopedias. I think that the Wikipedia policers in this case were less than generous about this issue- calling a discussion "a rant" is indicative of a type of reverse knee-jerk reaction. One would think that a media like this could very much - and indeed - is designed to bring out knowledge that is hidden or that might be of value to the readers. Yes this is not the place for original research, but one of the great aspects of this format is that intelligent people who have something to contribute should be able to and positively encourage to do so! So to the Wikipedia policers, let me remind you - This is no way is going to be a standard boring encyclopedia. In the same way, this page is not controlled by professional psychologists who insist that 'their' story is the only true one. The recent controversy about the quality and nature of the Ro(h)rschach Test is a real one and now a historical phenomenon that MUST be addressed in this article. it cannot be repressed in the name of some presumed "sanctity." That is why we have Wikipedia.Brosi 21:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Under methods...

The sentence "The is the mannis method is defined as the Comprehensive Scoring System." has an error, and I can't decide based on context what a possible correction might be. 201.81.252.13 07:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Recent major change

Someone please confirm the validity of this edit [1]. Thanks, --WikiSlasher 10:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually it'll be better to look at the diff after my format fix [2], the text changes were made by 140.247.42.161 (talk • contribs • WHOIS), not me. --WikiSlasher 10:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Take note that the earlier revision is wikified with links and has references and external links and an image, whereas the as-of-now current revision has none. --WikiSlasher 10:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

NPOV in controversy section

This section relies heavily on the "sceptics society" and on the writings of Lilienfeld's anti-Rorschach circle whose ideas do not represent the consensus on the judgment of the Rorschach, which continues to be used extensively in practice and research, within psychology. That work has been critiqued rather successfully by other researchers. I have made some additions but until more work is done to balance that of Lilienfeld that section does not represent a NPOV. Faustian 17:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Pronounciation of Rorschach

I wish someone would add it. Because I don't know how to pronounce it, and I think others as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Berserkerz Crit (talk • contribs) 12:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

Native English speakers - especially in the United States - tend to replace the phoneme [IPA: x] by the phoneme [IPA: k], just because it is not natural for them to pronounce a sound that does not exist in their language, e.g. Bach, the composer, should be pronounced [IPA: bax] and not [IPA: bak]. The correct pronunciation of the test is [IPA: ʁoɐʃax] as opposed to [IPA: ʁoɐʃak]. Lantunes

I know that the International Phonetic Alphabet was created for a reason, but not many are familiar with it. I think it would be more useful for most of people if the pronounciation was described with ordinary letters in a way that English-speaking people would read it as close as posible to the correct pronounciation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.117.207.110 (talk) 06:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC).

Suggestion: "Rorschar", whereby the second "r" is spoken hardly.
I can't think of something better resembling the pronunciation. - Richh.r 12:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Keeping the inkblots secret

I think the inkblots should be available for anyone who wants to see them and understands the fact that he or she won't be able to take the test effectively after seeing them. The pretention of keeping them secret is like reserving the right of applying it to someone against his/her will: if someone wants to keep the chance of taking the test, they just won't look for the inkblots in the internet. They won't look for any kind of information about the test!

Why? Someone interested in any test might want to learn the basics about it. With this image on the page, a person interested in taking the test, and curious about it, would have it spoiled for him by whomever has placed the image right at the top of the page, with no warning. There is already a link on the page for website that do show the images, so there is no reason to spoil the test by placing the image on the top of the page.Faustian 20:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Reading this article about the test without any image spoils (or at least changes) the results of the test as well.

No, it does not, as the article does not provide the sort of information that would spoil the test.Faustian 20:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

So even showing the ten inkblots wouldn't spoil the chances of taking the test for anyone who does want to take it eventually. (Sorry about my English..)

By placing the inkblot on the page you don't give anyone the choice - as soon as they go on the wiki page they see the image. There is already a link to those images on the page, so if someone really wants to invalidate the possibility of seeing the test for themselves, they can choose do so by going to the link. Placing the image on the page removes that choice. So, the image is inappropriate. Faustian 21:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Definitely agree with Faustian. In addition, copyrights are violated. I removed picture. 193.65.1.44 11:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

This is becoming silly. The anonymous contributor who keeps posting the images has been given several arguments why it is inapropriate to do so. He has not responded to those arguments, instead continuing to post the picture. My experience is that on other topics such behavior eventually results in a block of the anonymous user. Any chance of external mediation of this situation in this case?Faustian 20:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I did respond to those arguments in the text with the title "keeping the inkblots secret". What seems to me to be quite silly, is the obsession of some faustian guy of insisting in that rorschach created only the inkblots and no scoring system at all, like he was an artist more than a psichologist. I mean the line 6 in the article.

The concerns that you wrote in this section have all been addressed, above. This reply is what you did not respond to (and still have not). Why did you not respond to them? I will keep your line 6, however.Faustian 17:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

From what i've heard in psychology class, Rorschach's original inkblots aren't used anymore (or at least not not the degree you guys seem to be discussing about). I think fair use would probably apply in this case... also, i personally do not think that knowing about the inkblots, how they look, or thinking of what they might resemble will affect anything, as the psychologist would be looking at your impulsive responses and the way you respond, and not what you already know about the pictures. just my $0.02 Spindled 05:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

What you've heard in a psychology class from a prof with an inherit bias constitutes original research. Most psychology textbooks, especially in North America take a psychoanalysis is dead approach which generally reflects the bias of the authors. Clearly from discussion on this page they are still used, in fact by some psychologists on this site. Their views are important in building consensus. I like the option of being able to chose to see the pics in the current state of the article.Blue Leopard 18:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

How are Rorschach's and Exner's interpretation methods related to psychoanalysis? Apokrif 19:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Exner's system requires the interpreter to code each verbatim response on a variety of "determinants". The actual object that is seen (e.g., "I see a bat") is only one of many determinants. Others include how color is used, how shading is used, whether a pair or a reflection is seen, how common the object is (derived from frequency tables), whether elements of the blot are integrated into a single percept, etc. etc. Although some (but not all) of these determinants may have been based on theory (such as psychoanalysis), the basics of interpretation do not necessarily depend on the theory. Instead, the determinants are used to derive about 150 statistical calculations, ratios, indexes, and composites. Through a vast amount of research, these statistical findings are objectively related to behavioral and emotional patterns in everyday life. Thus, no psychoanalytic "projection" is required for that aspect of interpretation. Some psychologists go beyond the statistics and use subjective interpretation of "projected" material, but Exner's system never relies exclusively on projective interpretation. Ward3001 21:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The images are pd since Hermann Rorschach died in the 1920s. So life +70 has expired.Geni 21:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not at all sure this is true -- the copyright was renewed by the publisher as recently as 1994. DagnyB 22:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I congratulate Wikipedia on publishing this inkblot mumbo-jumbo. In fact, I think someone should publish the WAIS test questions, and indeed every ridiculous psychology test on the planet. You can go into a bookshop and buy a medical textbook, a physics textbook, you can buy every legal manual that is available, and indeed that is what you expect to be able to do in a democracy. But a set of childish inkblots has been kept secret by the witch doctors of the profession for decades. My thoughts go to the countless number of people who have been deceived by these fraudsters, and especially those for whom the outcome of these stupid tests may have lead to their being "diagnosed" with some preposterous label and marked for life. Mooleh 22:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the warning, based on Wikipedia is NOT censored, as shown by the removal of spoiler warnings in other articles -Halo 19:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored, but it most certainly has strict rules against copyright violation. All 10 blots are coyprighted by the publisher, Hogrefe & Huber. License info on the image page says "copyright has expired" - a blatant lie. Go to http://www.hhpub.com. If that doesn't convince you, contact Hogrefe & Huber, tell them you plan to publicly display the blots on the internet for all the world to see, and see what kind of reaction you get. I am in the process of nominating the image of the blot for deletion on the basis of copyright violation. Ward3001 22:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

But equally, they were published in 1921. This would put them out of copyright and in the public domain in the US, since they were published before 1923, despite any claims to the contrary. I believe Hogrefe & Huber are claiming copyright on something in the public domain-Halo 22:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

There are varying copyright laws around the world. And Wikipedia is not restricted to the USA, so lets not be "America-centric" in our thinking. In any event, the burden of proof is on the Wikipedia user who uploaded the image, and to my knowledge information about the absence of copyright protection worldwide has not been provided. Simply stating "copyright has expired" doesn't make it so, especially worldwide. Ward3001 23:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I realise Wikipedia isn't restricted to USA, but they follow US copyright law since they host the content. For the record, I don't live in the US either. I'm probably going to buy a copy of the Rorschach inkblot test from 1921 and publishing it publicly anyway, since it's public domain in my country as well and this doesn't seem to have been done elsewhere. -Halo 23:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

For the records, Wikipedia does not restrict itself to USA laws. And for the record further, continuing to insert copyrighted info on Wikipedia after fair warning is considered vandalism. Ward3001 23:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I am no vandal and I haven't added any copyrighted information since the inkblots are out of copyright. Please assume good faith. Secondly, as far as copyright, Wikipedia does use US law, hence the existence of template:PD-old-70. If you are fundamentally arguing against that, I suggest you correct all the 1000+ images published under that licence first. -Halo 23:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Hermann Rorscach did not initially use the plates (cards) as one sees them today. In fact, the achromatic blots were purely black and white, with no gray. A printing error resulting in the shades of gray that are used today. It was only after they became more widely used that they were printed on plates, and the rights acquired by Hogrefe and Huber. Just because Rorchach died more than 70 years ago does not mean the countdown for the patents on the Rorschach plates began on the day of his death. And I am 100% certain that the image in question was taken from a plate published by Hogrefe & Huber. The orginal blots created by Rorschach did not look like that. I have seen Rorschach's original blots, and I have seen the plates used today thousands of times. Now, if you can get your hands on some of Hermann Rorschach's original blots, those may have expired copyrights. But the image in question was not created by Rorschach as it is seen now. Hogrefe & Huber hold the copyright. And once again, it is the burden of proof of the editor who inserts the image to prove that it is not protected by copyright. Otherwise it is vandalism. There is a limit to good faith after repeated warnings. Ward3001 23:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The copyright does begin to expire as soon as the original author dies, and it's been over 70 years since then. And I have no idea where patents come into it. If what you suggest is true and Hogrefe and Huber do have some copyright on the reproductions after the fact (which, incidentally, I think could be debated) AND they reregistered that copyright (which they were then required to do due to US copyright law) - both of which I very much doubt - can we settle on a compromise of using Image:Inkblot.svg to illustrate the article? -Halo 00:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I agree to the compromise (Inkblot.svg is all over the internet already, so I also was going to offer that compromise) with the caveat that it is explained that the image is an OUTLINE of a blot on the Rorschach test, not a picture of the actual blot. I can insert that explanation if you wish. Secondly, just to set the record straight, the image Rorschach1.jpg was not created by Rorschach (although some of his are similar), so its copyright does not depend on his date of death. And there is no "if" to whether what I have said about the evolution of the blots is true. It comes from the world's leading experts, including Rorschach's daughter, who recently died. Ward3001 00:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

My point is that if Hogrefe & Huber didn't reapply for copyright upon changing the blots, whether they are different or not is irrelevant. I'm looking into buying a set of Hogrefe & Huber blots with the copyright date of 1921, which would make them out of copyright since they would needed to have reapplied for the copyright on them to still be valid -Halo 00:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Hogrefe & Huber make a lot of money from the Rorschach, so I doubt seriously that they haven't covered all the legal bases. Have you actually seen Hogrefe & Huber blots from 1921? Has someone offered to sell them to you (buyer beware!)? 1921 was before Rorschach's death. I'll be very surprised if you get a set of plates like the ones published today. All our differences aside, if you get them I'd love to see a scan of them. Ward3001 00:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

They aren't from 1921, but they claim only to be copyright 1921 despite being manufactured much later. Since they didn't register a later copyright (which was required in the US at that time), I believe it's now in the public domain as the 1921 copyright expired... -Halo 00:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Very debatable that any copyright before 1922 (the year of Rorschach's death) applies to the blots as they are now. I won't be convinced without evidence that Hogrefe and Huber's copyright(s), patents, etc. are expired. Ward3001 00:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Any psychologist who sees that someone has posted the actual blot on Wikipedia is obligated to remove it. According to the American Psychological Association's ethical guidelines, psychologists must do everything within reason to maintain the integrity of the testing materials.

9.11. Maintaining Test Security.

The term test materials refers to manuals, instruments, protocols, and test questions or stimuli ... Psychologists make reasonable efforts to maintain the integrity and security of test materials and other assessment techniques consistent with law and contractual obligations, and in a manner that permits adherence to this Ethics Code.

This code is online at APA APA Ethics Code. The reason for this policy is that seeing the blots in advance could spoil the test results for someone who may need to take the test later. --Monnica Williams 15:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not American, nor a psychologist, nor a member of the APA and Wikipedia is not censored. -Halo 15:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who thinks this is about censorship has missed the main point. --Monnica Williams 18:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored, which is a policy and you are trying to censor Wikipedia. See censorship: "Censorship is defined as the removal and withholding of information from the public by a controlling group or body". How exactly have I missed the point? -Halo 01:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The point is whether or not the plates are protected by copyright. The burden of proof rests with those who insist that the copyright has expired. I have seen no clear evidence that it has. Censorship has nothing to do with it. DagnyB 02:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I was replying to the parent who said they removed the image for censorship reasons. As for copyright, he died in 1922[3], and anything made before 1923 (under US copyright law) or 75 years after the authors death (which would make it out of copyright in 1998) is out of copyright anywhere in the world. Even if there is still copyright on colour reproductions of the Rorschach inkblot test as argued above (big "if" right there), there isn't on a black-and-white outline - the book "Big Secrets"[4], as referred to in the article, reproduces them as an outline, as well as multiple sites online etc etc. I also don't understand what would be satisfactory "proof" that it's out of copyright, since the original author is long dead. -Halo 03:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I believe (and I really don't think you're suggesting) that Wikipedia decisions should be driven by the practices of "multiple sites online." Suffice it to say that plate sets currently available bear the following copyright statement: "(c) Verlag Hans Huber AG, Bern, Switzerland, 1921, 1948, 1994." Why that last renewal would have since expired in a span of 13 years is something that I can't say. But again, I believe the burden of proof on that point rests with those who assert that it HAS, rather than on those of us who have reason to believe that it has not. DagnyB 13:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

You can't renew a copyright which has expired by the 70 year p.m.a. rule, so the 1994 copyright must refer to a new edition instead and covers only modifications or additions introduced with that edition (see also Wikipedia:Public domain and Swiss copyright law). If you don't believe this, go to this web page where you can search the records of the United States Copyright Office for all copyright renewals submitted since 1978, enter "Hans Huber" as claimant, and select all relevant entries on the next page ("HANS HUBER BERN, VERLAG"; "HANS HUBER PUBLISHERS, INC", "HANS HUBER, VERLAG"). You will find only records for two other books (Endemic areas of tropical infections, 2nd ed. / Dieter Stuerchler, The Life and work of Josef Breuer : physiology and psychoanalysis / Albrecht Hirschmueller). Neither does searching for "Hogrefe" or "Rorschach" turn up such an entry. Note that copyrighting a new edition - in contrast to a copyright renewal - didn't need to appear in those records in 1994, since copyright registration stopped being compulsory in 1989 (and doesn't imply legal benefits for a work published in Switzerland, outside the U.S.).

(In contrast, the "(c) 1948" is very likely to refer to a renewal of the 1921 copyright, since renewals had to be done in the 28th year starting from the original publication to prevent expiration [5].)

Regards, High on a tree 17:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

So far we have heard lots of really good reasons why the blots should not appear on Wikipedia in this manner. Please give a good reason why the blot should appear. How is it beneficial? How does this weigh against all the cons of displaying it? Don't hide behind the 'we don't censor' mantra, as this is not about censorship, but common sense. --Monnica Williams 16:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

External link is broken

The external link Test de Rorschach (ar.geocities.com/rorschach_inkblots) should be changed to "http://ar.geocities.com/test_de_rorschach/index.htm" since the other one is broken..

Deletion discussion

The image used as an illustration in this article is proposed for deletion on Commons. Those active on the Commons project could maybe voice their opinions here. KissL 14:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Rorschach inkblot test and copyright status.
The solution was found five months ago.

actualy given the fairly high level of required creativity barrier under swiss law it is slightly questionable as to how copyrightable the ink blots were.Geni 22:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Dorgan has recently started two contemporary deletions requests and then two flames on commons... please, rollback his edit on en.wiki ...he's trying to censor wikipedia to protect psychologists' works.

--DrugoNOT 08:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Which image

I would argue that there is little point in haveing both images since one is simply a blacked out version of the other. I would favor haveing the shaded one since it accuretly depicts the blot and we have been informed that the blacked out one also damages the integrity of the test.Geni 14:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Without regard to the controversy about what is copyrighted or not copyrighted, I would clarify Geni's good faith conclusion that "the blacked out one also damages the integrity of the test." Although that is true, the shaded image does much more to damage the integrity of the test. Think of it as a continuum ranging from "no damage" to "serious damage." The shaded image is much closer to "serious damage" than the blacked out version. Ward3001 14:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

damage? what are you talking about?!? wikipedia isn't under psychologists or psychiatrists censorship. There are no damage at all by showing a couple of pictures! even if it is the Rorschach inkblot test. This test has nothing of scientific and it has nothing of statistical too!! This test is just useless, full of controversies and does not works... and anyway you cannot prove that showing the image can damage someone or something: not even a psychologists' work, since you haven't a scientific way to prove it.

I'll not censor (by hiding) a picture, because it may damage your unscientific work. The Rorschach's test is scientific and usefull like astrology!!! It's something of good only for quacks...

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and Wikipedia is a good encyclopedia. Inside every good encyclopedia you'll find the REAL and ORIGINAL images, not a fakes or censored one!

...Ah, you maked me laugh when i read "serious damage", lol.... what a big stupidity...lol

bye...ah, i'll start a month of holiday soon...so i'll check again this page only in September -__-' ..i just hope you'll not do something of bad. bye..--DrugoNOT 15:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

First of all, Drugonot, I was not talking about censorship, despite your false assumptions. Please tell me where in the edit immediately above yours that I even suggested censorship. Secondly, it is quite obvious from your statement "the test has nothing of scientific [sic] and has nothing of statistical [sic] too" that you know almost nothing about the psychometric or statistical properties of this or any other psychological test. How many scientific books or journal articles (not popular magazine articles) have you read about the Rorschach? For that matter, how many scientific books or journal articles have you read about any psychological test. I challenge you to produce thorough, well-rounded scientific support for your statements. Anyone who has taken even an undergraduate course in psychology knows that exposure of psychological tests materials for almost any psychological test has potential for damaging its validity.

You have the image you want in the article. And I said nothing about fake images or censorship in my comments above. So my suggestion is to get off your soap box before you expose even more of your ignorance of this subject. Ward3001 15:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest the validity or otherwise of the test is of only secondary relivance to this discusion. It has been argued that the blacked out version does enough damage to invalidate the test (see the deletion debate on commons). That being the case there is little point in not useing the actual card.Geni 16:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the validity of the test in general is of only secondary relevance to the discussion of the image. I was simply trying to clarify the issue you raised about the impact of exposure of the image on the validity of the test. And I was responding to Drugonot's outrageous and completely unfounded claims about the test. Ward3001 16:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

@Ward3001:

You started a complain against the images, and your only solution will be: "images removing". otherwise you have nothing to complain about...

I've read about R's test, this is why i can talk about it. (the link is one funny article..lol)

I'm not a psychologist: this is why i can have a neutral point of view, and you (psychologist) have a less neutral POV. "A psychologist'll never spits in his dish." . This is same reason why a wizard, charlatan or quack will never tell you "we are just cheating people".

I should add that psychology is NOT A SCIENCE!!!! Psychology is much more similar to a religion or philosophy. In psychology there are nothing of scientific, psychology don't follow the scientific method at all. This is why i said that the R's test his a joke...

I don't want say that psychology is totally useless, but that there are no *science* at all. (i've nothing of personal against psychology; but there are no tools to make measurement, no mensuration units, no scientific test.... at max there are only some statistics results... BUT the scientific method don't allow to use any statistics results to prove a science).

So no-one can even prove that showing the picture can harm future test results. As no-one (nor you) can prove the opposite, simply because there are no science. There are just nothing that can be "proved"!

Anyway even many psychologist and psychiatrist had discard the R test as it's just useless.... full of controversy and nothing else.

Bye--DrugoNOT 16:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I once read a magazine article about brain surgery, so by your definition of expertise, that makes me an expert on neurology and brain surgery. Will you be my first canditate for surgery, Drugonot?

Keep talking, Druognot. You're digging yourself deeper and deeper in the non-credibility hole. Ward3001 16:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Ward3001, your "defence mechanism" is comical. Why are you accusing me!??! lol

Reading an article about brain surgery don't make you a expert. But if a wizard tell you that he can magically extract a rabbit from a hat, you can understand that this is fake, and he's lying; even if you aren't a wizard too. --DrugoNOT 16:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Please, keep going. I'm loving this. Ward3001 16:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Blah Ward3001, i'm wasting my time with you... you're just a troll. Have a nice tolling, and a nice day. --DrugoNOT 16:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for making my day! Do you think maybe you could give us just one more comment? Please? Ward3001 16:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

You are of course free to try and demonstrait the flaws in the article but this isn't really relivant to the image debate.Geni 17:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree. And I have made some changes to the technical aspects of the article. It needs a lot of work, which I will do as I have more time. Ward3001 17:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

...huh, okay; you are free do to whatever you want except remove the controversy's section and the picture. Since you are neutral it'll be not a problem for you. bye--DrugoNOT 18:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's see ... did I say anything about removing the Controversies sections?? ... let me check ... Nope! Didn't think so. Once again, Drugonot failed at reading my mind.

After the protection is lifted, I am perfectly free to edit the Controversy section, which I have done several times without challenge and with legitimate citations. Ward3001 18:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Ward3001, you haven't said a word about the controversies' sections. But i said it anyway. You can edit this section, but you cannot remove it nor the images. Why i say it to you? Because i want prevent your next mistake :) and no, i'm not reading your mind, there is nothing to read. ;P bye!--DrugoNOT 19:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I challenge Drugonot to provide one example (with accompanying scientific citations to back it up) of a "mistake" in the scientific accuracy in my edits of the text of the article. Ward3001 19:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm out of time now, but I'll do it, when i'll come back. Edit the page as you want, then wait one month+1week....and after i'll tell you all your mistakes (if there are any..). Now is time to take a vacation :P ...see ya --DrugoNOT 19:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't need to edit more. I've already edited the content of the article. So as soon as you return go ahead and post those "mistakes." And don't forget the scientific citations to back up your claims. And, by the way, if this[6] is your only support, it's pitifully inadequate. It has already been refuted here[7] and in several other very respected journal articles. Ward3001 22:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Deeper reasons for Rorschach inkblot test controversy

Howard N. Garb, Scott O. Lilienfeld , M. Teresa Nezworski and James M. Wood go through the historical roots for Rorschach inkblot test controversy. Psychologists hold disparate views on the importance of (a) informal clinical impressions and (b) findings from systematic clinical studies. The leading Rorschach figure, Bruno Klopfer, was openly contemptuous of the need for norms and refused to include them in his highly popular Rorschach system. The central question (according to Garb, Lilienfeld, Nezworski and Wood) regarding informal validation is this: Are informal clinical observations as dependable as systematic clinical studies for assessing the validity of tests and the efficacy of treatments? Their arguments is that informal validation has been denounced within the field of medicine and other disciplines for a very long time and Rorschach inkblot test is an informal validation.

Garb, HN; Wood, JM; Lilienfeld, SO; Nezworskid, MT (January 2005), "Roots of the Rorschach controversy", Clinical Psychology Review, 25 (1): 97–118, doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2004.09.002{{citation}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)

In this vein of arguments Rorschach controversy has deeper reasons than test itself. User:Yuccara|Yuccara]] 15:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Klopfer's opinions are ancient history (even though he should be credited as a pioneer in the field), so using his opinions to argue against the Rorschach is like using nineteenth century medical standards to argue against use of surgery. Exner and many others brought the Rorschach light years beyond Klopfer.

Garb, Wood, and Lilienfeld have largely been debunked here and in other professional publications. Garb et al. based their positions on outdated publications and selective exclusion of current research contrary to their arguements. Very bad science. Ward3001 18:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. I just happened to find that article (Garb, Lilienfeld, Nezworski and Wood) by accident when I was casually looking for something else from the databases. What was something new to me was the following.

From 1940 to 1980, no figure in the United States was more closely associated with the Rorschach than Bruno Klopfer. Besides establishing the most popular American Rorschach system and co-authoring the most widely used textbook on the test (Klopfer & Kelley, 1946), Klopfer founded the Rorschach Institute (which eventually became the Society for Personality Assessment) and the Rorschach Research Exchange (which eventually became the Journal of Personality Assessment). Garb, Lilienfeld, Nezworski and Wood (2005).Yuccara 06:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• For the Rorschach, 1940-1980 is ancient history. Ward3001 14:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Now. I am not an expert here. But on the other hand it might be undestandable from Society for Personality Assessment, i.e. Rorschach Institute, to publish in their magazine Journal of Personality Assessment, i.e. Rorschach Research Exchange, an article that says that Rorschach is a valid test.Yuccara 06:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• And I am an expert on assessment. SPA has a wide variety of members, including those critical of the Rorschach. The Journal of Personality Assessment, from which this article was taken, is a peer-reviewed journal. And Garb et al. have been refuted in other publications. Ward3001 14:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It would be the same as if a leading judge from Supreme Court say that Constitution is not valid. Since Rorscach test is a base, i.e. Constitution, it can not changed or amended without huge debate. Yuccara 06:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• I have no idea what you're trying to say here. The actual inkblots are not changed, but the interpretive process has always been open to change through research, just like any other scientific concept can be modified through research. The Exner system has been modifed dozens of times of the past 30 years, by Exner himself and others. Ward3001 14:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

And actually you missed the point totally. Garb, Lilienfeld, Nezworski and Wood (2005) argument is that informal validation has been denounced within the field of medicine and other disciplines for a very long time and Rorschach inkblot test is an informal validation.Yuccara 06:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• No, you missed the point by a wide margin. Informal validation??? When a properly trained psychologist interprets the Rorschach, it is not informal. The psychologist doesn't just listen to the patient's responses and informally come up with opinions. The Rorschach has been validated through formal research over the past four decades by Exner and many others. Every Rorschach response is coded on a variety of determinants. The actual object that is seen (e.g., "I see a bat") is only one of many determinants. Others include how color is used, how shading is used, whether a pair or a reflection is seen, how common the object is (derived from frequency tables), whether elements of the blot are integrated into a single percept, etc. etc. Although some (but not all) of these determinants may have been based on theory (such as psychoanalysis), the basics of interpretation do not necessarily depend on the theory. Instead, the determinants are used to derive about 150 statistical calculations, ratios, indexes, and composites. Through a vast amount of research, these statistical findings are objectively related to behavioral and emotional patterns in everyday life. Thus, no psychoanalytic "projection" is required for that aspect of interpretation. Some psychologists go beyond the statistics and use subjective interpretation of "projected" material, but Exner's system never relies exclusively on projective interpretation. Ward3001 14:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

In other words admitting that also other informal validation methods are invalid would have profound effects to many people in practise. I would see that Rorschach inkblot test is "stronghold" in fierce battle.

Yuccara 06:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry my misbehaviour in previous comment(s). Right order is of course Garb, Wood, Lilienfeld and Nezworski (2005). And of course in APA style it would be Garb et al (2005). Sorry. But may be you forgive me since I was not writing article to a journal, etc. Yuccara 06:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

And as has been pointed out, the Exner system renders the criticism of the Rorschach as using informal validation as invalid. Moreover, Lelienfeld's work has largely been debunked within the field. Lilienfeld and colleagues are somewhat akin to the minority of scientists who claim that people have nothing to dow ith global warming. It's a fringe group. One example of Lilienfeld's honesty with respect to a claim concerning the Rorschach:

J. Reid Meloy's brief critique of just one part of Wood et al's "What's Wrong with the Rorschach" (Journal of Personality Assessment, volume 83, pp.344-346) addresses their claim that (.p.251 of Lilienfeld's book on the Rorschach) "ten replication studies examined the relationship between reflection responses and psychopathy. Nine of the ten found no significant relationship. "

This may sound impressive. However, eight of the ten studies were doctoral dissertations that had never been peer reviewed and had never been published in scientific journals. Meloy wasn't familiar with all of those unpublished dissertations, but was on the committee of one of the ones cited by Wood et al as showing no significasnt relationship between reflection responses and psychopathy. The dissertation did not include enough participants who were psychopathic to make this comparison. It therefore wasn't a valid study to use by Lilienfeld. It is thus mistaken (at best) or misleading (at worst)to use it as a counterexample.

The only study that was peer reviewed and published in a journal was the one that found a significant difference. The tenth study, one of only two publuished ones, appeared in a book chapter. It did indeed fail to find a significant difference between psychopaths and nonpsychopaths on reflective responses. Although the psychopaths produced three times as many reflective responses, this did not quite meet significance (p value was .07, just a bit higher than the .05 necessary for significance). Of course, none of these details were mentioned by Wood et al. Their absence confirms the conensus within the field that Lilienfeld are more interested in scoring polemic points than examining evidence objectively. Indeed, Lilienfeld and colleagues' works are filled with innacuracies, conveniently missing information etc. and aren't taken seriously by most people in the field.

This is why Lilienfeld et al have turned to the popular press with their claims. It is more easy to confince people who know less about the topic.Faustian 14:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

"Bibliometric" data on Exner

What is the point of this edit? As it is presented, I have no idea. Is it to show that Exner contributed mainly to JPA? What about the hundreds of other authors who wrote about the Rorschach? And JPA is one of the main journals for publishing about personality assessment. It is the only American journal devoted exclusively to personality assessment. Why would Exner publish in a journal that has nothing to do with personality assessment? And, in fact, he and others have published elsewhere, such as APA and other journals. At best the edit is pointless; at worst, it is very misleading. Deleted. Ward3001 15:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Well. I was interested that how Exner has been contributing the thesis. Some people do it through books. Some people do it by articles. People have different valuations for books and articles. Some say that books are nothing. Some say that only articles matter. Some say that in books can be more information than in articles. Some say that books just repeat everything uselessly.

So the main point was just to give some idea how Exner´s ideas have spreaded since 1986. Not everybody have access to ISI. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuccara (talk • contribs) 15:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It is not true that Exner has published primarily through books. I can post an entire bibilography for Exner, as well as others researching Exner's system, in the article, but it would probably triple or quadruple the length of the article and serve no purpose. I still fail to see your point. Exner published in journals, very often. Much of what is in his books is a synthesis of his research published in journals, as well as the research of others. Exner was a huge researcher for the Rorschach. Of course he wrote books. That does not diminish the importance of his research. Have you actually read a journal article or book by Exner?? Ward3001 16:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Citation map could be nice; may be the most influental articles and books. The problem of ISI is that it goes only to 1986. And like the chain from ancient history today. Hey - can you do that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuccara (talk • contribs) 16:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by a citation map. If you mean how often he is cited and which publications are cited, I have never had a need to know particular statistical details about number of publications, where he published, how often he was cited, etc. because I have read most of what he wrote. I don't think statistics about how much he is cited would reveal much because he is probably the most cited researcher in the history of the Rorschach. I think your concern is that he published mainly in books instead of journals (not true) and that he only published in JPA (not true). I still fail to get the point to all this. Ward3001 16:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Level of abstraction

Like in my previous messages I have tried to indicate that there is some doubt to whole class of projective tests, including Rorscach. I read an article denouncing projective tests, including Rorschach, and then I checked casually databases. Then I happened to see Garb, Wood, Lilienfeld and Nezworski (2005) article. Why not to add something when after reading an article? It is not big task to add summary.Yuccara 18:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• An article by Lillenfeld, Wood, & Garb is already discussed and cited in the Wikipedia article. Ward3001 20:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• I referenced Garb, Wood, Lilienfeld and Nezworski (2005) not Lillenfeld, Wood, & Garb. Try to keep count on your references.(talk • contribs) 06:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• SAME AUTHORS. SAME ARGUMENTS. Ward3001 15:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

And another thing.

Why not some bibliometrics? A citation map? Why not? Surely we are all interested how the idea has developed from the first initial thought to current form. Can we draw a line? X -> Y -> Z-> Exner?Yuccara 18:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Read Exner's works. Then you can trace development of the Rorschach and the Exner system. You can't do it with a citation map if you haven't actually read Exner. I asked before, and I'll ask again: Have you ready any of Exner's writings? Ward3001 20:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Well. Why not to add references and small summaries? Like I have indicated before not everybody have access to all databases.

• Like I said before: The level of abstraction was my main concern. Here it goes again: 1->2->3. 1) I read an article denouncing 'all' projective test, 2) I browse for database for further enquiry, 3) I look for meta-article, 4) I find a meta-article 5) I read a meta-article 6) It happens to came my mind to add few lines of it to Wikipedia.(talk • contribs) 06:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

READ EXNER. That's the last time I'm discussing this point. Ward3001 15:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Like I said before. I added the main point: informal validation.

• Their arguments is that informal validation has been denounced within the field of medicine and other disciplines for a very long time

* See my point? New info: critising informal validation, not only Rorscach.(talk • contribs) 06:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTING. If you want to try to write an article outside the Rorschach article about "informal validation", be my guest. But it will be mercilessly criticized by others. Just don't put it in the Rorschach article because the Rorschach is not "informally validated." Ward3001 15:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

If you have read almost everything what Exner has written why you don´t add some stuff to "History" part to this article? "Development of Exner´s thoughts", "Exner´s responses to criticism", "Exner´s teachers", "How Exners pupils have continued his work", "Exner´s master thesis", "Exner´s doctoral thesis", "themes of Exner´s pupils", "main works of Exner in brief", "what to research more according to Exner", etc.Yuccara 18:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• First of all, I have contributed to the article, especially regarding controversy. Look at the edit history. Secondly, the article has been blocked from editing for the past five weeks. No one could edit it. And finally, I will add to the article, but this article is not my entire life. I have other responsibilities. Ward3001 20:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

And where are following parts of the article? "Current status of Rorschach method research", "Main themes in Rorschach method research", "History Rorschach method research". Surely you have some idea of that if you can criticize Garb et al (2005).Yuccara 18:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Same answer as my previous paragraph. Ward3001 20:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Why not to add info? Is there something so special that you can not distribute?(talk • contribs) 06:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Don't insinuate that I'm am witholding "special" informaton. I HAVEN'T HAD TIME TO ADD TO THE ARTICLE. That's the last time I'm discussing this point. Ward3001 15:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

BTW. What do you like this kind of edit?

The discussion of validity of projective tests is quite old. One good example is article of Mensh (1950) which goes through in 1950 “present-day” statistical techniques in psychodiagnostics (Mensh´s term). When new test were proposed back in 1950s statistical questions were raised of all tests, both projective and non-projective. The issues noticed by Norman are still relevant today

• there can be nomothetic or idiographic point of view
• what to do with phenomenon that does not fit in the normal curve?
• units of multivariate phenomenon, like personality, can differentiate in different curves, e.g. normal curve or J-curve
• reproduction of data in clinical practice
• can cases be treated objectively, quantitatively and anonomously?

Problems remain since Mensh´s (1950) days. How to describe many dimensions of personality and considering all data simultaneously? Can scientific method be employed in clinical practice? How to create similar conditions in clinical practice than in research phase of a psychological test? How to value and classify observations? Can statistical method be used if statistical units, i.e. observations, are not similar because of different observers? As an example Mensh (1950) references to Rorschach (naturally version then) method where is not-similar-distributed-factor problem. Like in 1950 there is not yet unanimous agreement among researchers and issues of validity and reliability in the study of personality. The same discussion (sometimes heated) continues when projective methods are in discussion and some researchers cast a doubt to whole class of projective tests while some are defending class of projective tests.

Mensh (1950). Mensh, Ivan Norman. Statistical techniques in present-day psychodiagnostics. Psychological Bulletin, Vol 47(6), 475-492, November.

Yuccara 18:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• You really need to develop some expertise in psychological testing in general before adding this kind of information. I can't teach you psych testing on a Wikipedia talk page. Ward3001 20:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• You missed the point again. 1) Projective tests 2) problems generally in projective tests 3) Rorschach is a projective test.(talk • contribs) 06:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• READ EXNER. Rorschach is more than a projective test with the Exner system. Ward3001 15:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Actually proposed edit is too long. It should be stilisised and then added with some other meta-article from 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990 and 2000. Then it would be more informative. May be some meta-articles before 1950 also.

Well. Actually these should be two lines, i.e. pro-Rorschach and anti-Rorschach meta-articles from different decades. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuccara (talk • contribs) 06:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• This is my last response to you. I don't mean to be offensive, but it's obvious you don't have much knowledge of psychological testing. If you continue adding irrelevant or outdated info to the Rorschach article, I (and others) will continue deleting it. Ward3001 15:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Writing speed

There is interesting sentence.

As the patient is examining the inkblots, the psychologist writes down everything the patient says or does, no matter how trivial.

Just came to my mind that is there any research of the writing speed of the psychologist?

I got 7885 references in PsychINFO with term "rorschach" in abstract search. 0 with "rorschach writing speed". 0 "rorschach shorthand". 1 "rorschach writing".

I just started to wonder (aloud - it seems).

Yuccara 18:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Videotaped sessions?

Is there videotaped sessions where Rorschach has been used? I checked that "Rorschach video" returned 0 results. Of course the argument is that video is not the same as a real situation.

There is not section "Training" or "Education" in this article.

Has there been video training?

Scirus database gave some references (term "Rorschach video").

doi:10.1016/j.schres.2004.07.008 "Visual scanning deficits in schizophrenia and their relationship to executive functioning impairment" Arpi Minassian, Eric Granholma, Steven Verneyb, William Perrya, Schizophrenia Research , Volume 74, Issue 1, 1 April 2005, Pages 69-79

doi: 10.1076/clin.16.3.407.13853 "When the Third Party Observer of a Neuropsychological Evaluation is an Audio-Recorder " Marios Constantinou; Lee Ashendorf; Robert J. McCaffrey, The Clinical Neuropsychologist, Volume 16, Issue 3 August 2002 , pages 407 - 412

doi:10.1016/0197-4556(88)90049-4 "The diagnostic role-playing test" David Read Johnson, The Arts in Psychotherapy, Volume 15, Issue 1, Spring 1988, Pages 23-36 No abstract.

This was interesting.

PMID: 10408210 Psychol Rep. 1999 Jun;84(3 Pt 1):869-72. "Exploring the effects of tape-recording on personality assessment" Lichton AI, Waehler CA. Abstract: This study examined the possible influence of audio and video recording of personality assessment measures on anxiety. Undergraduate students in psychology were randomly assigned to Audiotape, Videotape, or Control conditions and given the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory and Rorschach Inkblot Method. A one-way multivariate analysis of variance indicated no significant differences among these conditions on the Spielberger, et al. State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, A-State scale, and five Rorschach measures of situational anxiety. Tape-recording itself did not seem to affect the anxiety indices of these frequently used personality assessments.

Can not say more since my (or our) databases does not subscribe that journal. Well, of all thousands journals database does not contain all.

Is this all?

Yuccara 07:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

No reason to hide images

So i unhid it. See Wikipedia:Spoiler for comparison. The Merciful 12:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a controversial issue for many reasons outlined throughout this talk page. Hiding the image seems to be a good compromise between the two positions of showing it, or not showing it at all.Faustian 14:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

And I would add to Faustian, the point is to give readers a choice, not to hide the image from those who wish to see it. The image is easily available with one click. Ward3001 14:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure many people would object to the images on the article anus, or prefer to have a "choice" to wether or not view them. Yet there they are, since Wikipedia is not censored.

Hiding has nothing to do with censorship, as the image can be accessed with a click. It still is there. The image of the anus on that site is anatomical and thus innoffensive to most people.Faustian 16:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I also already drew comparisons to spoiler tags, since the objection to the images seems to be that they are in a sence spoilers.

The fact is that because viewing the image may negatively impact someone taking the test, you rob them of the choice of whether or not to view the image if you place it at the front of the page. There is nothing wrong with basic courtesy. Although an analogy can be made with spoilers, the situation is rather different. One is probably more likely to assume that the plot will be revealed by looking up a book or movie, than to assume that one's test may be invalidated by looking up that test.Faustian 16:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

If you look both links, you see that hiding the ink spot image is big deviation of the standard practise,

This may be because hiding images is a clever trick that not many people are familair with.Faustian 16:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

when far more controvesial material is shown plainly.

Nothing controversial about an anatomical diagram. If there was something and it was controversial, and there were numerous objections, it too might be hidden. As for controversial images - I don't see Princess Diana's face as she was dying posted on the appropriate article.Faustian 16:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Quite frankly I fail to see a reason for hiding the image that is not plain silly. It is just an ink spot, after all.

Just because you do not see a reason and for you "it is just an inkblot", does not mean that others feel the same way. It is not all about you. This talk page demonstrates the controversial nature of showing this image, with some arguing for not including it at all and others for including it. A compromise was worked out, where the picture remains on the site but requires a click to access. Why destroy the compromise?Faustian 16:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It is not Rorschach images are hard to come by, but the current image has the added value of authencity, and should be shown openly, as is Wikipedia's purpose. However, it is not Wikipedia's job to cater, bend etc. to demands, aesthetics, morals etc. any particular group. The Merciful 16:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately you seem determined that it caters to you.

The fact is that this issue has been debated quite extensively, and rather than discuss it in the talk page or address the points first, you chose to make a controversial edit.Faustian 16:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that The Merciful appears hellbent on proving that other Wikipedians will do things his way rather than working toward achieving consensus. The two points of view in this debate (if you can call it a debate) are Let Wikipedians decide if they want to see the image vs. If the image can be shown then it must be shown. Ward3001 17:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Image on Autofellatio is not hidden.Geni 16:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

That is irrelevant. Perhaps the autofellatio image is not as controversial as the Rorschach image. If Wikipedians were more opposed to the autofellatio image, there would be a heated debate on the Talk page and the image would have been removed. Comparing the need for an image to be on a page on two unrelated topics makes no sense. If a video of hardcore porn were to be removed from Wikipedia, that does not mean that less controversial images should or should not be removed. Each image is judged on a case-by-case basis. Ward3001 17:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Rorschach image not even in the same league as the Autofellatio imagein terms of contriversy. Trust me on this.Geni 22:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I will not trust you on that. It's your opinion. Your saying it doesn't make it so. Ward3001 23:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Well you don't have to trust me. You could do the 3 seconds of research it would take to find the battles well some of them other such as Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/Autofellatio would have been harder to find. You could notice that it is listed on MediaWiki:Bad image list or you could talk to the other veterans.Geni 23:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

But it's still on the page, so the consensus was to keep it. That's not true of every image for which there is controversy. As I said above, comparing the need for an image to be on a page for two unrelated topics makes no sense. The controversies for the two images are very different reasons. Ward3001 23:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Not actualy true. In any case do you know accept that "far more controvesial material is shown plainly"?Geni 00:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion. And opinions are like assholes: Everybody has one. Let's see what the consensus turns out to be below. Ward3001 00:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I presented evidences. Are you unable to form a judgement based on those evidences?Geni 01:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Evidence?? All I see is your opinion about how controversial the autofellatio image is. I see no evidence comparing the relative degrees of controversialness of the autofellatio image and the Rorschach image. No data, no statistics, no citations, no consensus of opinion that the autofellatio image is more controversial than the Rorschach image (which requires more than just your opinion). Just your opinion about it. But then, it's obvious that you think your opinion is evidence, that the way you see it is the only way it can be seen. That's not the way things are done on Wikpedia, per WP:NPOV, WP:CON, and WP:V. Ward3001 02:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Thowing up a buch of WPs to try and avoid adressing my points isn't going to work. Evidences are MediaWiki:Bad image list and Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/Autofellatio and the talk page archives of Autofellatio. I think that counts as fairly solid evidence of contiversy.Geni 03:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Fortunately for the rest of us, Wikipedia policies do not depend on how important you think they are. You have presented no evidence of anything, except in your own mind. Ward3001 03:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Can it with the strawmen. as for the second part of your stamtent would you say that Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/Autofellatio is indicative of controversy? Yes or No?Geni 03:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

You can it with the orders and demands for yes-no answers. Contrary to your thinking, you don't run things on Wikipedia, and discussion is permitted, not simply yes-no answers. Let me try to state this as simply as I possibly can so you can understand it. Where is your evidence that the autofellatio image is more controversial than the Rorschach image? Not whether either image is controversial; that's not the issue that's germane to this discussion that you started. This is not a talk page about autofellatio; it's about the Rorschach. I am asking for your evidence that the percentage of Wikipedians (not just you) who find the autofellatio image controversial is greater than the percentage of Wikipedians who find Rorschach image controversial. Ward3001 14:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Autofellatio/Image polls and discussions only part of the debate is 197 kilobytes long. This talk page with talks about things other than the image was 116 kilobytes long. What conclusion would you draw from this?Geni 15:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

No conclusion can be drawn because kilobytes is not equivalent to percentage of Wikipedians. Ward3001 15:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh well that's trivial. Number of wikipedians was far lower back then. We have not exceeded the numbers involved back then thus percentage is now far lower.Geni 19:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

If you mean that the entire issue of the autofellatio image is trivial, then I agree. If you mean that Wikipedians' opinions are trivial, you could not be more wrong. Again, Wikipedia's policies and procedures don't depend on your opinion of them (thank goodness!). And I have no idea what you mean by "We have not exceeded the numbers involved back then thus percentage is now far lower." Ward3001 19:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

wikipedia has people involved in the project. We call them editors. As time goes by the number of these people tends to increase. Now the autofellatio debate took place in 2005 which 2 years ago. Since then the number of editors has increased rather a lot. now if you look at the first section of Talk:Autofellatio/Image polls and discussions you will see that the votes tally to 116. Now there are less than 116 involved in this debate ( this being the Rorschach inkblot image) and the total population of editors is much higher. Thus we can conclude that the percentage this time around is much lower. As I said all this is trivial to calculate.Geni 20:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I said percentage of Wikipedians. 100 out of 10,000 is 1%. Using lower numbers, 1 out of 100 is 1%. Percentages are a simple way to equate the metric. Now, show me the data using percentages that a greater percentage of Wikipedians find the autofellatio image controversial than the percentage who find the Rorschach image controversial. Ward3001 23:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Err I know what a percentage is. In this case it over complicates thing since we could use absolute fractions but eh.

Okey then

P₂₀₀₅ = population of wikipedians in 2005

P₂₀₀₇ = population of wikipedians in 2007

P₂₀₀₇>p₂₀₀₅

therefor P₂₀₀₇=KP₂₀₀₅ where K is a constant with a value greater than 1

Ca₂₀₀₅ = population of wikipedians in 2005 who found Autofellatio image controversial

Cr₂₀₀₇ = population of wikipedians in 2007 who found Rorschach inkblot image controversial

we construct

• Ca₂₀₀₅/P₂₀₀₅*100= percentage of wikipedians who in 2005 who found Autofellatio image controversial
• Cr₂₀₀₇/P₂₀₀₇*100= percentage of wikipedians who in 2007 who found Rorschach inkblot image controversial

Now as we have already established we can represent the second equation as

• Cr₂₀₀₇/(KP₂₀₀₅)*100= percentage of wikipedians who in 2007 who found Rorschach inkblot image controversial

Now I have shown that Ca₂₀₀₅ = at least 116

By comparison there are less than 50 different usernames on this talk page. Okey that alone enough to end it but I'm going to be super generious. I'm going to let Cr₂₀₀₇=Ca₂₀₀₅. Thats right I've move than doubled the size of the current contriversy for the purpose of the proof. An insane degree of generosity no?

If we treat them as equal then

• Ca₂₀₀₅/P₂₀₀₅*100= percentage of wikipedians who in 2005 who found Autofellatio image controversial
• Ca₂₀₀₅/(KP₂₀₀₅)*100= percentage of wikipedians who in 2007 who found Rorschach inkblot image controversial

Cancel the terms:

percentage of wikipedians who in 2005 who found Autofellatio image controversial=(percentage of wikipedians who in 2007 who found Rorschach inkblot image controversial/K)

percentage of wikipedians who in 2005 who found Autofellatio image controversial*K=percentage of wikipedians who in 2007 who found Rorschach inkblot image controversial

And as we have established K>1

percentage of wikipedians who in 2005 who found Autofellatio image controversial > percentage of wikipedians who in 2007 who found Rorschach inkblot image controversial

Q.E.D

Geni 02:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Instead of trying (quite unsuccessfully) to dazzle us with mathematical pseudo-skills, give me the absolute number of Wikipedians who have commented about autofellatio and the absolute number who found the image controversial. Then give me the absolute number who commented about the Rorschach image and the absolute number who found it controversial. And I'll check your numbers. Ward3001 02:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Define your terms. Interdentally even using the most generous possible values from here (ie wikipedian= 100 edits per month and we ignore increases post Oct 2006) K = 4 Do you really think that 4 times as many people have found this image controversial? Fewer than 50 have commented on this page by comparison 74 voted for link to the Autofellatio image so where exactly are your 280 wikipedians going to come from?Geni 03:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

You're evading the issue (nothing new in that). No definition of terms is necessary. I'm asking you to state four numbers: (1) Number of Wikipedians expressing an opinion about the autofellatio image; (2) Number of Wikipedians who think the autofellatio image is controversial; (3) Number of Wikipedians expressing an opinion about the Rorschach image; (4) Number of Wikipedians who think the Rorschach image is controversial. That reduces things down to the simplest possible terms. If you can't do that, I rest my case. You're just blowing smoke, hoping no one will notice that your argument is baseless. Ward3001 12:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

just gave you some numbers. Dispute them or conceed the point.Geni 14:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Just as I thought. You don't have a clue about the four numbers that I asked for. I rest my case. This is my last communication on this issue. It's a waste of time. Ward3001 14:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Should the image of the first pic of the Rorschach inkblot test be hidden?

Template:RFCsci This is a longstanding edit war whether or not the image should be hidden. People for it being hidden point out that viewing the first image may make the psychological test invalid and cause "serious damage" if seen, even unintentionally, and according to the American Psychological Association's ethical guidelines, psychologists must do everything within reason to maintain the integrity of the testing materials. People against it being hidden believe that it falls under WP:CENSORED, which states Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive and as such should not be hidden and believe that hiding the image is unencyclopaedic. I'm adding this to Request for Comment to get a wider opinion. -Halo 19:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the "damage" would be to the validity of anyone's test results should they ever be in a situation in which the Rorschach is given to them. Such people may choose not to view the image until after they take the test (and I emphasize that it is a choice; all it takes to view the image is one click of the mouse). Note also that earlier edit warring was about whether the actual Rorschach image was shown vs. a blackened outline. That is not the issue here. Ward3001 21:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no reason why wikipedia should be concerned about any percived damage to the test.Geni 03:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The issue is not damage to the test. It is damage to the results for the person taking the test. In other words, if someone is taking the test and the results are important to that person's psychiatric treatment, viewing the image can make those results inaccurate. An analogy would be contaminating blood before conducting a CBC. The results would be damaged, and thus any diagnosis and treatment depending on those results could be wrong. Ward3001 03:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Again that is not our concern and the blood analogy is completely wrong. Closer would be a case where someone has used a storage mechanism that doesn't keep out enviromental contamination. Would you blame the protocol that allowed the use of that mechanism or the enviroment?Geni 03:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Geni has a propensity for declaring things right or wrong without a shred of evidence. The blood analogy is quite appropriate. Gregory Meyer et al. provide metanalysis of research on validity and reliability of medical tests and leading personality tests, with clear evidence that tests such as the Rorschach are quite analogous to medical tests. Ward3001 15:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

You will note that I went on to present a different version of the blood analogy which I feel fits the case better. On what basis do you reject this?Geni 19:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Because the blood analogy is backed up by scienctific research, with an appropriate citation, rather than opinion or speculation. Ward3001 19:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Did you actually read what I wrote? You view wikipedia as a deliberate attempt to contaminate the sample. I view wikipedia as an environmental factor. If I were running a head space analysis on a blood sample and kept getting the wrong result because I failed to use an airtight container would you blame the air or my choice to use a flawed container? I accept that the internet exists and allows rapid transfer of information (heh the internet views censorship as damage and routes around it they used to say) just as I accept that the general environment contains large amounts of sodium as a potential contaminant. It is not wikipedia's job to try and fix your flawed methodology.Geni 20:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Show me where I said Wikipedia is "a deliberate attempt to contaminate the sample." I have simply said that Wikipedians should be given a choice about whether to jeopardize their Rorschach results should they ever be in that situation. Ward3001 20:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

"contaminating blood before conducting a CBC" In common english the use of the adjective suggests an active attempt to contaminate in this case by a person. And wikipedians are given the choice they are free not to read the article. You go to Vagina you get a pic of a vagina. You go to Rorschach inkblot test you get a pic of a Rorschach inkblot.Geni 20:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Make up your mind. First you said that I believed Wikipedia is a deliberate attempt to contaminate. Now you're saying it's the person reading the page. No "active attempt" is needed. A naive test-taker does not know that he will contaminate the results by viewing the image. You certainly did not seem to grasp the concept before it was pointed out to you repeatedly. And opening the Rorschach page is not an "active attempt" to contaminate, but once the page is opened and the image is the first thing seen, the contamination has occurred without any attempt. As the page is now, the viewer is told about possible test invalidity and given the choice to view the image by one click of the mouse. Ward3001 21:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Whew, the more I look around WP the more I am impressed with how passionate people get over stuff. I actually don't see any problem with using the blot. I've always been curious to see them anyway. But there is a simple fix to this. This might sound like a daft suggestion, but there is, by definition, nothing very special about any particular inkblots. Why not just make a new blot that looks very similar to the one shown? That way copyright and any (dubious) concerns about the validity of the test would be avoided. Any one could it! Or am I just being flippant? - My 2 cents MarkAnthonyBoyle 14:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

because such a blot would not be one of the test blots thus the amount of information being conveyed would be reduced.Geni 14:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

But there is no reduction in the amount of information if a single click is required to see the actual inkblot. Therefore the argument of censorship does not apply.Faustian 15:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

IF there is no censorship going on why not remove that click?Geni 20:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Because the click isn't about censoring the image (how can an image be censored if it's a clearly labelled click away?), it's about giving the reader the choice about whether or not they want to see it when they look at the page. By placing that image up front, at the top of the page, the reader is denied that choice by editors who decide what the reader wants to, or should want to, see. best, Faustian 20:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you useing a browser made in the last oh 20 10 years? there will be an option to turn pics off.Geni 20:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Once you see the image, there's no need to turn off pics. You've already seen it. Turning pics off after seeing the image accomplishes nothing. Ward3001 21:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what the problem is here. Does doing an IQ test invalidate you from doing any IQ tests ever again? Does doing the IPIP Neo test invalidate you from doing another personanlity test. Show the blot. Put a spoiler warning on it if that will bring consensus. Technically they are out of copyright, so that argument is a red herring. I've just been to that site that shows all the blots. I can see the argument that IF someone was to do a Rorschach test the very next day AND they came here they MIGHT be able to get a forwarning of the test and that MIGHT invalidate the test. The same thing might be said for an IQ test: you might be able to "bone up" on the answers and "cheat". But is the Rorschach the same kind of thing? I don't see how you could "bone up" on a test that relies on "seeing pictures in clouds". But how likely is that any way? An artist (someone with a trained eye - there have been scientific studies that show experienced visual artist's eyes scan very differently to 'controls') would probably get an entirely different result to, say, a musician, (who's ears are the dominant sense). When I come to WP I want information. Having the blots is information. AND it is only one of the set. Put a spoiler tag on it and get on with it. You guys are doing good work here, don't spoil it with acrimony.MarkAnthonyBoyle 01:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

To address some of your points without regard to your opinions about showing the image: (1) Yes, doing an IQ test will invalidate a subsequent administration of the same test within a short time period. (2) Comparing the Rorschach to another personality test is comparing apples and oranges. They're not the same. (3) The issue is not "boning up" on the Rorschach because you're not trying to achieve a "high" score (as you would with an IQ or achievement test). The issue is that the Rorschach requires spontaneous responses upon first seeing the images. (4) Regarding whether visual artists or musicians (or any number of professions) respond differently than the general population, sometimes there are no differences, and you can't always trust conventional wisdom about a certain profession responding a certain way. If there is a different response pattern for a specific group, sometimes the test interpreter knows about those response tendencies and factors them into the interpretation; sometimes it's unknown. Ward3001 01:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

With respect to the spoiler warning, that is exactly why the image requires a clearly labelled click to see. And that is the compromise between those who do not want the image up at all and those who do want it there. Unfortunately some people do not want a compromise...Faustian 02:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah spoilers per Wikipedia:Spoilers implied by the article title in this case no spoiler notices.Geni 03:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, deep breath, so we have two opposing camps here, yes? I'm not particularly involved in either side (this is not my argument and I'm not a speacialist on the subject), although I guess it's honest to say that I would err on the side of showing them.

Tell me if I've got it right.

camp 1: articulated by Ward3001. There is something special about the blots. There is only one set of official blots, there has been a lot of work go into developing the test. The test requires that the subject see them afresh or it is invalid. Don't show them.

camp 2: articulated by Geni. The value of the blots is contested. There is an educational, research and public interest value in showing the blots. This is an article about the blots. The actual blots should be shown (simulation won't do)

camp 3: articulated by Faustian. There is a compromise position between the two camps. A hidden link will keep most people happy.

Does that seem like a reasonable summation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkAnthonyBoyle (talk • contribs) 03:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC) MarkAnthonyBoyle 03:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, camp 1 and camp 3 want the same end result: a click of the mouse to display the blot. So there's no need to view those two as differing. Ward3001 12:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I just did a google web and image search on Rorschach inkblot. Couple of interesting results. This article comes up top of the list, so it's probably a good idea to get it right. Also this article is cited on lots of sites. And that picture is out there, as well as some of the others, so whether we have it here or not won't prevent anybody seeing it. Does that change any feelings on this issue? MarkAnthonyBoyle 07:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that this fact makes censoring the picture (by not having it up at all) a useless exercise, because someone who really wants to see it will find it elsewhere if not here. On the other hand, by requiring a click to see the image, we prevent those who are curious about the test, or unaware of the implications of seeing the blot, from accidently spoiling it for themselves on this site by giving them the choice about whether they want to se it, and warning them about the possible consequences of doing so.Faustian 11:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Ward3001 I can see that you feel strongly about this. Would you agree to a hidden image if there was a stronger warning against viewing it? Or perhaps it was further down the page, after the Methods section, perhaps with an explicit warning saying why it may invalid the use of the test for the viewer? MarkAnthonyBoyle 12:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I think my position is a bit misunderstood. I am agreed to the page as it is right now, with the image hidden by a single mouse click, and the current warning at the top of the page. My understanding is that Faustian and I want the same thing. Long before the current debate I was opposed to having the image anywhere on Wikipedia, but (unlike some other users) I have agreed to the compromise that was decided prior to the current debate. Ward3001 14:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The compromise position is only haveing the one image.Geni 13:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying

Ah, I think I see now. There is so much discussion, over such a long period on this issue, I hadn't quite got it right? So the discussion now is, just to clarify, that:

Camp1: given the circumstances, although we don't like it and we have very good reasons for not showing them, we will concede to having one hidden image.

Camp2: show the lot, (or is it "just show this one, don't hide it") this is a public interest issue, in an authorative encyclopedia, people have a right to see and discuss them and make up their own mind.

Have I got it right now, or close enough? Or did I miss something again? Look, don't get me wrong, I just think that given such a long and heated debate, it might be worth clearly and succinctly stating the "bottom lines" as they stand now. Yes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkAnthonyBoyle (talk • contribs) 14:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC) MarkAnthonyBoyle 14:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I just have to reiterate that with respect to Camp 2, having people click on the image does not deny them the right to see it and indeed gives them the right to make up their own mind.Faustian 14:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Show 2/3 (any more would be excessive given the length of the article). Prepared to compramise on one and a picture of Hermann Rorschach and idealy a picture (or diagram) of a test underway but eh that can wait.Geni 14:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that you are trying to raise the stakes and present increasingly more extreme positions, so that a new "compromise" becomes your original extreme position.Faustian 14:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree. That's Geni's style. And if we were underhanded enough, we could go back to the old position of demanding that no image be shown at all, with or without a click. But we are willing to compromise without such deception. And there's already a picture of Hermann Rorschach on his bio page. Ward3001 15:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Given the amount of time I've invested in the image side of wikipedia do you really think that haveing all ten would count as an extream position for me? They are relivant free media.Geni 17:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The issue is your ratcheting up your demands when it looked like you might not get 100% of what you wanted; your inability to compromise. The other side could do that just as easily as you have, but that's not the spirit of compromise. Ward3001 17:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

You are free to try and defend your orginal position.Geni 21:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

But that would be unethical when we're trying to honestly compromise and reach a consensus. Some of us have ethics; some of us are not underhanded and deceptive. Ward3001 23:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Even if this is not meant as an insinuation and a personal attack, it could easily be construed to be one. Let's stop it here and now. Please don't give a fellow editor reason to believe that he/she is being attacked and insulted. Let's remain civil, rational and to the point. Aecis^Brievenbus 23:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Please, everyone stay calm!!! :-) I think we have a consensus for now, yes?

• Camp1: given the circumstances, although we don't like it and we have very good reasons for not showing them, we will concede to having one hidden image.
• Camp2:Prepared to compromise on one and a picture of Hermann Rorschach and idealy a picture (or diagram) of a test underway

Woohoo!!! so whaddya say guys: one hidden pic, with a good clear warning?MarkAnthonyBoyle 15:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

That is a very reasonable compromise. I don't see the need for Hermann Rorschach's pic, but if that's what it takes to satisfy everyone I'm OK with it. One other sticky issue might be the wording of the warning. There has been a lot of confusion as to why the warning is needed, so I think some of the non-experts can cause a lot of problems if it's worded poorly. The wording as it is right now is quite adequate. Ward3001 15:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Not accepting hidden pic. Will accept pic placed down the page with warning at the top as long as warning flows with the text of the article.Geni 16:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

A pic further down on the page with a warning is better than one on the top with no warning. It at least doesn't automatically force anyone looking up Rorschach on wikipedia to see the image. It allows them the choice of not reading the rest of the article in order to avoid the image. But the fundamental problem is still there. By placing the image farther down, you are still not giving those who choose to read the entire article the choice of whether or not they would like to see the image. Shouldn't readers have the right to read the entire article without being forced to see the image?Faustian 18:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

This is an obvious point for most people, but I think it's worth stating at this point. Consensus does not mean 100% agreement. Ward3001 16:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep the picture. Don't hide it. I Don't care enough to stand in the way of consensus. — DIEGO ^talk 19:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• Just to clarify, the "damage" would be to the validity of anyone's test results should they ever be in a situation in which the Rorschach is given to them.

I question whether it is appropriate to use the terms "validity" and "Rorschach inkblot test" in the same sentence. Is this a joke? Serious damage? I am definitely not one to flout APA ethical guidelines, but give me a break. Showing one inkblot from the incredibly subjective and generally useless Rorschach test is a far cry from showing problems from an actual objective, norm-referenced, cognitive assessment like the WAIS, WISC, WJIII, etc. In the case of tests with a high degree of objectivity, reliability, and external validity, showing even one picture or problem actually could cause harm if someone were to see it a short time before taking the test (still, highly unlikely if it were the first question on the test). Also, the results these tests are frequently used as a basis for making critical decisions. But when are the results of the Rorschach ever used to decide anything important (independent of corroboration from more objective measures)?

No test is used without corroborative data from other tests and/or interviews. As for the Rorschach used together with other tests and interviews, it is second most widely used test in forensic assessments in the United States (behind only the MMPI) and the second most widely used by members of the Society for Personality Assessment. I have seen it used quite often in forensic, disability, and other settings. A small minority, of generally academic non-practicing psychologists, have criticised its use (Lillenfeld and his circle) but their POV is rather marginal within the field.

Sure, there are probably practitioners out there who still swear by the Rorschach, but there are also people using the TAT and practicing psychoanalysis and regression therapy —that doesn't make it right.

Well, the Ivy League hospital where I consult doesn't accept postdocs nor interns without a good knowledge of the Rorschach. Even psychiatric residents there are expected to become familiarized with it. But perhaps it's an east coast thing. I have noticed among several otherwise very well-informed and skilled colleagues that, for whatever reason, that the redder the state they are from, the less likely they are to be proficient in the use of projective tests.Faustian 19:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Showing one inkblot from the test will do no serious harm to the results should someone happen upon the picture prior to taking the test, since the results themselves are much more likely to be influenced by the interpretive whim of the examiner.

This is just false. I would compare seeing a single image of the Rorschach prior to taking it, to for example playing with the blocks from the block design portion of the WAIS or WISC prior to taking one of those tests. It wouldn't utterly ruin the test, but it would indeed be detrimental to its validity for the person taking it. Again, why force people to see the image rather than giving them the choice about whether or not they would want to see it or not?

Incidentally, the wiki entry on the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale doesn't list the questions from the various subtests nor provide details about the test's administration (such as showing the blocks, detailing the nature of tasks, etc.) But for some reason people have decided to pick on the Rorschach.Faustian 19:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course the WAIS article doesn't list questions or show pictures of the block designs. That would be unethical, and could actually compromise the validity of the score (on a valid assessment). The Rorschach and the WAIS are not the same. The reasons why people are "picking on" the Rorschach would not apply to the WAIS. Showing an actual objective question or block design (as on the WAIS) is a lot different from showing a picture of what is essentially nonsense. — DIEGO ^talk 19:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

If you think a psychologist is not being unethical if he purposefully displays the Rorschach images to the general public outside of an administration of the test, you have demonstrated a serious lack of understanding of professional ethics. And your POV statements about the Rorschach as "nonsense" don't justify such an ignorance of those ethics. Ward3001 21:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Again with the attacks. I am not ignorant of APA ethical guidelines, and I never said that it would be permissible under those guidelines to post the picture. I implied that it would be a far worse ethical breach to post questions from other assessments (due to my disdain for the Rorschach) and it would not violate my personal ethics to post a picture from an assessment that I don't think is valid in the first place. — DIEGO ^talk 23:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

We could have avoided what you perceived as a personal attack if you had clarified that you were talking about personal rather than professional ethics. I assumed, since we were talking about showing material from the WAIS that you were talking about professional ethics. Whilte we're on the issue of personal ethics, my personal ethics dictate that the contents of the Rorschach be protected from public exposure as much or more than the contents of the WAIS or any other test because I have read a substantial amount of research indicating that the Rorschach has as much validity as many other widely used tests. Ward3001 00:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

If we are going to have an article mentioning inkblots, I think it is a good idea to show readers what an "inkblot" looks like. Is the Rorschach ever updated? How about showing a discontinued inkblot from a previous version? — DIEGO ^talk 02:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that an inkblot image for the page makes sense. Given the concerns for validity, people who might want to take the test ans not have it compromised for themselves should be given the choice t about whether or not they would like to see it. Or, a similar image that would give an idea about the test without it being the actual image could be put on the page with no click required, along with the actual image requiring the click for those who choose to see the real thing. The "fake inkblot" was up on this page a few months ago I think.Faustian 19:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Your comments reflect a gross misunderstanding of scientific advances in the Rorschach over the last 30 years. A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing, and you clearly have little knowledge of the current status of the Rorschach. Your statement that it is "subjective" shows a complete absence of knowledge of the Exner system. And the Rorschach is norm-referenced, with an update of norms occurring quite recently, something you apparently did not know either. As for your implication that the Rorschach is not used to make important decisions, I have seen the Rorschach used very effectively (in combination with other tests and a variety of other information sources) in diagnosis and treatment planning hundreds of times. Read the literature and it might open your eyes a bit. Ward3001 17:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Your unconditional affection for an outdated projective assessment reflects a gross misunderstanding (or willful ignorance) of advances in the scientific study of behavior and cognition over the last 20 years. Are you seriously asserting that the Rorschach itself (not the scoring system) is objective? I never said I was an expert on the Rorschach, and I'm not an expert on blood-letting, psychoanalysis, or phrenology either, but I don't have to be in order to condemn them as utterly anachronistic and of dubious value in the objective, scientific study of anything. The Rorschach should not be used alone to make important decisions, and your "in combination with other tests and a variety of other information sources" supports my point. I have no intention of reading the Rorschach "literature", I'm too busy here in the 21st century. Or maybe I'm just repressing deep emotional wounds borne out of Oedipal tendencies and an anal fixation. Care to defend the TAT with such devotional ardor, too? — DIEGO ^talk 23:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

If you think that any psychological test can be objective apart from it's scoring system and it's administration (and both are objective with the Rorschach), then WHAT criteria do you use for objectivity? With your standards, there is NO objective psychological test, not the WAIS-III, not the MMPI-2, or any other test. If you think a test is objective just because a computer generates scores, you are more lacking in knowledge than I imagined. Tests do not interpret themselves. Numbers don't make a test objective. So I repeat: How do you define an objective test?

What? The questions themselves can be objective. My issue with the Rorschach is not a lack of consistency in administrering or scoring the intrument. I would assume that steps are in place to assure inter-rater reliablility and consistency for any assessment commonly used in current practice). My issue is the subjectivity of the questions (inkblots) themselves. To me "subjective" does not imply "haphazardly administered" or "scored at random depending on the mood of the psychologist". Maybe I need to clarify the difference difference between an "objective" and "subjective". The Rorschach is subjective because the number of possible answers is infinite, and therefore require the administrator to subjectively categorize all responses and infer information that the test-taker may not have intended.Independent of the consistency employed in the administration and scoring, I would consider as "objective" any assessment in which the majority of the questions either (a) have a clear "correct" answer, (e.g., what is 2+2?, can you arrange these blocks so they look like this picture?, etc.), (b) present a finite number of possible responses (e.g., true/false, yes/no, Likert scale, etc.), (c) have a clear target answer that only requires an administrator to subjectively evaluate and categorize responses which do not match the target answer (e.g., "How are ice and steam alike?" [from the WISC-IV], or, (c) at the very least, have inherent meaning and are expected to elicit a response direcly related to the inherent meaning in the question (i.e., inkblots do not have inherent meaning, but asking "what makes you angry?" does). The WJIII, WAIS-III, WISC-IV, MMPI-2, and MMPI-A, etc., while not perfect, generally ask objective questions that can be scored by an administrator with an absolute minimum of subjective categorization. Not to mention these tests all feature hundreds of questions (almost 500 for the MMPI) vs. ten measely inkblots.

Once again, your explanation of "objective" reflects a profound lack of knowledge of the Exner system. The examiner does not "subjectively categorize all responses'. The response "I see a man" clearly results in a Human content category. The response "The whole thing reminds me of ..." clearly denotes a location of Whole. The response "Two birds, one on each side" is a pair response. I could give hundreds of examples. And in regard to the examiner "infer[ing] information that the test-taker may not have intended", do you think that does not happen with the MMPI-2? Do you think there is no inference when the examiner interprets what it means when scale 8 (or any scale or combination of scales) is elevated? Do you think there is no inference when theexaminer interprets a PIQ substantially greater than VIQ? Ward3001 21:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

What you have just descibed is subjective categorization! Yes, "I see a man" clearly results in a categorization of "Human", but it is the administrator who decides that, not the test taker. What if the person saw a snowman, or a scarecrow, but only said "man"? Are those human? What if the participant had said "I see love", or "I see flarn" or "puddle", or "ink" or "deep brick mountain fun". Would two "flarns" scored differently than one "flarn"? Would "I see a little girl" and "I see and old man" both simply be characterized as "human"? The burden of characterizing those responses falls on the administrator, not the person whose psyche is supposedly being evaluated. If there are only a limited number of categories, why not make it multiple choice? That would shut me up. Almost. — DIEGO ^talk 23:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

First of all, who besides the examiner, makes a differentiation between a 1 and 2 point response on WISC-IV Vocabulary? That is a subjective judgment, guided by a few words and examples in the manual. Same process with the Rorschach; in many cases, even less subjectivity with the Rorschach.

All of the examples you gave are easily coded for content without "subjectivity": scarecrow = (H); snowman = (H); "I see love" = Hx; "I see flarn" = Id; puddle = Ls; ink = Sc; deep brick mountain fun = Hx; two flarns are a pair if blot symmetry is used; "I see a little girl" and "I see an old man" are both coded H for content but differently on other determinants depending on what else might be said in the inquiry. All coded without subjectivity. Can you tell me that is the case with 1 vs. 2 point responses on Vocabulary? Ward3001 00:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Aah, the subjective vocabulary scores. The 0, 1 or 2 point scores on the vocab section of the WAIS and WISC are precisely the reason that I qualified my reponse above by saying "most questions have a clear right or wrong answer or a clear target answer. For the record, I actually have an issue with the subjectivity of the vocabulary section of these tests (and with other questions that require the examiner to rate responses based on a few examples in the manual). I would never use either them in practice. I have seen firsthand two or more experienced practitioners argue over whether an answer is a zero, one, or two point answer, which does not give me much confidence in the tests. The subjectivity (admittedly minimal compared with the Rorschach)of the WAIS and WISC is reason enough for me not to use either of them since there is a superior instrument without these limitations, the WJ-III. Does that mean that the WISC and the WAIS are not valid? No. It means that I don't like subjectivity in psychological assessments. Which is why I also think that if other, less subjective instruments can provide the same information as the Rorschach, those should be used instead. — DIEGO ^talk 02:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is the critical point that you refuse to understand: The implication in your statement "The subjectivity (admittedly minimal compared with the Rorschach)" is patently false. You ignored the other things I said in the same paragraph. The subjectivity in my codings from the Rorschach examples that you raised is less than the subjectivity with the WISC Vocabulary (and other) subtests. (Incidentally, there is subjectivity in the WJ-III). No personal attack here, but to put it in the vernacular, this whole idea of subjectivity of the Rorschach compared to other tests is something that you are pulling out of your ass. It just isn't backed up by the facts. Ward3001 03:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Because I am admittedly not an expert on the Rorschach, I have no way of knowing the level of subjectivity involved in your codings (i.e., how do I know that all, or most, of your colleagues would agree with the codings that you've assigned to these responses?) So the fact that you found them easy to code is not really the point. That is why I brought up the heated disagreements that I have seen regarding scores on the WISC-IV vocabulary subtest. I am deeply concerned by these disagreements between experienced practitioners regarding issues that could affect the outcome of of the assessment. As you know, the WISC is used (often supported by little more than a perfunctory interview, unfortunately) to make important decisions where a score difference of one point (69 vs. 70, 89 vs. 90) can have a considerable impact on treatment, placement, and legal decisions. I'll refrain from any further comments on this until I have had a chance to read the research you're sending me. But I just have to know: what the hell is a flarn? ;-) — DIEGO ^talk 14:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

You say, "I am admittedly not an expert on the Rorschach, I have no way of knowing the level of subjectivity involved in your codings". That is my exact point. You repeatedly refer to how subjective the Rorschach is compared to other tests, yet you don't know how subjective it is. If you had a fundamental knowledge of Rorschach coding, you would know that there would be much less disagreement about my codings above than there is disagreement over many aspects of WISC-IV scoring. I'm not saying it is important that you understand Rorschach coding to be a psychologist, but to take such a strong position about its "subjectivity" requires some basic knowledge of how subjective it is. For you to say "I'm not an expert on the Rorschach and don't know how subjective Rorschach coding is", and then sharply criticize the Rorschach for being subjective flies in the face of elementary logic. Ward3001 14:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

"Flarn" is coded Id because it is nonexistent. It likely would also receive some other patholigical codes depending on the entire initial response and inquiry response. Ward3001 14:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Apart from the subjectivity however, I do not believe that the Rorschach measures anything useful that cannot be measured using more theoretically defensible measures like the MMPI or a simple structured interview. No amount of factor analysis or norm-referencing can change that. If the assessment is not demonstrably accurate in predicting actual behavior or making an accurate diagnosis (to my knowledge Rorschach results are not a diagnostic criterion for any condition in the DSM-IVTR), then it is an essentially worthless waste of time and money. — DIEGO ^talk 19:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I challenge you to provide evidence that the MMPI-2 is more "theoretically defensible" than the Rorschach, or that the MMPI-2 is more "demonstrably accurate in predicting actual behavior or making an accurate diagnosis". Give me the citations. Ward3001 21:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I challenge you to provide evidence that " the interpretation of inkblots provides useful information that we could not obtain any other way". Also, I'm not a poster child for the MMPI, I was simply pointing out that it is objective in ways that the Rorchach is not. The MMPI is more "theoretically defensible" because it asks actual questions, in English, and elicits responses to those questions. Are you serious? You don't understand that asking a question is a more theoretically defensible way of obtaining information than saying "what do you think of this meaningless inkblot?" — DIEGO ^talk 23:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Give me your email address and I'll send you a reference list. The only reason I can't post it here is that it probably would triple or quadruple the length of this Talk page.

The Rorschach "asks actual questions, in English, and elicits responses to those questions. So again, give me evidence that the MMPI is more "theoretically defensible". Ward3001 00:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

And guess what: You can administer, score, and interpret the Rorschach without reference to psychoanalysis, Oedipal tendencies, or any of the other constructs that you falsely attribute as underpinnings of the Exner system.

I was not attributing the constructs of psychoanalysis to the Exner system. I was simply comparing them because they are both complete bunk, yet still remain popular among some anti-scientific practitioners. My point was, the popularity of the Rorschach should not be taken as an indication of its validity, any more than the popularity of psychics is an indication of their validity. — DIEGO ^talk 19:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I never said that "popularity of the Rorschach [is] an indication of its validity". The validity of the Rorschach has been very well established with decades of well-conducted research. If you want citations I will email them to you. They are too numerous to include on this talk page. Ward3001 21:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

No, you didn't, but Faustian did say "it is second most widely used test in forensic assessments in the United States". What other conclusion should I draw from that statement? Why else is its popularity relevant? — DIEGO ^talk 23:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I wrote that in response to you statments that a small number of psychologists use that test, statements that were very incorrect.Faustian 03:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

And I beg to differ that you should not be as critical of any test as you are the Rorschach without some fundamental knowledge of its status over the last 30 years. You're the one living in the past. You're talking about the Rorschach as it was in 1960. No responsible psychologist would do that with a test.

Have the inkblots changed since 1945 or gained some inherent meaning to which responses can be reliably compared? By the way, the original Rorschach (without Exner's norms) is available and remains a top seller in Psychological product catalogues. So don't assume too quickly what "responsible" psychologists would and would not do. Are psychoanalysts "responsible" practitioners? How about people practicing regression therapy? My definition of irresponsible covers anyone using outdated methods with no empirical support indicating that they are actually useful. Practitioners like this are a major impediment to the advancement of psychology as a legitimate science. When this sort of malpractice is tolerated and even condoned (APA division 39), when actual knowledge is ignored in favor of tradition, it belittles 40 years of rigorous scientific contributions that have been made in the field. Unfortunately, until it rejects theoretical voodoo and hero-worship, psychology will always be a soft science. If you are aware of literature demonstrating that the Rorschach is a valid measure of something useful (that could not be obtained more simply or inexpensively), I would be willing to read it. — DIEGO ^talk 19:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It is irrelvant that the inkblots haven't changed. It is the system of administering, scoring, drawing parallels to behavior, and interpreting that has changed immensely over the last thirty years. It doesn't take much understanding to know that the inkblots haven't changed. It requires some knowledge to know that how they are used has changed. Ward3001 21:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It is possible to draw statistical parallels between all sort of things. My point is that the the inkblots themselves are nothing special and they are inherently meaningless. Since this is the case, why not use people's answers to actual questions (in the form of other norm-referenced tests) as a diagnostic tool. Why "improve" the way in which we administer and score interpretations of meaningless blobs when we could just use other measures that aren't steeped in the unfortunate history of psychology as a pseudoscience? Why the Rorschach? — DIEGO ^talk 23:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Once again, your ignorance of the Exner system is painfully showing. Exner's more recent research has shown that the inkblots are not entirely meaningless and, in fact, H. Rorschach never intended them to be. As for " the inkblots themselves are nothing special and they are inherently meaningless", each individual word on the MMPI or WISC-IV or any test with words is "nothing special and ... inherently meaningless" for test interpretation, until you put them together, elicit a response, score that response, convert scores into appropriate statistics, and apply a vast amount of empiricial research to build interpretation. That is the process that is used with the Rorschach. Ward3001 00:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I was about to take to heart Faustian's admonition to me to cool down, thinking maybe you were well-intentioned but mistaught. Now I have no doubt. You don't understand the Rorschach, you don't wish to understand it, but you fancy yourself knowledgeable enough to speak intelligently about it. I'm to busy here in the 21st century to go back and forth with you when you pride yourself in being so uninformed. Interesting but completely useless talking to you. I will not respond to any of your other comments unless they are relevant to the Rorschach in 2007. Ward3001 00:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Ward3001, your personal attacks are way out of line. I see this is not the first time you have assumed bad faith and impugned the intelligence/knowledge of editors with whom you disagree. I don't "fancy myself" anything. I am allowed to voice a dissenting opinion from you. You are welcome to respond to that opinion on its merits, but turning a disagreement over the value of inkblots into a personal attack is not the most effective way to make your point. You seem to think that anyone who has not received extensive training on the Rorschach has no right to criticize it. This is sort of a ridiculous assertion. Does one need to be an economist to criticize economic policies? No. Would I have to subject myself to four years of chiropractic school in order to question the evidence-base supporting that profession? No. I have received extensive training at the University of Common Sense, and I think that alone entitles me to voice an opinion on anything that raises BS red flags (and trust me, claiming to predict a person's future bahvior based on his or her interpretation of meaningless inkblots raises plenty of red flags). I do not "pride myself" in being uniformed. Unfortunately, it seems that anyone who disagrees with you is "uninformed". However, I do pride myself on my ability to apply rational analysis to dubious-sounding claims. I am able to divorce public opinion and educational indoctrination from a reasoned evaluation of the evidence. I don't need to be an expert on the Rorschach to understand its inherent limitations as a subjective evaluation intrument, I only need to be an expert in common sense and basic principles of empirical research. It so happens that I do have considerable experience in psychological research (both neuroimaging and applied psychoeducational research) and I have been trained in a number of assessments, but that should not be a factor in whether or not my opinion is valid. Again, feel free to disagree with opinions, but please refrain from personal attacks. — DIEGO ^talk 20:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Linking the opinions to scientific research is not a personal attack. And yes, you are allowed to voice your opinion. I never said you weren't. I also am allowed to point out whether those opinions have any scientific basis. It's one thing to have inadquate knowledge because it hasn't been taught to you. It's altogether different to harshly denounce something when you have almost no understanding of it. And when you do that, the rest of us are fully entitled to point that out. Ward3001 21:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you even understand the difference between saying "that comment is not supported by evidence like X,Y, and Z" and saying "you have no understanding of the Rorschach and have no right to denounce it." One is debating the merits of an argument, the other is a personal attack. Even if I am completely wrong, my argument has been against the test itself, not the editors defeding it. I would never say "you are a douchebag for defending the Rorschach" or insult your intelligence for disagreeing with me. I have only little understanding of many things, like genocide, religious fundamentalism, and bowling, so would it be wrong for me to denounce them? — DIEGO ^talk 23:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I did not say you "have no right to denounce" the Rorschach. You have that right, just as I have a right to challenge what you say that is not based on solid research. And it is becoming increasingly clear to those of us who do have some understanding of the Rorschach that you have little understanding of the Rorschach (specifically the Exner system). I'm not the only one who thinks that. Additionally, if you attack a test as strongly (yes, venomously) as you have the Rorschach, I think it's quite reasonable for editors to challenge your lack of knowledge. That's what talk pages are for. I have never said you're stupid, or evil, or other pejorative adjectives. I have simply said you don't understand the Rorschach, which you don't. Ward3001 00:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Although I generally agree with you I think you need to cool down a bit. Diego is just repeating what he has been taught.Faustian 19:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Faustian, I resent the implication that I am nothing more than a robot repeating what I have been taught. I am quite capable of thinking critically for myself. I just think that any practice or claim should have to stand on its own merits and not lauded or honored based on the fact that it has been used for 50 years. Things have changed a lot in the past 50 years, and we now have more reliable ways of obtaining the information that the Rorschach supposedly measures. But too many practitioners in the field insist on rejecting research-based practice in favor of embracing baseless peronal pet theories and philosophical frameworks. — DIEGO ^talk 19:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Diego, it is clear from your comments that you understand little about the Rorschach (otherwise you would not have made many of your comments). Thinking critically about something is not possible without knowing something about it. You have, yourself, stated that you know little about the Rorschach and don't want to know much about it: "I have no intention of reading the Rorschach "literature", I'm too busy here in the 21st century." Thus, by your own criteria, you reject research-based practice and instead embrace outdated theories (that use of the Rorschach is unchanged from 1950) and philosophical frameworks (that because the blots are 80 years old they are no longer useful - any empirical validation for this assertion?). I suspect you were given misinformation or rather little information about the Rorschach and base your statements accordingly (and your dogmatic ideology, also presumably learned at the same place, likewise plays a role). This is not meant to be insulting or patronising, and I apologize if I've offended you, it is my observation. With such attitudes you have better avoid "intellectual backwaters" such as Yale or Cornell which do indeed value the Rorschach and/oor psychoanalysis. Anyways, I will address some of your other points later, when I have more time.Faustian 20:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree with Faustian. Ward3001 21:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Faustian, I'm not sure if you read my statement above: "If you are aware of literature demonstrating that the Rorschach is a valid measure of something useful (that could not be obtained more simply or inexpensively), I would be willing to read it."

I don't do billing, but my impression is that the MMPI is more expensive than the Rorschach, though less time consuming for the practitioner.Faustian 03:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

In reference to "I have no intention of reading the Rorschach "literature", I was referring, in an admittedly exaggerated manner, to literature explaining Exner's work or stating that the the test is now norm-referenced, because developments in the scoring system are tangential to my main points of contention with the Rorschach (and other subjective tests like the TAT, Bender-Gestalt, Person-Tree-House, etc.).

Okay, sorry for misunderstanding.Faustian 03:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I did not mean to imply that something is worthless or outdated simply because it is old. On the other hand, if something was crap in 1945, no amount of polishing will change the fact that it is most likely still crap in 2007. I didn't say that "because the blots are 80 years old they are no longer useful". I meant to imply that they were never actually useful, even 80 years ago. As for empirical evidence, I think the burden is squarely on you. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof".

Given that the Rorschach is an established test in much use by psychologists (popularity among doctors or psychologists or other professionals at the highest level of training is not the same as popularity among the masses as in the case of, say, psychics) I submit that the extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary proof is the statement that this test is garbage.Faustian 03:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

With respect to the Rorschach or other projective instruments, the statement of the Society for Personality Assessment contains plenty of references and summarizes the research: [8]. In terms of validity the Rorschach is no worse than the MMPI. It is naturally a very different test and provides different ways of obtaining information with comparative advantages. For example, research has shown (sorry, I don't remember the journal and don't have time now to hunt iot down, but I don't read "voodoo journals") that it is harder to "fake good" on the Rorschach than it is on the MMPI. The implications for forensic, child custody evaluations, etc. where people are quite motivated to present a falsely positive image of themselves, are obvious. In terms of cost-effectiveness, running an invalid MMPI is still billed by Minnesota, and the percentage of invalid profiles in forensic settings (and thus, clients being charged a lot of money for useless information) is not good. Another situation in which the Rorschach is usefull is in inpatient settings, where people are often (in mine and others' experiences) much more likely to sit through a Rorschach than they are through an MMPI.Faustian 03:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

You don't see me disparaging the lightbulb and internal combustion engine as "outdated", do you? Has the actual Rorschach (not the "use of" the Rorschach) changed since 1945? In response to the Yale and Cornell statement. Don't let the academic pedigree of an institution fool you into thinking that all of their programs reflect a committment to evidence and rational inquiry. Exhibit A: The Yale Divinity School, where students are taught that humans can rise from the dead and virgins can give birth. — DIEGO ^talk 21:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

How can a test be evaluated apart from how it is used? The blocks on Block Design haven't changed in a very long time, but that doesn't mean that the Wechsler scales (including Block Design) have no more value than they did 50 years ago. To say that the inkblots were "crap" in 1945 and so they are crap now absurdly ignores an immense amount of research that has happened since 1945, just as research has occurred on the Wechsler scales during several decades. And I completely disagree that you have no responsibility to present empirical evidence supporting your position. Such strong criticism about the Rorschach that you have spouted vehemently (even venomously) requires more than just your own thoughts. You are entitled to express your thoughts, but it is absurd to argue that you don't have to provide empirical support but your opponents do. Try doing that in a graduate school class, or a journal article, and see how far you get. Ward3001 22:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Why do I need to provide empirical support showing that inkblots do not provide any special insight into menal functioning beyond that which could be obtained through more straightforward means? It seems to me that claiming that "inkblots possess some special characteristics that can be used, like tea leaves, to predict the future" is the more outrageous claim. The burden of proof falls upon those making bizarre claims, not the other way around. The only thing I have spouted vehemently (and definitely not venomously) is my disdain for baseless respect to tradition and hero-worship that prevents progress in the field and only serves to widen the research-practice gap. I have nothing against the Rorschac, in particular. It just happened to come up on the RFC list. — DIEGO ^talk 23:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Please tell me what advocate of the Rorschach has said "inkblots possess some special characteristics that can be used, like tea leaves, to predict the future". And the reason you have a burden of providing empirical evidence is that you claim other tests, such as the MMPI-2, are superior. That requires empirical evidence. I challenged you above to provide that evidence, and I have not seen it yet. So I'm waiting for two things from you: What Rorschach advocate made the "tea leaves" claim? And where is the empirical support that "measures like the MMPI ... [are]demonstrably accurate in predicting actual behavior or making an accurate diagnosis" more so than the Rorschach (the last set of quoted words are yours). Ward3001 23:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I like your creative use of the ellipsis (...) and complete fabrication of a [verb] to link together to sentences and completely mischaracterize the quote. Here is what I actually wrote: "I do not believe that the Rorschach measures anything useful that cannot be measured using more theoretically defensible measures like the MMPI or a simple structured interview. No amount of factor analysis or norm-referencing can change that. If the assessment is not demonstrably accurate in predicting actual behavior or making an accurate diagnosis (to my knowledge Rorschach results are not a diagnostic criterion for any condition in the DSM-IVTR), then it is an essentially worthless waste of time and money." The questions on the MMPI are objective (there are only two possible answers for each question). If you are asserting that the Rorschach is demonstrably accurate in predicting actual behavior or making an accurate diagnosis, then prove it. If you are asserting that showing an inkblot to someone is more accurate than asking a question to elicit useful information, then prove it. I never made any claims regarding what the MMPI can and cannot do, only that its format is more objective (T/F statements with inherent meaning vs. inkblots with no inherent meaning. Do you seriously disagree with that?

"I do not believe that the Rorschach measures anything useful that cannot be measured using more theoretically defensible measures like the MMPI." That is about as clear a claim about the MMPI as I have ever seen. Ward3001 00:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

"What Rorschach advocate made the "tea leaves" claim?" Are you familiar with hyperbole? I'll translate the statement for you: "Show me that the interpretation of inkblots is more useful at predicting behavior than other measures (i.e., there is something "special" about inkblots). I don't have to prove that your crazy claims aren't true. — DIEGO ^talk 00:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I will not accuse you of a condescending personal attack for asking me if I understand hyperbole and "translating" a statement for me. I will assume good faith. You placed the words in quotation marks. Not too big of a stretch to conclude that you were quoting someone who made a statement about the Rorschach. And, again, give me your email address and I'll send the reference list to address the relative merits of using the Rorschach compared to other measures in predicting behavior. Ward3001 00:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

You don't have to give me 20 studies, just a methodologically sound meta-analysis or two will do just fine (providing they were not printed in voodoo journals like Annals of the Rorschach Enthusiast Society, Journal for the Advancement of Projective Assessment, or Inkblot Research Quarterly). You can post links, citations, or doi info on my talk page. And I'm not the one who brought the level of civility this low. — DIEGO ^talk 00:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Although I understand your request for a "quickie" coverage of Rorschach research, I'm afraid it's not as simple as a single metanalysis if you're talking about comparing two or more tests (or other methods) in "predicting behavior." Give me your email address and I'll send the full list. And do you consider American Psychologist or Psychological Assessment or Assessment or Journal of Personality Assessment to be voodoo journals? Ward3001 00:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Steady on chaps

Play the ball and not the man fellas. Most of this discussion is not strictly speaking relevent (although fascinating). An encyclopedia article should contain the facts, (stuff about the test), and any criticism (stuff about the controversy). Although I love a good stoush, it is not the place of an encyclopedia to prove or disprove anything, just record the facts. :-) cf christianity

MarkAnthonyBoyle 04:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

We could have a consensus here if.....

I would like to see the issue resolved. I had no problem seeing the image by clicking the link, and the entire set from the link further down the page. People who, like me, want to see the blots, can just do what I did. Let those who have their reasons (whatever you and I might think of those reasons) have the image hidden and the warning. That way the edit war can come to an end. I think, lets just leave it. We might have a consensus if we leave the page as it is. And technically, the page should just describe the test, and the controversy (these are facts), and leave the interpretation to the reader. What d'ya reckon? MarkAnthonyBoyle 03:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm OK with a solution that includes the warning as it is, and access to any images with a mouse click. Thank you for your efforts in this debate. Ward3001 17:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I also agree.Faustian 19:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I just thought about placing a fake image for those who want to know what an inkblot looks like (it was once up, anyone could go through the archives and paste it), and then requiring a click for the actual image, for those who choose to see it. Something like, "Here is an approximation of a Rorschasch inkblot. For an actual image click here (warning: doing so may invalidate the test for you).Faustian 19:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. — DIEGO ^talk 21:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!Faustian 02:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Please come to a consensus

I see in the page history that the image has been edited and reverted over 50 times over the past few weeks. Please use the talk page to discuss, as you are doing above. Further reverts may result in this article being protected from editing. Aecis^Brievenbus 21:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Page protected

This page has been protected, to prevent further edit warring over the display of the image. Use this talk page to come to a consensus. Aecis^Brievenbus 12:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Enough!

This is not the place to debate the validity of Rorshach test. The viewer should be given a choice to see the image, with a warning, as is the case now. I hope when the page is unprotected nobody tries to change the way the image is again. Amit@Talk 14:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I also suggest changing the warning to "...may invalidate the test for you" Amit@Talk 14:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The validity (or lack thereof) of the Rorschach is central to the argument to censor the picture. If the test itself is not a valid measure of anything, then censoring the picture is pointless, because only invalid, essentially worthless results will be "compromised". — DIEGO ^talk 02:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I repeat my comment above: You apparently have little or no knowledge of the psychometric properties of the Rorschach. First year graduate students have more understanding than you have demonstrated. Ward3001 17:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Even the International Rorschach Foundation themselves are showing all ten images on the web

The above discussions on whether the article should include the image are quite lengthy, but it seems to me that a few arguments still haven't been mentioned:

• The central argument against showing the image violates WP:NPOV. It consists of the claim that readers who see it suffer personal damage. (Almost every Wikipedian who has taken part in this discussion or edited the article has been "victimized" in this way; it might be worthwile to stop for a moment and reflect for a moment on how large this damage to one's personal life really is.) But in fact - as noted above and in the article - this is clearly a view that is not universally held, in fact, there are organizations who claim that it is even beneficial for individuals to have invalidated the test for themselves by reading about it and seeing the images beforehand. For example the "Separated Parenting Access & Resource Center", whose page is linked in the article, says "If you don't wish to take the Rorschach test (and we suggest NOT taking it in the context of a custody dispute if at all possible), tell the psychologist that you are familiar with the Rorschach test, have read about the test and have seen the inkblots." Now it would be POV to base Wikipedia editorial decisions on this view ("OMG we have to save people from this quack test by showing them the image"), but it is equally POV to base them on the opposite view ("OMG we have to preserve this life-saving test for people by not showing them the image").

But somebody can argue both ways on any kind of potential damage caused by reading a type of wikipedia page. Is there a wiki page detailing the steps necessary to produce crystal meth (someone can say the knowledge can be helpful or harmful)? How about one describing how to build a pipe bomb? How to pick a lock? How to steal personal identity? Etc. etc.Faustian 20:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Crystal_meth#Synthesis largely meaningless any halfway competent organic chemist could come up with a dozen routes. Lock picking actualy since you bring that up you might want to read Matt Blaze. Then of course we have Nuclear weapon design.Geni 23:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Let me just comment that websites devoted to advising parents about the Rorschach in custody disputes are likely to cause the parent more problems because of fallacious information and advice they give. That's not to say that use of any test in a custody dispute isn't controversial, but the advice on the websites is given by people with little knowledge of the test. At best it's inadequate, and in some cases it is simply wrong. Ward3001 17:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• The damage argument made against the image could also be made against the whole article - certainly reading about the test can also influence the responses. Anybody who has choosen to read this Wikipedia article has already chosen, to some degree, to compromise the validity of the test for themselves, should they take it in the future.

Any damage from reading the article is minor compared to viewing the images Ward3001 17:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• The damage argument is also remarkably at odds with the fact that even the International Rorschach Society has been showing all ten pictures (in shaded, not b/w versions, one even in color) on their web page since at least 2005 [9] - in smaller form lacking some detail, but it is still perfectly possible to look at them and prepare answers to questions that are asked in the actual testing situation. For example, I can look at them and say that no. 4 looks like a motorbike rider from behind, and no.5 resembles a bat upside down. (This is "the" Rorschach organization, an association of professional psychologists founded in 1952, connected with Verlag Hans Huber. It publishes two journals, "Rorschachiana" and "Bulletin of the International Society of the Rorschach and Projective Methods". Shouldn't the editors who are criticizing Wikipedia for showing this image first accuse the International Rorschach Society of professional misconduct?) Also, it should be noted that the article claims "The official test is sold only to licensed professionals", but the order form for the test cards on Verlag Hans Huber/Hogrefe's own web site does not mention any such restrictions. In any case the Exner system of scoring is freely availabe in libraries and bookshops all over the world.

A key phrase you wrote is "in smaller form". What you see is a distant photo of the blots already miniaturized about tenfold, so the actual amount of reduction is probably about 100 times. I'll acknowledge that I prefer they not be shown that way, but the amount detail not shown is sizeable. Ward3001 17:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Just because the order form doesn't mention restrictions doesn't mean than that you can actually purchase the Rorschach without proper credentials. Ward3001 17:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia strives to create encyclopedic content that can be used in different forms, not only as a web page but also in other forms (as PDF, in print or on DVD). JavaScript tricks like the image show/hide button flatly contradict this goal - even on the web they require a JavaScript enabled browser - and should only be used in the article text when they are absolutely necessary. (The use of show/hide buttons in navigation templates, i.e. outside the main article body, is less controversial, since these templates are mainly used for web navigation.)

Summarily, I think we should go back to the solution from a month ago, before the edit warring started: Include Image:Rorschach1.jpg without the JavaScript code. As noted above, this is already a compromise solution, since from a purely encyclopedic perspective it would be desirable to show all ten cards (and also describe some exemplary responses and their evaluation).

Regards, High on a tree 14:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you have made some valid points, but I also think some of your statements are somewhat misleading and/or inadequately explained. Please see my comments within the text you wrote. And finally, let's face it, if someone is unscrupulous enough, he can probably get his hands on a set of Rorschach cards. But I think we're talking about what should be done on Wikipedia, not the lowest common denominator. Ward3001 17:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It would be fairly trivial to purchase them through ebay. Otherwise I would assume the british libiary has a copy.Geni 01:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)