February 11, 2005

• As they say, any tool can be used for good or evil - I can imagine some less-than-adjusted guy, fighting for his kids' custody, trying to come up with the 'good' answers at some exam. And, erm, I see quite more things in those squiggles than I 'should'. Oh boy.
• I wish they were in color. That would have made interpreting them easier. But thanks for the interesting link. I am well-prepared for my next psych eval.
• My feeling is that the Rorchach test is dumb. Why? A 1971 study at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York showed the traditionally heterosexual response (two male figures) to be declining in popularity. So responses vary not only by personal interpretation, but societal factors in some way. Also, context is going to be important. If you were just, say, looking at lesbian porn before you take the test, you're likely to see a lot of lesbians in the pictures. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but the administrators of the test would like to think so.
• Sandspider: It could just be that around 1971 in New York City, heterosexuality was declining in popularity.
• I've seen this revealed before in a book by William Poundstone. I think the first totally looks like the heads of two witches, each with pointy hat, nose, and chin, and a black cat in between.
• That could be as well, but then you have the next difficulty: Correlation. You have ten items on a freeform test. Sure, the test conditions are controlled, hence why they don't want the inkblots out in the free world, but the interpretation is either made up or derived from correlational data. How difficult must it have been to gather correlational data on a freeform Q&A? "Well, 3 schizophrenic people responded about sex with every answer, and very few undiagnosed schizophrenic did. Therefore, most likely the other people who answered were undiagnosed schizophrenics. Lock them away immediately." I would really like to see the methodology used to come up with the Rorschach. It looks like it's heavily based in Freud, so I'm guessing it's a lot of "Well, I think it works like this."
• Im sorry but Plate IV is "man with humongous penis." It just is.
• I once said plate III was "a couple of lesbian cannibals dancing around a fire in high heels." It was a couple more weeks yet before I got to go home.
• I think they are fun. But I wonder what the psychologists think if you see the bunny from Donnie Darko, a space station, or an Anime mecha in the blots? Correct answer: You watch too much science fiction
• I saw a dog with its head split open.
• Only 10 comments to an obscure Watchmen reference. Nice work, jccalhoun.
• I see dead people. Oh, wait. That was on another test. I see spots.
• Well, they can't be right concerning parental relationships. The two plates (IV and VII) that relates to how one views one's father and mother are entirely reversed for me. Definitely have hostility issues with mom; can just about practice telepathy with dad. Yet I saw plate IV as threatening, almost a monster, while plate VII was innocuous, two sweet looking girls with bows in their hair.
• My dad took a lot of psych questions in college. He used to tell people to see "elephants. hiding." in every plate. Probably not a good idea.
• Sadly, Watchmen really was all I could think about while taking that test.
• hello, rorschach, how are you today? in prison. yourself? uh... fine. i'm fine. i thought we'd try some more blot tests. how about looking at this one for me. go on. tell me what you really see. dog. dog with head split in half. i... i see. and, uh, what do you think split the uh, split the dog's head. in half. i did.
• Mr. Knickerbocker: I've seen this revealed before in a book by William Poundstone. And how. I've got Poundstone's Big Secrets right here, and this article appears to be ripped word-for-word from chapter 16, illustrations, captions, and all. How on Earth can the folks at deltabravo.net justify the statement "The information presented here, including the outlines of the Rorschach inkblots, is not in violation of copyright law"?
• They can't. But they can say it, thus reducing the number of people who might turn them in. "Well, wouldn't you feel foolish trying to report me for something that is obviously not a problem? You'll just be wasting everyone's time!"
• Hey, according to this I have issues with my father. Who knew? I did, honestly.
• I don't trust these evaluations of what each blot should actually mean. It's fun to play, but I wouldn't rely on any test to determine my personality. There are more reliable tests to gague sanity, delirium, schizo, etc.
• MonkeyFilter: There are more reliable tests to gague sanity, delirium, schizo, etc. Thank you, Shamina Latrine.
• Just two comments and Shamina has a tagline already. Impressive.
• What if everything looked like a bug on my windshield? Am I fucked, or just a democrat?
• I think Shamina is trying for taglines. Why? MonkeyFilter: Am I fucked, or just a democrat? That's why. Almost too good.
• Both.
• sorry, not trying for anything. I'll shut up.
• Mostly I gave the appropriate responses. Mostly. *unblinking stare*
• Fes, I love your capitalist ass.
• Don't tease me Shamina, you know how I am about my taglines! Pearls from your lips ....
• I don't see how these can distinguish a really imaginative person from a crazy one.
• I am not trying to be different or difficult, but I think that the one that looked obviously like a bat to me was the only one that I gave an answer that was similar to the one's they were looking for. I had a map of a large land mass that had a couple of lakes, a chalk outline of a person who died and fell on a cat, two genies coming out of opposite ends of the same lamp, etc. My sister is a psychologist and gave me the test when I was a teenager. She told me then that my answers were not in line with what they expect, but that I seemed to really try to incorporate all aspects of the image instead of just focusing on parts of it. Whatever.
• Man, I've been desensitized by too much art theory, I think. I can only rarely see other images in stuff like this (I'm much better with clouds, though I think if these were filled in, I'd do better with them). I'm more "It looks like a random blot that has no real meaning, save for that which I create... Why do I need to create meaning? There is no danger in meaningless things!" Probably be about the time they had me in the fitted shirts.
• Why won't they give me any crayons when I have to take this test?
• Maybe it's too much art - none of my answers are anywhere near anything they have on that list - they're all totally different. Or maybe it's just that things look different on my home planet.
• Does years of art theory make you crazy, or do only crazy people take that many art classes? I don't see the suggested answers either. I shudder to think what I'd make of the color versions. "Looks like a drop cloth. Drop cloth. Drop cloth... Yep, another drop cloth."
• Not "Drop cloth, drop cloth, vagina, drop cloth..."? If not, maybe you haven't taken enough art classes?
• I think my problem is that I think it's *boring* to give the most obvious answer. Me trying to be creative and charming would probably just scare the psychologist.
• *sigh* I sympathize, jccalhoun. Damn it's time to reread that book. I've been impressed tests that were filled with seemingly-arbitrary content (which of these words do you prefer?). When they're well put-together, they're like going to a fortune teller, except that this one is blind and deaf, too. The problem with the Rorschach is its oracle-like interpretation process. There are far better, and many that are nearly impossible (they say impossible) to defraud. As for the suit, well. If you know how polygraphs actually work, you become ineligible for them, too. Nothing based in deceit lasts very long.