The Rorschach exposed
The New York Times has an interesting article entitled, "Complaint Over Doctor Who Posted Inkblot Test" (thanks to the reader who emailed this):
Psychologists are bound by ethics to protect test security. The doctor who put the Rorschach cards up on Wikipedia along with other information is apparently not a psychologist but I believe that he has damaged test security and made it harder for those of us who rely on the Rorschach to understand clients and others. He believes otherwise. But in the age of the Internet, it's hard to keep secrets. That's good and bad.
What do you think?
The doctor who helped Wikipedia publish the 10 inkblots of the Rorschach test is being investigated by his local doctors’ organization after it received complaints that his actions were unprofessional.
In a letter Wednesday from the group, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan, the doctor, James Heilman, who works in an emergency room in Moose Jaw, was notified that two psychologists had filed complaints.
Psychologists are bound by ethics to protect test security. The doctor who put the Rorschach cards up on Wikipedia along with other information is apparently not a psychologist but I believe that he has damaged test security and made it harder for those of us who rely on the Rorschach to understand clients and others. He believes otherwise. But in the age of the Internet, it's hard to keep secrets. That's good and bad.
What do you think?
Labels: psychology
posted by Helen at 11:43 AM
153 Comments:
"... for those of us who rely on the Rorschach to understand clients and others."
-------------
Haven't objective tests long since shown that Rorschach tests pretty much have the same reliability as tea-leave reading?
Please explain further -- it's not clear to me how this compromises the tests. I guess the worry is that patients can "study" and make up answers that they think the therapist wants to hear. But can't they do that anyway?
An interesting conundrum to me. I understand the need for secrecy but what other medical/health related tests outside the realm of psychology are the procedures and interpretation of the results held in secret?
Additionally, I've always wondered how valid the Rorschach is. It seems you could uncover a lot of the same information through focused conversation.
Already been said, but am personally skeptical of the whole art of chicken innards reading.
Seems to me that when a decision has been made to find something wrong with a person, the "symptoms" presented will be "interpreted" in what ever way is necessary to confirm the pre-conceived notion of what is wrong.
I've often wondered why it is important that the patterns have a bi-lateral symetry. Why not random, patternless images, like "interpreting" clouds, or carpeting.
My understanding is that the answers have been correlated to specific diagneses through experimentation. If certain answers have been empirically shown to strongly correlate with certain conditions, then the test is valid. But if people know what answers correlate with what conditions, then their answers aren't. And replacing the inkblots with different ones will take a lot of time to generate the correlations.
Of course, I could be totally misremembering.
I remember having to take that test (along with a bunch of others) way back in middle school. It was one if the more anoying ones since the people giving those tests either have really bad vision or are on acid and cant tell that an ink blot looks like ... an ink blot.
"cant tell that an ink blot looks like ... an ink blot"
Yes!.
And they seemed to want me to find something salacious--what dirty minds they have!
I know this sounds like I'm a dolt, but what is someone supposed to see in a Rorschach test?
It looks like someone took some ink, dripped it onto the center pages of an 8&1/2 x 11 report folder and closed it; then repeated the process a bunch of times with fresh pages. I wouldn't know how to respond to such a "test" without stating that the images look like the random mirror image results of just that.
Should I run for President?
I use the Rorschach a lot, it can be a very helpful test. It can also be a waste of time.
There is indeed an empirical aspect to the Rorschach that has a statistical basis. The work was done by the late John Exner. Responses are coded in various ways and different ratios of those codes can be very helpful in an eval. It is NEVER used alone as it is just not robust enough to work that way. But then, no psych tests are used alone by ethical psychologists.
There was another website that had posted the cards and safe answers, it was up years ago and was part of a father's rights website. The info told people how to respond in order to not lose your kids in a custody eval.
The information was accurate in that it would help people to give very boring, and hence safe, results.
I worked for a man who was a wizard with the Rorschach. We had a little dog and pony show where I would give the test to someone and then just give him the answers and how long it took someone to give their answer. He would have no background other than the person's sex and age.
The way the show went, I would share the person's MMPI and other scores along with their personal history, none of which Les, the magician, had. So the people in the audience had a rather complete assessment of the person while he had only the Rorschach. He would then come in and tell that person's life story by the third response.
It was uncanny. And he could not tell me or anyone else how he did it, so it might as well have been entrail reading.
He was so good at it, he identified a person I had given the Rorschach to who was half way through a sexual reassignment surgery. It was fracking scarry what he could do with one.
I use them and find them very helpful in times when the person I am testing might not be motivated to be totally honest. It is very difficult to fake without being supplied "safe" answers. It is a great test for psychosis, and I find it really helps with ADHD.
The objective tests we all use have built in validity and reliability measures that can show how someone might be skewing their answers, sometimes the Rorschach can suggest what they might be hiding.
I tested a guy two weeks ago for a custody situation. His Personality Assessment Inventory looked OK, not great, but not horrible, and his Rorschach looked nuts. Later in the interview, he revealed his divinity to me spoke about his mission on earth extensively. The poor man thought he was Jesus.
That was not evident from the PAI, but the Rorschach told me to investigate for possible delusions. So I was glad I had it.
It can also be very helpful with children. If all the blots look like monsters that are trying to touch them, that is a clue. Most health kids have healthy ink blots.
Artist's can have crazy looking Rorschach results when they are not at all crazy. The perceptual loading of the test is so high, people who perceive the world in an idiosyncratic manner can give a VERY strange Rorschach. So I find it a useful test, but only when used in the context of a complete assessment, not by itself.
Oh, and I printed out the safe answers from the website, so if people gave those, we could discuss that. It never happened though.
But all life is subject to projection, even blog posts!
Trey
Here are a some quotes to articles that are highly skeptical of the validity and reliability of the Rorschach test (it's deemed a "pseudoscience"):
Scott O. Lilienfeld, James M- Wood and Howard N. Garb: What's wrong with this picture? Scientific American, May 2001
Pieter J.D., Drenth (2003), "Growing Anti-intellectualism in Europe: A Menace to Science" Annual Report 2003, ALLEA (All European Academies), PDF
-----------------
I've seen quite a few other objective tests and articles - but I'm not going to bother finding them because they will just get glossed over.
It's astounding to me that many psychologists use tools without being sure that they work AT ALL. It's almost like little kids playing - they don't care either that their sword and shield aren't real.
Good one Larry! There is a joke, not a very good one, about a psychiatrist giving the Rorschach to a patient.
For each blot, the patient would blush, demure, then finally whisper his response; "They are doing it."
The wise psychiatrist folded the cards and pronounced his findings: "I have discovered the problem. You are sexually obsessed."
To which the patient replied: "ME sexually obsessed, you are the one with the dirty pictures!"
(insert rim shot here.)
Trey
Dadvocate and others,
I was trained in two different types of scoring systems for the Rorschach. The Exner system, which Trey pointed out above-- is one that has fairly good reliability and validity. It is a complicated system involving months or years of training. It does not compare to "reading tealeaves etc." and one cannot always get information from talking with clients, especially those who are suicidal or severely depressed.
This test, along with others have helped many clinicians gain an understanding of the personality and cognitive style of a person that can lead to a better individualized treatment program. I couldn't find the reference online but I recall an article about the Rorschach being as valid and reliable as an MRI. If I find the article, I will post on it. Other people--even psychologists, may disagree that the Rorschach is reliable or valid but to throw out what has been one of the best instruments I have seen used in my career strikes me as throwing the baby out with the bath water.
"I know this sounds like I'm a dolt, but what is someone supposed to see in a Rorschach test?"
The right answer is"I don't know, I am not a member of the Cabal, but as near as I can tell from what the inner circle folks have said to me, plus stories, jokes and what not about them, plus the strict adherence to bilateral symmetry, you are supposed to see (if you are a normally twisted male) women in the gynecology textbook poses favored (apparently).
It appears to me that the human brain is wired to eliminate "noise" from noisy signals and prsent the underlying intelligence.
That is why you "hear" voices or music in a babbling (pun intended) brook, or an air-conditioning system airflow.
And why you "see" animales and people in the patterns in the texture of a carpet, in clouds, in random splotches of paint, or in a carefully crafted bilateral pattern--the latter especially because you are told there is a signal in them.
If you really want to see how twisted this process can become, spend some time browsing the "global warming" pages.
Helen, what was the other system you were trained in? My friend Les worked for Beck. He was Beck's graduate assistant. And Les was uncanny with one.
Trey
Hi Trey,
I never learned the Beck method. The first scoring system I learned was Bruno Klopfer's which was an old one that my mentor taught and that I learned while at the New School for Social Research. I took Exner later on but it was very helpful to know Klopfer's scoring system first as Exner built on it. I spent my early career in NYC in one class scoring and learning about the Rorschachs of Nazi war criminals such as Rudolf Hess. The most interesting thing about their results were that they were so unremarkable. Most were not particularly intelligent though most notable was that they had little or no empathy for others.
For those interested, more on Klopfer here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruno_Klopfer
Cool. Wow, Nazi war criminal Rorschachs would be very interesting to look at! The empathy score makes sense. But wow!
Trey
I think it's a bunch of silliness. Just Google "Rorschach" - there's even a YouTube video of it.
They can always make some more ink blots...how difficult could it be?
"They can always make some more ink blots...how difficult could it be?"
I think the problem is that depending on the exact belief-system in question there are collections of if a WHF says "X" it means "Y", while a BGM saying "X" means "Z".
Since the tenets are all peer-reviewed and everything, a new image would not yield any answers.
the bilateral symmetry lends an anthropomorphic value to the images which may trigger recognition of events or people in some people viewing the inkblots.
cold reading is the skill in obtaining personal information from a subject without the subject being consciously aware of thier responses.
i would suggest that the rorshach interview would provide opportunity for unconscious, as well as, conscious signalling from the client.
like tea-leaf reading or tarot.
i do realy well with hand-writing analysis, and i have helped several clients with the evaluation of potential employees, and in one case a criminal investigation that led to physical evidence and a prosecution.
Larry, that is indeed the point. The Rorschach images have been normed, the typical responses to them individually and as a set have extensive statistics about them. New inkblots would be new and would have to be renormed. That process would be expensive and difficult and slow.
And Mia, you are correct, it is easy to make inkblots. The backstory on the Rorschach is that looking at inkblots and saying what you saw was a parlor game! Herman Rorschach loved the game and started doing it with mental patients meerely as a way of giving them something to do. Over time, he noticed that people with different psychiatric problems reacted differently and gave different answers to the blots.
But these particular blots are copyrighted and clinical tools. The people who use them destroy their blots and order new ones when the old ones fade or get dirty. Because after they fade or get dirty, they are not the same blots.
Trey
and i saw two clowns high-fiving in one blot.
am i disturbed?
Not sure about the clowns but your other posts sugest so... (-:
Knowing more about string theory than Rorschach tests (or whatever) I googled it. I found a couple web sites to take a Rorschach test, and of course, got reeled in hook, line and sinker. What a hoot!
I still have no idea what one is "supposed" to see.
I see monks, but then I AM disturbed.
Trey
and i saw two clowns high-fiving in one blot. am i disturbed?
Yep. Clowns are evil.
Rorschach tests have no known scientific or medical validity.
"Rorschach tests have no known scientific or medical validity."
-----------
That's been mentioned above - and it's a definite possibility - but it's almost hilarious how the intense psychologists here, like TMink and Helen, just refuse to acknowledge anyone saying that and continue on with their self-important discussions about the Exner method or the this-or-that method.
You couldn't make this stuff up. I never had any respect for TMink, but frankly I thought Helen had a little bit more in her noggin'. She's showing that same high-arrogance / low usefulness (or even cluelessness) trait that so many other psychologists have.
My Rorschach tests all strongly indicate that I am skeptical of Rorschach tests.
This comment has been removed by the author.
"... just refuse to acknowledge anyone saying that and continue on with their self-important discussions ..."
------------------------
You see exactly the same type of behavior on astrology boards on the Internet, and a good analogy can be drawn to that.
There are incredibly complicated methods of working out horoscopes. The followers of astrology are very deep into their discussions of the particular methods to use in given situations. They all have a high number of success stories in which their astrological projections were exactly right on the money.
They will simply refuse to acknowledge anyone who asks whether astrology is objectively valid. That person simply doesn't exist.
I forgot to mention both Rorschach test sites I visited were humor sites, but that little "secret" wasn't given away. It made it all that much more funny when the "results" were tabulated. OK, I'm naive. Next thing you know, I'll believe Huffington Post.
The real black magic and thin air conclusions are practiced by economists. I did at one time consider becoming a meteorologist, however. I know of no other occupation where one can be as consistently wrong as that, and still have a job the next day.
I have to ask, as JG and MB seem to travel together like Frick and Frack, do you two share the same brain, or just the same computer?
I asked my husband and he said the Rorschach test isn't reliable.
So I don't know why people are using it.
The reliability and validity of the Rorschach are math problems. If you google "rorschach reliability" you can find several technical, statistical articles giving the pro or con, mostly pro regarding the math.
Or you can go to Newsweek to read about how the inkblot test is trash.
Science, or weekly magazine, you decide.
MB decided in the way we would all expect. And thank goodness MB has no respect for me, I would be deeply offended and shaken if MB did.
I do enjoy MB foaming while writing nothing but insults and projecting his own emotional damage on people who carry on a reasoned conversation.
I think some heavy meds might help MB. Maybe.
Meanwhile, those of us who can think and reason will carry on.
Trey
There have been innumerable examples of people getting killed because of over-confident psychologists with their techniques and people in the general public who just uncritically believe them.
I'm not exaggerating.
The two shooters / killers in the Washington DC area a few years ago (a man and a boy if you remember) were not caught sooner - they were actually stopped once and not checked out further - because an FBI profiler ASSURED the police that it would be a white man.
Aldrich Ames was suspected of turning information over to the Russians for years but was not checked out further because he PASSED two separate lie detector tests. His actions resulted in American CIA agents being executed as spies and hundreds of CIA plans being exposed.
A cab driver was suspected in the Green River Killings. He flunked a lie detector test. Gary Ridgeway (who later turned out to be the killer) passed a lie detector test.
Those are examples off the top of my head in just a few minutes. There are many other examples involving almost the whole gamut of psychological tests. Psychologists are also unusually resistant to objective studies, and they are even unusually resistant to an objective / scientific way of thinking.
That's really how it is.
I have also seen studies - maybe someone else here has the motivation to look them up / or they remember them (you will just be ignored, though) - that psychologists were LESS able to predict behavior of a certain subject than random people off the street.
I'm not kidding.
But psychologists just don't care. They will continue to stroke their goatee, make Hmm-hmmm sounds and play the game with stupid people who believe them.
Just for fun, here is a little science.
http://www.division42.org/MembersArea/IPfiles/Spring05/features/rorschach.php
http://www.personality.org/SPA%20(2005,%20JPA)%20Status%20of%20the%20Rorschach1.pdf
Most salient sentences: "Furthermore, an important empirical review served to place psychological assessment
validity in context relative to other measures used throughout
the health sciences.9 That article presented the findings of
over 125 meta-analysis and 800 multimethod assessment
studies. The authors’ most general conclusion was that psychological
assessment instruments perform as effectively as
measures in a variety of other health services areas, such as
electrocardiograms, mammography, magnetic resonance imaging
(MRI), dental radiographs, Papanicolaou (Pap)
smears, positron emission tomography (PET) scans, and serum
cholesterol level testing.10"
I was going to find some scholarly articles that offer more critique of Rorschach validity and reliability, but I have to get back to work. The first two pages of scientific articles were are positive. I am sure I can find some negative ones, so I will post those later.
Suffice it to say that one of the largest concerns with the Rorschach is that it be scored accurately. This is no small feat, as the system is frankly a bit difficult. To remedy the inter-scorer reliability and validity, training programs have been developed. The professor who taught me the Rorschach was a co-author of one of the study guides, so I am lucky that way.
Trey - who hopes he was not too emotional in this post for the fragile MB
Oh, sorry JG, while I was quoting all the objective data I forgot to stroke my goatee and go hmmmmmmm.
There, fixed it for you.
Trey
When taking a Rorschach test, a patient sees a naked woman and the psychologist smiles but when a patient sees a penis the psychologist freaks out.
Whoops! Commented on wrong post.
This response thread has devolved into a judgement session on the infernal inkblots. To return to Dr. Helen's question:
The doctor posted material online that was protected by copyright. The Rorschach inkblots were not his intellectual property to post online. He is in violation of copyright law and the rights of the copyright holder to the inkblots. He should face a criminal penalty per copyright law and a civil suit for damages from the copyright holder.
What this doctor did is the same as if I took a recent bestselling book and scanned and posted the pages online. I would be in violation of copyright law in the same way.
In the 1980s William Poundstone published (apparently with permission) modified forms of the Rorschach inkblots in one of his books (it was either Big Secrets or Bigger Secrets). He made it clear that copyright restrictions prohibited him from publishing the inkblots as they actually appear on the cards.
We have become all too accustomed to the wholesale violations of intellectual property rights that occur constantly on the internet. It must stop or eventually someone is going to stop it for us. The latter will be accompanied by harsh restrictions on everyone above and beyond copyright concerns. Discretion and respect for others' rights today will prevent a lot of grief to come.
I'm having a tough time imagining Dr. Helen with a goatee. ;-)
Anyway...if there is a strong statistical correlation between Rorschach results and certain psychological disorders/profiles, and if these correlations are backed up by repeated experimentation and analysis over many years of use...then the test is no less valid than any other scientific technique, no matter what certain naysayers may think. We've had the Rorschach around for quite some time now, so there's been plenty of time to invalidate it if it was an ineffective test.
Any technique is subject to abuse. That's why, as both Dr. Helen and Trey have pointed out, the tests are not given in isolation but are part of an overall psychological evaluation.
I think some people are just offended at the idea that so much personal information can be deduced from such a (seemingly) simple test. Perhaps it seems demeaning to them.
One more thing: I'm pretty sure that the polygraph test would NOT be considered any sort of psychological evaluation. It's designed to test a very specific phenomenon, i.e. physiological responses that commonly occur when people provide false or misleading information under questioning. It can't determine whether or not a person is experiencing paranoid schizophrenia, or depression, or delusions of divinity, and therefore it's not really germaine to this discussion.
Couldn't agree with you more, K-man. Absolutely, this is a copyright issue and a very clear case of infringement.
But evidently that's not half as much fun as trashing psychology.
:-)
Sloan, interesting point about the polygraph. It also does not work on people who do not have a conscience or a viable attachment process.
There is a special type of polygraph that measures blood flow to the penis which has been used to measure arousal in Psychosexual evaluations. It is of course very controversial.
Trey
Agree with K-Man, it's basically just a copyright issue. Highly dubious that anyone will read, memorize and then use the information.
The tests are one of those things designed/evolved to lend authority. Otherwise it would boil down to calling it what it really is, a judgment call by someone who spends a lot of time talking with people and getting a feel for them. There's a good use for that, but one should never lose sight of the artistic element.
Shrink: Tell me what you see on this paper.
Patient: A sloppy application of Faber Castell/Sanford Higgins on twenty pound eighty.
"I'm having a tough time imagining Dr. Helen with a goatee. ;-)"
Picture does not suggest she has had nearly enough face-lifts for that.
[What is the html for a rimshot?]
Trey --
All measurements of physical reactions are dubious because no response is 100% beyond mental influence. I learned to dilate and constrict my irises simply by sitting in front of a mirror and practicing. Like wiggling your ears. Can't do it until you try.
"... if there is a strong statistical correlation between Rorschach results and certain psychological disorders/profiles, and if these correlations are backed up by repeated experimentation and analysis over many years of use...then the test is no less valid than any other scientific technique ..."
-------------------
I agree, Sloan, but only because you are saying "if the test is valid, it is valid" in a slightly more long-winded way (by writing out a definition of validity in the first part).
DOES the test correlate highly with certain traits, reliably and permanently? That's kind of the actual question.
Your comment about the Rorschach being around for some time - so there has been plenty of time to check it for validity - also applies to astrology and many other techniques that are still in full use today.
Your further comment about how gleaning so much information from a test may strike some as demeaning - and your assumption that it is the "real" reason for the criticism offered here - is just silly. My criticism really isn't about psychologists having too much REAL information, not at all.
Here is a paper that is quite critical of the Rorschach.
http://www.division42.org/MembersArea/IPfiles/Spring06/practitioner/rorschach.php
The main area of critique as I scan the article focuses on criticism of the norms used and the paucity of research data about many of the scores used in the larger scored criteria. The paper supports JG's position that the people who support the Rorschach do so uncritically and without sufficient empirical validity.
Oops, my patient is here. I will look for another critical article that we can all read later.
Trey
Trey --
Thanks for link. Hefty. Also pretty heavy shot to the ol' CS.
Oh well. If that Rorschach thing doesn't work out exactly as intended, there's always the good old Tarot cards to fall back on.
I always assumed the Rorschach were a foil to simply get patients to open up. The idea that there are "right" answers is so hilariously and obviously stupid, I'm amazed anyone would actually believe that.
Now phrenology; there's a science you can take to the bank!
HTML for rimshot:
http://instantrimshot.com/
Joe, when you give it to a 6 year old boy as part of testing and he hides behind the chair when he sees one of the cards and says "He is coming to get me," that is an answer that tells you something.
When an adult says that one of the cards is disgusting and does not want to answer what it looks like to her, and will only touch the card with her elbow, that tells you something.
When a kid sees mostly animals and the animals are statistically normative, that tells you something.
Arthur C. Clarke said that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Reading some of the posts here, perhaps he meant voodoo instead of magic.
Trey
trey, dude.....they don`t want to know. for some reason the whole thing makes them uneasy.
to some the psychologist has x-ray glasses.
"to some the psychologist has x-ray glasses."
-------------
And to others, the psychologist has coke-bottle glasses with an eye patch.
And buck teeth and a goofy grin.
Figuratively speaking, of course.
What's with this accusation that people who question the effectiveness of the Rorschach test do it out of fear that the psychologist is really kind of like Santa Clause (he knows way too much about you). I honestly don't feel that at all.
Strange.
JG, I completely believe that you do not. Your concern, as I read it, is that people in my profession think they know things that they do not. That is a problem in my profession, I see it as reality based.
But there are two common reactions when I tell someone what I do for work. Some people get nervous and make a joke, then avoid me, the other people's eyes light up and they start to tell me about their problems. I do not like it when people avoid me, but I really do not like it when people tell me their problems when I am off duty.
The third group of people pay it no mind, understanding that a job is a job.
But some people have actually said that they do not want to take the Rorschach because I would know too much about them. Honestly, a Personality Assessment Inventory would tell me more. But the best source of information is an honest person telling you straight up.
Trey
What's your diagnosis, TMink, of a person who is heavy on "affectations", who is a bit of a name-dropper at times, who is extremely quick to tell others how swell he is and who makes assumptions about himself regarding ability that may be overblown?
Or would you have to do a Personality Assessment Inventory first?
There are a couple of things that bother me about this and other "tests".
One is I know they can be manipulated. I have several examples of successful manipulation, but a quick example--I can make a Kuder Preference Record predict anything I want it to predict. (And not lie in the process.)
The result of a psychologist's "testing" can cause me to lose my children, indeed, my freedom. And there is no meaningful appeal path.
"The result of a psychologist's "testing" can cause me to lose my children, indeed, my freedom."
-------------
Right, but that's more of a class / money problem: As a "forensic psychologist", I'm sure that Dr. Helen has seen a situation in a courtroom - maybe more than once - in which an evaluating psychologist for one party claims one thing and an evaluating psychologist for the other party claims the opposite.
You just have to buy your psychologist.
For poorer people, the problem is the bias of the psychologist or social worker. A social worker who hates men (probably a good chunk of them) is not going to go out of her way to give a man the benefit of the doubt.
And the last point: It's a bit depressing when I see lots of psychologists who DON'T CARE if their tests are "real" or not. They just learned how to do them - and many are not the brightest bulbs - so they just continue to use them. They are not scientists, they don't care what is real or not. Disgusting, actually.
Psychologists and social workers are also rarely held responsible when they are wrong.
I HAVE seen a few cases recently in which social workers were criminally charged for f#$king up, but they are few and far between. They usually have free run for exercising their biases and all of the feminist and politically correct crap they learned in college.
By the way - back to the original subject - was it really so hard to get information on Rorschach tests before someone posted them on Wikipedia? I mean you couldn't just buy a book somewhere on them, like in a college textbook store?
I'm not being sarcastic, I'm really asking. That doesn't sound like information that would be under a strict lock and key anyway. I doubt that psychologists learned about it in some procedure reminiscent of a fraternity initiation.
Without additional comment:
http://holycoast.blogspot.com/2009/08/political-cartoon-of-day_25.html
I agree, Sloan, but only because you are saying "if the test is valid, it is valid" in a slightly more long-winded way (by writing out a definition of validity in the first part).
Well, sometimes definitions are helpful. Let's be clear about what we're discussing.
DOES the test correlate highly with certain traits, reliably and permanently? That's kind of the actual question.
I was under the impression that Trey and Dr. Helen thought that it did, as did the majority of the professional mental health community. They seem to think it's useful (Dr. Helen? Trey? Am I wrong about that?). I am, however, open to any data that may contradict that position. I hold no brief for the Rorschach test.
Your comment about the Rorschach being around for some time - so there has been plenty of time to check it for validity - also applies to astrology and many other techniques that are still in full use today.
Yes, there's been plenty of time to evaluate the claims of astrology, phrenology, chiromancy, alchemy, etc. I'm not aware that any of them has survived scrutiny under the scientific method. Dr. Helen's and Trey's descriptions of the methods used to validate the Rorschach test sounded a bit more rigorous than those used to create the Philosopher's Stone.
Your further comment about how gleaning so much information from a test may strike some as demeaning - and your assumption that it is the "real" reason for the criticism offered here - is just silly. My criticism really isn't about psychologists having too much REAL information, not at all.
I offer my apologies to you and anyone else who might have taken offense. The remark was over-the-top and not really called for.
Actually, I think I do believe that Rorschach is like Tarot cards. Although, I am wondering why we think that tarot cards are bullshit. I mean, do you really believe that they are magic? I don't. Then, their massive widespread success at huckstering millions of suckers can only be attributable to one thing: the skilled tarot reader's ability to use it to profile people with. Rorschach would be bullshit if it was supposed to tell us something about divine plans for the cosmos. But, it isn't. It is just supposed to be a means for a psychologist to evaluate someone's personality with.
That said, I don't think that mere random statistical correlation gives it validity the way everyone keeps saying. I strongly disagree with that sort of "empirical" method. It's not empirical just because it is "based on data". So, saying that, in skilled hands, it is a useful tool is one thing, but to say it is empirical and valid would mean that anyone can carefully reproduce a formal Rorschach test and be as uncanny as the uncanniest of practitioners. That is not the case and where it goes from being science to part of the practice of psychology. I bet tarot cards could be, too, and in a totally legitimate way -- maybe the numbers haven't been crunched on it, but I am sure they are there. There is no way it would work so well over centuries and not be. In fact, just compare what you guys are saying to what tarot card readers say. You say you need to get a good/skilled reader for it to work. So do the tarot card readers. (Of course, they also say their's is magic....)
And clowns?? Feh. They were clearly all made with radiological scans of a woman's uterus.
"They seem to think it's useful (Dr. Helen? Trey? Am I wrong about that?)."
-------
To put it, like, really really politely, if you think that Helen and Trey's OPINION of the Rorschach test constitutes an adequate verification of reality, you have a really problematic view of the scientific method.
They both seem to be puffy talkers. That's not all bad, but it starts getting a little bit bad when you need someone who is really interested if something is TRUE or not, but you don't need a puffy talker (whether Dr. [First Name of Puffy Talker, as is the current trend] or not).
They DON'T CARE if it's true or not, although they will probably never admit it.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Frankly, I don't care about TMink's wrath (he's actually funny when he's trying to cut someone down), I care more about staying off of his "good side" because of the slimy, leg-humping attempts at phony compliments that follow. Not that I'll ever recognize his cheesy manipulation, of course, being his inferior.
So, then my question is what do we think "psychology" is? Just a science? I've always thought of it more like I think of medicine. The science behind the practice of medicine is biology. If you want to be a scientist then you get your PhD in biology not go to medical school to become a physician. I suppose with psychology, they are both lumped into one field. But, clearly there is always a distinction between science and practice, and it seems to me to be pretty clear that what both Helen and Trey describe is a practice.
If the complaint is that the practice is not, itself, science, then I don't see how that is a valid complaint. Maybe the complaint is just the people like Helen confuse the two, calling it scientific a whole bunch and then eventually calling it "a science". Or, perhaps referring to it as "the science of the Rorschach test." Yes, it is really a scientific practice -- a practice based in science. And, practioners of the softer sciences are wont to make such mistakes. Or, is the complaint that there is nothing scientific about it whatsoever?
We can say it is like fortune telling and it probably is, I think. But, unless we think that tarot cards really are magic, there has to be a rational explanation for how fortune tellers can be "right" so often. The difference between a huckster and an "honest fortune teller" is that the "honest fortune teller" tells you how they really did it. It seems to me that the psychologists are the "honest" ones. Or, another example might be magicians. Would we say there is no science or engineering behind it? Then, it really is magic?
JG, I would say that you have a bug up your ass about me. I find it amusing. It especially makes you upset when I take what you say seriously and respond to it. That makes it almost impossible to refrain from doing. 8)
Trey
"Not that I'll ever recognize his cheesy manipulation, of course, being his inferior."
Realizing your limitations is the first step toward wisdom.
Well done.
Oh and Tether, the peer reviewed articles I linked would tell anyone who was interested in reading about the scientific data pro and con concerning the Rorschach a great start. Nothing puffy there.
You obviously read them. I mean, you would not ignore scientific materials would you? What are your thoughts?
Other people here are interested in the thoughts of people who use the test and have been trained in them. Are you jealous?
Trey
Adrian wrote: "But, clearly there is always a distinction between science and practice, and it seems to me to be pretty clear that what both Helen and Trey describe is a practice."
Well said. Researchers are not clinicians typically. Good clinicians utilize research to inform their practice. There are even two different degrees in Clinical Psychology. The Ph.D. is more research oriented while the Psy.D. is a more applied degree. You can also get an Ed.D., but that typically focuses more on educational psychology.
Trey
Not to drive you over the edge JG, but your points about some psychologists being whores of the court is valid. I am testifying in November about the things a 4 year old girl told me about being sexually abused by her father. The father has a psychologist who is going to testify that the testing shows that he could not have abused anyone. I am not at all familiar with any tests or assessment process which can state anything to that degree of accuracy, so I am interested in what the other guy is going to say to try to justify that.
The case will likely come down to the guy's hard drive which is in FBI custody now. But opinion for hire psychologists are a real problem for fathers especially. I am pretty sure that Dr. Helen has commented on that previously here.
I will also testify in an alienation of affection lawsuit in which the mom brazenly coached and bribed her son to make a false report. When I confronted the mom about that, she took the child to another psychologist and made the same false accusations. She has made 16 reports to DCS since the divorce, all unfounded. Luckily, the second psychologist is a friend of mine who got my notes and sees what is going on. That kid will likely be safe, and the mom may face charges. But not all cases turn out that way.
Trey
Pretty much any kind of tool/technology/test is only as good as the scientist or practitioner, when it comes down to it. Even technologies that are considered more advanced and scientific are vulnerable to human bias. For example, with fMRI, there are plenty of badly designed studies where the stimuli have poor validity and the scientists are interpreting the brain activation patterns based more on what they want to see rather than what the study design and patterns actually suggest; the good scientists will know the limits of the fMRI, will be more cautious with their interpretations and thoughtful in their study design. They'll know that to understand any given cognitive function or broader mental activity/disorder fMRI is one methodological approach that needs to be complemented with others to provide a (hopefully) more complete picture.
Part of good scientific research or good clinical practice involves acknowledging and doing what we can to deal with the subjectivity and biases that we naturally introduce into it as flawed and biased human beings.
I also liked the comments on what the nature of the "magic" is. The best scientists and researchers often rely on intuition, more subjective interpretative skills, past experience and creativity - qualities that are intangible and difficult to measure but are just as crucial for scientific advances as the more rigorous and methodical testing. And if you can't interpret your results or if you design a faulty study... it doesn't matter what methodological or analytical tools you use; the results will be worthless and misleading.
As for the Rorschach itself, it's not meant to be the sort of test where you can just say "Aha! This response must mean that the client has this sort of disorder. Case closed", as if there's an answer key with perfect one-to-one correspondence. The better clinicians will use it as one of many approaches, and the responses might signal things that need to be looked into further as part of a broader battery of assessments and face to face discussions. Because of the nature of the test, those clinicians who acknowledge its limitations, have more experience, and are more capable of stepping back and seeing the bigger picture will probably find it to be more useful.
Years ago, I bought a set of the inkblots and an interpretation manual to them at a flea market. I framed the inkblots and hung them on my wall. At parties, we'd jokingly try to interpret what people's answers meant. I think it meant we were geeks and drank too much.
it`s plain to see without the use of inkblots the pathology of some.
(little man goes inside and shows himself pictures and talks to himself awhile.......)
Lol! Anyone who discredits the false pseudo-science/religion of psychology ought to recieve all the accolades and subsequent honours society can afford him.
Psychology is the intellectual equivalent of Aristotle's "bleeding of the humours," and has done about as much damage.
Well done, Dr. Heilman. Makes me proud to be a Canuck.
Btw, if psychologists are "bound by ethics to protect test security" than, by extension of logic, the testimony of a psychologist ought to be inadmissable in a court of law.
Being called as an "expert" also has the criteria that their "expert opinion" has scientific basis which can back it up. For example - I can accept a doctor (and by doctor, I mean a real one - with an MD) taking to the witness stand and testifying that about bruises or lacerations found on a victim, and the force needed to inflict such wounds etc. etc., because the scientific basis for his conclusions will be readily available by provable scientific data and so on.
A doctor who gets on the stand, however, and says "it just IS because I have an MD, and therefore, I have the secrets, and no, I don't have to share" out to get a one way ticket out the door by the seat of his pants... just like 99.9% of psychologists.
"One waits in vain for psychologists to state the limits of their knowledge." -- Noam Chomsky. (A stopped clock is right twice a day - Rob).
Psychologists and their cohorts, sociologists and therapists, have done a lot of damage to society, and I hope to live long enough to see them be forced to answer for their con-game to the angry mob.
The idea that the contents of a test that several million psychologists make use of are going to remain secret is laughable. If the secrecy is essential to the test's accuracy that alone should disqualify it from being used as evidence in any sort of legal proceeding. Otherwise you're going to have far too many cases of people gaming the test, and you'd be better off without it even if it works well under less adversarial conditions.
"... the testimony of a psychologist ought to be inadmissable in a court of law."
---------------
Unfortunately, there IS an element of that when someone testifies as an expert in court: They simply state their opinion and are sometimes really weak on the details (because they are the "expert"). I share the same skepticism of psychologists, Rob, but the rest of society doesn't seem to.
And I'm even talking about "real" psychologists.
I think exploitive, using people like "Dr. Phil" (who is interested in getting money, not in helping anyone) are absolute scum. Stupid people believe in him. I hope a bad case of boomerang karma snaps back on him a little harder than he calculated.
"One waits in vain for psychologists to state the limits of their knowledge."
-----------------
Huh. Or ... as has been stated here a number of times ... their arrogance to usefulness ratio is much higher than any other profession or field of endeavor.
Yeah. Sort of like yours, JG.
I'd say a psychologist figured you ass out a long time ago, and you're still pissed about it.
It ain't hard to do, you know. You won't shut up.
Has it been three months again already?
This comment has been removed by the author.
??
I never thought you were a sock-puppet, br549. But now I'm wondering.
What's your real beef? That I wonder about the effectiveness of psychologists? That seems to really affect you, as a non-psychologist. LOL
I am critical of lots of the stuff that psychologists do. I'm sincere about it. I'm trying to express why I have that belief (I'm not just saying "Yur Stoopid" or something).
This comment has been removed by the author.
High arrogance and low usefulness.
Useful would be if they talk to you like an adult and say that cognitive behavioral methods and other effective methods are available to counteract anxiety (as an example).
Not useful is if they are into their own little game-playing world of thinking they are the "doctor" who only gives tests and evaluates but never seems to help or, actually, know what the fuck she is talking about.
And the latter description is of most psychologists, including, I'm afraid, arrogant people who use the Rorschach test and then simply ignore and dismiss anyone who has real objective doubts about it.
Has it ever occurred to you that you appear to surround yourself with......aaaa, never mind.
"Useful would be if they talk to you like an adult and say that cognitive behavioral methods and other effective methods are available to counteract anxiety (as an example)."
Over the years more and more psychologists have been trained in cognitive behavioral therapy; generally there seem to be more psychologists who are trained in multiple forms of therapy, because not every therapy works for everyone; you need sensitivity to the individual differences among clients, to better tailor treatment to them - specific therapeutic methods, drugs or both. But like with any practice, you're going to find incompetent therapists in the cognitive behavioral field too, who screw up what could be a pretty effective method (though again, effectiveness varies by individual and condition).
It also amazes me that in the example you gave panic attacks were not diagnosed by anyone in a long string of doctors and psychologists - that doesn't suggest only incompetence, it's like they're from a different planet. Panic attacks are not rare at all, and you also mention that the person this happened to is a woman - from what I've read clinicians tend to pick up on signs of anxiety/panic more readily in women, and I think that epidemiology studies show higher reported rates of this among women (also if I remember correctly, Dr. Helen's heart problems were initially misdiagnosed as panic/anxiety-related problems because the doctors assumed that for a woman at her age and physical condition chest pains and difficulty breathing just had to be panic/anxiety).
As for Rorschach test, healthy skepticism is necessary, though again a good clinician wouldn't use it in isolation as a be-all-end-all sort of test with "right answers" that tell you everything about someone.
Lol, BR549,
Normally I actually pause to read your comments... but, I ALWAYS read JG's comments... unlike many others that post here.
But, Br549, You are being an obtuse tool.
In other words, why don't you STFU or post something of real value for me to read. Aside from your retarded unbalanced opinions… that are based upon, solely our retarded unbalanced opinions.
Jerkoff.
Or should I say, “Sock Puppet”?
Disgraceful.
At least Trey has a professional reason to talk like a doofus.
His livlihood depends upon it.
What's your sorry excuse?
And, by the way, Trey, while I understand that you think what you are doing is noble... I think you are only slightly above a criminal.
You have NO RIGHT to use your filthy profession to intervene into people's personal lives via government intervention.
Shame on you, as a Christian.
There have always been people willing to step in... yet, people in your profession support totalitarianism.
And, quite frankly, better that some of the herd get left behind, than to have jack ass psychologists use their superiority to "WEAKEN THE WHOLE HERD!"
People like you diminish ALL parents rights to protect the few, meaning that EVERYONE suffers more, because of bleating fucking sheep like you.
Your profession is disgusting, and a blight upon the west.
God, do I despise court interventionsist like you.
What ever happened to Charles Engles, the good neighbour, slapping an abusive neighbour up the side of the side, that a fancy shmancy psychologist has improved upone?
Yeah, you all sure have lowered the social ills of society with your rise to legal power.
The psychology profession is a sickness within itself that should be purged from society.
Trey, seriously, do you not even realize the PC puke you have written here?
Yuck.
Be a real Christian, quit that abusive job you are enthralled with, and start pumping gas or something useful to society.
What you are doing is disgraceful, and I have lost all respect for you.
Puke.
Not only that, Trey, but you are referrencing specific cases here on this public blog.
If someone found out your real name, could you not be sued into the stone age for talking like that?
Well, I hope so.
Family wreckers shouldn't get profits.
And they certainly shouldn't be bragging about it online.
Again, Puke.
"If someone found out your real name, could you not be sued into the stone age for talking like that?"
----------
Sometimes cases have been identified in the Internet after some blabbermouth psychologist talks about them.
TMink's need for adulation is apparently greater than his worries about compromising clients. Or, maybe he just doesn't realize what he's doing.
First, I disagree with the idea that the psychology profession is "disgusting," and "a blight upon the west."
I think there are a lot of unrelated issues here. Copyright issues aside, publishing the images is protected by the First Amendment in the same way that publishing the Pentagon Papers (or even the Muhammad cartoons) was. That it might cause damage or that it might violate professional ethics is a different issue.
But suppose some angry dissenting psychologist (and I am sure there are some) believed the test was fraudulent, judgmental, encouraged totalitarian tendencies, etc. and he was willing to be drummed out of his profession for attacking it publicly. His publication of the images for the purpose of his criticism might be considered fair use even against a copyright infringement claim.
When I read this post, I went to the wiki page and looked at the images. I saw various animals and fantastic humanoid creatures and probably would see more the more I looked at them because they stimulate the imagination. What I don't understand is how that would corrupt my ability to take the test. If I am honest I will see what I see, and if I am seeing a psychologist of my own free will I am there for an honest interpretation. (And if not, if I were forced to be there against my will, why would I be honest?) So I think that how much damage this does is at least open to question.
BTW, I have a bit of a longstanding grudge against the profession's attitude towards sanctity in testing, because when I took psychology in college I had to spend considerable time taking a detailed psychological inventory and then grading it with by putting these opaque scoring sheets over my answers, only to be told that the test indicated that I was being deceptive, which I was not, as I had answered all the questions as honestly as I could. The problem was that some of the key honesty questions consisted of "contradictory" statements such as
Are you masculine?
and
Are you feminine?
I answered TRUE to both, and the test's grading system ranked me as dishonest! Yet I could have written a ten page essay explaining why I sincerely believed that both statements are true. There were others, and I wanted to know how the test worked, so I asked more questions, asked if I could examine the scoring sheets themselves along with the test.
They told me that this was "restricted to graduate students," and I was so furious that I dropped the course.
If only someone should have told me then that the profession was a disgusting blight on the west!
I was an angry young Marxist at the time, and I might have reconsidered.
:)
eric, i wiki`d the tests also and saw much the same. fantastic animals, mirror-imaged bears, crabs and other insects, and clowns.
i also see faces in clouds and on the side of hills and in trees.
apparently the brain`s archetecture is built to do precisely that...although, the bit about clowns i`m not so sure about.
regarding saying you were both masculine and feminine on a test designed by black-and-white scientist types would suggest, to them, that you were being desceptive.
someone above said that to state one`s case as an expert, on must have scientific knowledge to back it up.
wrong.
i am an expert soccer player, and expert guitarist and an expert therapist, recieving payment for all three endevours...however, not being a scientist, by the metrics above i have no position to teach or practice.
i think the person making the statement needs to think before they type.
as an experet hypnotherapist i gave evidence in a case regarding an auto accident.
i was able to retrieve a licence plate of a car that caused the accident and exhonorated my client (a professional bus driver) who was being blamed for the accident by the new york state police.
they had no evidence that another car was involved in the crash and even though my client claimed another car was involved, he couldn`t prove it until we worked to get the plate and found the other car with damage and paint from the three other vehicles involved.
i have absolutely no clue as to how hypnosis works, and niether do scientists. some scientists say it doesn`t work and some say that it can be dangerous, while more and more medical doctors are using hypnosis in thier practice as it is effective in many areas of treatment.
for the people who i`ve helped to stop smoking , lose weight, over come fears, stop drinking and taking drugs.....they don`t care.
not one of them asked whether my doctorate was medical or whether i has scientific proof for the effectiveness of my work.
the majority of my clients are now refferals from other satisfied clients.
and they just lead better lives because we did some work together.
science is not the eye of the needle through which we must all pass before we can do things in this world.
only the bureaucrats and thier lackeys would have us believe that to be true.
"not one of them asked whether my doctorate was medical ..."
---------
On your Web site, it said you are "working towards a doctorate" and you also seemed to indicate in other threads that you don't really have a doctorate ... in anything.
You are simply full of tall tales.
tether? there you are....i was wondering where you`d got to.
in discussions about my practice with clients, the subject of my interests and study comes up, and i always state clearly that i am working on my doctorate in divinity. as life challenges arise one has to put aside study for periods of time to do everyday things and so in the last two years i haven`t been able to complete my work, and so no, i haven`t attained my doctorate yet.
thanks for bringing the world`s attention to that.
but, when i do finally complete my work, you and others like yourself must kneel before me and saying my name repeatedly....
..and do me a favour will you? don`t respond. it`s tiresome.
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
well, you obviously couldn`t resist.
i hang out with enough cops to know that i wouldn`t want to act like one.
the dr. thing is a red flag waved at bulls so they charge.
enough typing. i`m going to pedal my real bike down a real road or two and eventually get a real coffee.....
pretty soon we will have to have a licence to ride a bike, if the credential team have thier way, but for now i shall enjoy the freedom.
and what do you do tether?
Why don't you just buy a doctorate from a diploma mill?
Rob, we have VERY different ideas about what makes a Christian. I am very comfortable in my work, especially when I help children escape and or deal with abuse. It feels wonderful at the end of the day to know I have helped stop someone from abusing a child, or helped a child understand that the abuse was not their fault.
It is also confusing to be accused of slavishly defending the Rorschach when I posted the link to a very cogent critique of it. I am not sure these words mean what you think they mean. Either that or you are just pulling a Tether and being disagreeable for the sake of it.
I find your attitude very curious and a little confusing.
And the details of the cases I have mentioned have been scrambled. But thanks so much for caring about me enough to be concerned about my safety and the safety of my clients.
It is nice to know you have my back despite your misunderstanding of what I do.
Good on ya.
Trey - or is it Br549, or maybe even Tether who I set up as a buffoon to agrandize myself? Or am I also Rob? You never know.
"and what do you do tether?"
-----------
I've been working on my GED off and on, but I never seem to get the time for that stuff.
I got unemployment for a while, and I've had a few good insurance settlements, so I get by.
Ekatz, wise words and well written.
Trey
"It is also confusing to be accused of slavishly defending the Rorschach when I posted the link to a very cogent critique of it."
---------------
Maybe the criticism wasn't directed at you, Mr. Egomaniac. I think some of it was directed at Dr. Helen.
"Ekatz, wise words and well written."
-------------
'Cuz you're the final arbiter of what is wise and well.
Tether, the whole word does not revolve around me?
Wow.
Thanks for the insight.
And I appreciate your acknowledgement about me being the final arbiter of all that is wise and good.
It is a burden, but appreciation and acknowledgement from folks like you makes it all worth while!
Trey
Tether, I wish my wife hung on my every word like you do.
I can but hope.
Trey
Ya know, while I do get a certain sadistic pleasure from insulting Tether and bugging some of the other folks who insult people on the blog, I am a bit worried that this is growing tiresome to our hostess.
I am considering shutting up regarding the silly insults and adopting a policy of ignoring anything that is just juvenile or insulting without merit. I really enjoy thoughtful discussion, and will continue to comment on thoughtful comments, even when people who despise me make them. I mean, thoughtful comments bear discussion, and I like that so I will continue.
But I see no real end to my insulting Tether and him insulting me back, so it makes me wonder what is the purpose of it other than it being fun. It cannot be as much fun for the rest of you as it is to me, and I do not want to be boorish.
I am open to thoughtful suggestions, even more inane insults, but I am not sure I will respond to the latter.
I need to think about it.
Trey - or br549 or someone else if you are paranoid
the thought has struck me that some of those posters were the same person.
regarding insults, apparently flaming, as it is called on forums, was considered an art form at one time...by shut-ins, geeks, trekkies, tourettes and other aspergers spectrum types.
i am reading a book called the cluetrain manifesto, and in it, one of the authors created a character called rageboy, precisely to elict strong respomses in readers.
one can only imagine the type of sweaty, unwashed social outcast that would continually post insults on a blog.
historically the witty comeback and put-down has been made into an artform by those clever enough to be entertaining in thier responses.
people such as oscar wilde and winston churchhill will live in perpetuity for thier remarks.
and some will not.
My doctor wanted me to take the Rorschach, but every time he said "Rorschach" I would shout "Heeeey Mister Kotter!" Finally he gave up on the whole thing. What do you suppose is wrong with me?
OK, that is funny Steve. Your problem is you have a sense of humour.
Trey
Ignore insults? But, how do you tell the difference? Personally, I find a great many "respectable positions" intrinsically insulting. Nevertheless, the first n00b flame warrior mistake is not knowing when you have said your piece and to let the thread die (or at least your participation in it). My extensive experience with the denizens of local trailer parks has been that if you let them, they'll just go on forever with "the Hell it is!"
On the other hand, they also say a lot of interesting things that probably should be replied to, and the fact that it does often go undiscussed has lead to a substantial loss in the credibility of academia. The trick is being able to tell the difference (and, of course, having the experience to actually act on that).
here are a case that stinks !
www.medicalforgery.com
Just to jump in here late in the day, and (hopefully) not to get involved in any controversy. . .according to the Wikepedia article (which includes all 10 inkblots and which is, for that reason, at the heart of the lawsuit discussed in the New York Times article), the test, including the pictures themselves, is in the public domain in the united states and switzerland, so there is no copyright issue, at least in those countries. . .and. . ."the International Society of the Rorschach and Projective Methods has itself, in the past, made images of all ten cards available on its website for more than nine years. . .in a size suffient to prepare answers for the actual testing situation. . ." There is also some question about whether merely knowing the "right" answers would invalidate the test. . .As to the validity of the test itslef, the aricle contains discussion of and links to authorities on both sides of the question. It does appear that there was a call fairly recently for a moratorium on the use of the test in the united states because of questions about its unreliability. . .the Exner method of interpretation, discussed by our hostess and another poster, is mentioned as having been developed in response to the criticisms of the test, but is it itself subject to further criticisms. . .finally, on a personal note, I looked at the inkblots and saw pretty much what the expected answers say I was supposed to see. What does that mean?
link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rorschach_test
The problem in this "controversy" seems to be that the people saying the test is invalid are actually checking it versus reality (as in the Scientific American article I posted above) and the advocates of the test are simply giving a subjective affirmation of it.
Comments like this (from Helen above) are not rare:
"Other people--even psychologists, may disagree that the Rorschach is reliable or valid but to throw out what has been one of the best instruments I have seen used in my career strikes me as throwing the baby out with the bath water."
-----
What that almost sounds like to me is that she doesn't really CARE if it is objectively valid or not, because she likes the test herself and has been using it over her career.
Well, it DOES matter if the test is objectively valid, and comparisons can once again be drawn to astrologists who KNOW, for sure, that they can tell a lot about you just by your birth date information. They can cite success stories up one side and down the other, and they could not care less if some silly scientists have actually tried to CHECK the predictions of astrology versus reality.
Some objective studies HAVE shown some success for astrology - just as a few (minority) studies have shown some success for Rorschach tests. There is a correlation between careers and your astrological sign, for instance. That may only mean that summer babies are somewhat different than winter babies, though.
Here's another example of why careers may correlate with your astrological sign: Most professional hockey players were born the same time of the year in a range of around 3-4 months.
Why?
Because there is (or was) a uniform cutoff date for getting into the hockey leagues. What happened was that the kids who were just barely young enough that they missed the cutoff date and had to start a year later had had a year of growth vis-a-vis the slightly older kids.
You may find the same thing with regard to the few correlations that arise with Rorschach tests. I don't know.
But to base your life and career on something without really checking out whether it is objectively true or not seems silly to me. But lots of people are successful that way (financial people immediately come to mind, as well as faith healers).
The GENERAL PUBLIC seemingly doesn't care about the objective truth of technical analysis ("chart reading") in the financial area, or of Rorschach tests, or talk therapy, or religion, or the ability of a parole board to separate good candidates from bad, or any number of other things.
So why should anyone else, I guess.
A quick Google search reveals that the Rorschach images are all over the internet and were well before they were on Wikipedia. I fail to see how putting them on Wikipedia makes the slightest difference. Not to mention they are public domain images.
jg, the hockey player thing is so statistically meaningful that if your child is born in june or july he may just not even bother to play hockey, becasue he will be playing against kids with a year`s advantge over him.
i was lucky that i was that much better a soccer player coming from england at ten, that the year didn`t matter. i was playing against kids three and four years older any way, and i was six two by the time i was thirteen.
tests try to predict reality, and when they consistantly fail they should be re-engineered, or dropped.
whether the ink-blot test meets the criteria for failure is debatable simply because there is some element of subjectivity within the testing process to begin with.
i`m suprised nobody has brought up i.q. testing within this discussion as yet.
http://hypgnosys.blogspot.com/2006/06/stupidity.html
and this may be informative.
The problem in this "controversy" seems to be that the people saying the test is invalid are actually checking it versus reality
First of all, Scientific American is not a science journal. It is a popular magazine about science for non-scientists. They are not checking anything but simply "reviewing the literature" and giving their own opinion. That's not science. Secondly, all it takes is one person that can consistently use it effectively. Are you saying there is no such thing? For instance, I am pretty sure the best tarot card reader of all time is pretty damn uncannily amazing in their accuracy. The only explanation I can see for such a thing is that it can be used as a tool for psychological profiling. What would be your explanation for that, then?
And, let me just be clear about this. I am not a psychologist. I, personally, will probably never see a psychologist. I probably am one of those people that think of psychology as not being a "real science". (I hope Helen and Trey will not be too irritated at reading that. I'm just saying -- it's not physics and the experiments aren't really controlled experiments and it's not generally about the physical world but an abstraction from it.) However, with all that said, I still think things like Rorschach and a lot of other things are not entirely bogus just because they aren't "science". They should properly be compared to the practice of physicians. My skepticism of statistical methods in the social sciences cuts both ways. You can't just come up with some "data" and some sort of "correlation" and act like that's the Truth. But, equally, coming up with some "data" and observing that it lacks that same correlation is equally ridiculous to base Truth on. None of this is anything like a controlled experiment where you do the experiment and if it works your theory is proven and if it fails it is disproven. (In fact, the converse is often not proven even in controlled experiments.)
So, to say that it is questionable is one thing. That just means that you can't simply take the results down and then have anyone at all look them up on the chart. But, to say that it is bogus would mean that there is no one that could consistently and correctly interpret the results. Is that what we are claiming? It seems to me that the first parlor trick refutes the latter.
This comment has been removed by the author.
That's an interesting argument, Adrian. In response to someone comparing the validity of the Rorschach test to that of Tarot cards, you seem to take the unusual position that Tarot cares CAN be valid in the right hands, just like the Rorschach test.
Huh.
And I was also wondering when the "peer reviewed" comments would raise their ugly head. I think the point is that ANYONE is objectively looking at effectiveness, and Scientific American is no slouch of a magazine. I frankly don't have much respect for the truth-seeking ability of psychologists, so if there WERE a peer-reviewed psychological journal really looking at the objectivity of this stuff, I would consider it a negative. Psychologists just don't think like scientists, more like spiritual mediums.
Sheesh, you go out of town to work for a couple days and miss all kinds of neat things.
I'll catch up on this at my earliest convenience and jump back in and toss around insults as soon as possible. Equal time and all that. Right now I have reports to write.
Well, you know that Scientific American article was written by a bunch of psychologists, right? None of this is science. It is more like a battle of arguments from authority.
And, I am not saying that tarot cards have any validity as tarot cards. I am saying that the only way to explain their unquestionable validity as an effective means of huckstering people is by recognizing their effectiveness as a tool for psychological profiling. There are some other things that could be said about that -- that believers want to believe and ignore all the false claims that tarot readers make while recognizing all the correct ones. One might be able to make an argument that the tarot reader is not actually doing anything but simply sitting there and performing a completely irrelevant activity while it is really the people being read doing everything to make it work out. While I do think that sort of thing is present in the process, I don't think that completely explains the phenomenon of tarot cards. I think you have to acknowledge the active role the reader plays in profiling, in fact, a lot of which is built into the practice of it. (Most tarot readers really believe that tarot cards are magical.)
Here's what I think happens in the case of tarot cards. A bunch of people that believe in it use it. Some guy spends a significant amount of time reading himself and other people who also believe that they are magical. In so doing he refines his technique of reading them and is able to do a better job at discovering things and making predictions about the person he is reading. But, the tarot cards are not magical. What he is really doing is refining his ability to make specific sounding predictions that are actually vague and open to interpretation. But, not only that, he is also refining his ability to make the sorts of statements that the person he is reading is most likely to interpret favorably. And, he is able to make highly probable claims about the person based on what essentially amounts to psychological profiling that occurs while he is doing his reading. He might be wrong from time to time, but everyone walks away thinking how uncannily right he is most of the time. And so, he is in business now.
So, no, I don't think that tarot cards are "legit" -- that would be saying that I think they are magical. But, you still have to account for their existence and use at all. I account for that, actually, with the fact that they and the techniques of the reader in employing them, essentially amount to an effective means of psychologically profiling the person being read (as well as generally accounting for the audience watching, for that matter). You can really see it at work in tarot or anything else. Normally, it starts out slow whiel the practitioner carefully collects information about the person he is reading and any audience that might exist. And, he builds up as the reading transpires and he collects information from the crowd and the person he is reading. Or, the seance or whatever it may be. It all works the same.
Adrian, I take no offense at your statements at all. Psychology is in no way a science like physics for lots of reasons. There are hard scientists within the field of Psychology, but basically none of them are therapists. I met one hard scientist Psychologist at the golf course, he bred ADHD rats for a local university. Other scientific psychologists do work in perception, cognition, measurement, that sort of thing.
Therapists, I am one of those, help people change. Some of us are grounded in the scientific literature and are focused on what has been proven to actually work and work quickly, other people are worse than tea leave readers. They project their own issues onto everyone they see and routinely waste people's time and money. Sometimes they harm people.
Two examples. A colleague slumped into my office when I worked at a local mental health center. She sighed loudly as she sat in my chair and said something like "All these multiple personailty cases are wearing me out."
I have worked in this field for almost 20 years and have worked with some horrid abuse cases and NEVER seen a full blown multiple personality case. Never. I have seen exactly two cases that were in the ballpark, and did indeed have some limited dissociative identity problems, but this lady was making the cases fit the diagnosis for her own reasons. I told her supervisor and she had to go to further training.
On a more personal note, I went with my first wife for some couples counseling. The psychologist determined that my then wife's father was alcoholic. He HAD to be because of her behavior. She was later diagnosed with bipolar affective disorder, and I am almost sure her father never had a drinking problem, but everyone that came to that lady had parents who were alcoholic. She too was projecting her own difficulties and illness onto other people.
So I am completely comfortable with people who critique therapists and psychologist who do therapy. I know them. I have been to them. I am one of them. Staying on task and staying ethical and helpful is hard work. It is work I love, but it requires a lot of discussion and peer supervision and training. Too few people do it right. And criticism helps those of us who try to do it right get better and stay focused.
What I really appreciate is your kindness and respectful attitude! It is so much preferable to read a reasoned critique and disagreement. Not having to wade through lots of projection and rage is sadly a treat.
Disagreement is great, it helps keep us all honest and leads to growth. Thanks for sharing your ideas.
Trey
adrian, the process in tarot, like all street hustles, is cold reading. checking out derrin brown`s videos on youtube will show you some of this in action.
derrin is also trained in nlp (neuro-lingiustic programming) which i have studied at the practitioner level also.
hypnosis and nlp are not science though, though thier processes are consistant, reproduceable and effective.
i can induce trance in less than a second in anyone at any time with a handshake.
the last comment of mine isn`t a brag or a challenge. it`s a simple fact that i don`t need to prove to anyone. i mearley stated it as way of illustrating how fragile our consciousness is and how slight a grasp of it we actually have.
science hasn`t yet been able to evaluate this effect in people, even though the same process that works in the farm yard on chickens, works on people too.
science has made very little headway into understanding how consciousness works. they spend thier time measuring electromagnetic effects of the brain and blood pressure and neuro-transmitter processes and so on but they don`t have any machines to hook up a person`s soul.
thankfully.
the clue is that the consciousness isn`t in the head somewhere in the nerve ganglia known as the brain.
it`s everywhere, all the time.
that`s why materialists can`t find it.
Well, a materialist would say there is nothing to find. The human soul is like the music from a lute. Stop playing and the music stops. The music is not in the strings or in the fingers of the lutenist or in the body of the lute. It isn't a thing that exists but just the manner in which things like the lutenist and the lute he plays on exist and change over time.
yep. that`s the paradox. nothing to find, except the richness of our experiences, dreams, hopes and desires.
to deny that leaves us with a meat puppet programmed to do work.
This comment has been removed by the author.
But that's what I'm saying. I don't think a materialist has to deny any of that.
So I am doing an assessment today with a woman who was born with fetal alcohol syndrome and has reading and comprehension problems. The judge wants a second opinion concerning the patient's diagnosis after she attacked her twin sister with a broken beer bottle subsequent said twin took a dump in her station wagon.
While the patient earned a regular degree, I am not at all sure that she can read well enough to give me accurate data on an objective test. I will administer an IQ test, a Personality Assessment Inventory (similar to the MMPI) and a Rorschach. And I am betting on the inkblots.
If she is unable to give me good objective data, what are my alternatives? I could use other projectives like the House-Tree-Person or Thematic Apperception Test, but these are LESS psychometrically supported than the Rorschach. I could give her the hand test, or the Blackie test, but making inferences based on her reactions to line drawings of hands or dogs with house training issues would strain my noggin.
So I will use the Rorschach and hope for the best. Now I have a decent history and about 100 pages of previous testing, treatment summaries, and discharge notes, but I am betting on the Rorschach. It may be totally useless, it is sometimes, but it may be the best tool I have to verify and support the clinical reports I have on this lady.
I will let you know.
I am sure you will all be turning blue from collective breath holding. 8)
Trey
*Yawn*
Why don't you release more details of your confidential work with this woman. Maybe we can identify her with the aid of an Internet search for the court case etc.
When you finally get sued for broadcasting details of your clients on the Internet, in the forlorn attempt to get some admiration and adulation, you can just do a Rorschach test on the opposing attorney and frighten him away.
Um Tether, there is no way in the world the person could sue me. I ALWAYS change details concerning my cases. I put in lots of spurious details to protect this individual and to see if I could get you or Rob to look like idiots. I know, the bar is so low it is on the floor in your case, but it amuses me. So thanks for taking the bait!
And nobody's adulation could be as satisfying as your antipathy. It is wonderful when certain people despise you, it serves as confirmation.
So thanks again pal, you made my day!
Trey
Oh, and I do not need adulation from strangers on the internet.
I have friends and family.
Sorry you don't.
Trey
I don't use the Rorschach, I use the "8-Ball" method, which to me is much more reliable.
I shake the ball and wait for the answer bubble to come up to the top with one of several answers.
My 8 Ball indicates that TMink acts like a little kid.
Wow, your 8 ball is correct. I am well in touch with my inner child, it gives me joy and spontaneity and a playful approach to life. Tether, every now and then you make sense. I do not think you mean to at these times, but you do. It gives me hope for you.
And given your lack of training, experience and knowledge, the 8 ball should work out MUCH better than a sophisticated psychological instrument. Children shouldn't play with knives.
Trey
So the person I tested was able to read and respond to the PAI, but the test is compromised by excessive positive impression management. I have not yet scored the Rorschach, but it seems to be a rather vanilla profile at first glance.
More after I score it.
Trey
Trey said: "I ALWAYS change details concerning my cases. I put in lots of spurious details to protect this individual and to see if I could get you or Rob to look like idiots."
Lol! So, in the two years I have been reading this blog, you and your Rorschach addled brain have actually been plotting all along to see at what point you could get people to say "SHUT UP!"
How freudeianly intelligent of you.
LOL!
"Good Grief, Charlie "Trey" Brown!"
Little time to argue with your nonsense... got to get back to work on the Alchemy Dissertation! Have to find a way to keep up with the big boys in society... like the psycho-ologists.
No, I just put in the extra spurious details to mess with you two this time, most of the time I just scramble the details. This time I loaded them up as bait. It was fun, and Tether took the bait.
I post on this blog to have interesting conversations, to encourage interesting thought, and to work out my own ideas in response to others.
Why do you post here? Often, your posts come across as angry and derisive. Certainly not all of them, as I found your post about Comte and the origins of Psychology interesting and informative.
How about you and I stop insulting each other and have some good conversations? I think we are both up to it. Would you give it a go?
I would like that.
Trey
So, Trey, by your obvious admissions, you like to take your FALSE info about human nature, and try to fuck with human beings?
Correct?
This is like a Karate black belt trying to intimidate people into a fist fight...
In other words....
SCUM!
Don't pretty it up, Psycho-boy.
By the same right, I am tougher than you, no doubt.
So, I should mentally manipulate you into a situation where my physical superiority screws you over?
Touche!
I can deal with that! As I am a large and powerful individual.
What you are talking is evil. You are a manipulator. As in, a disgrace.
No support for you, or your filthy profession.
I'd like to talk to to people like you in an alley, though.
"No, I just put in the extra spurious details to mess with you two this time, most of the time I just scramble the details. This time I loaded them up as bait. It was fun, and Tether took the bait."
-----------
And I fell right into your top secret trap. I guess that will teach me not to mess with a master psychologist. A master of the black arts.
I frankly haven't seen this level of maturity since I last visited my brother and talked to my 3-year-old nephew.
Even your 3 year old nephew is more mature and smarter than you?
Well Rob, I am a large individual too. Large and fat sadly. If you assaulted me, perhaps I could sit on you first.
So I take that this is a no as far as being friends goes?
Too bad, I think you would have given me some interesting discussions and taught me a few things. My loss.
If you change your mind, the offer still stands. God bless you.
Trey
Oh come on Tether, it was funny. Just a little humour at your expense. You know you need to laugh more! You are so hostile and tense!
I wish I was a master psychologist! I would drive something better than a PT cruiser!
But at least you have a funny three year old nephew. That is something.
Trey
Rob, "psycho-boy" was funny. That was a good insult.
But I am no psychological black belt. I am just a schlub who mainly works with people who were abused. I am midlin good at not being drawn into useless anger though.
Wouldn't you say?
Trey
OK, just for your entertainment, I have posted the Rorschach test and my interpretations of the images. I didn't cheat and look up what various views mean. I just fired right off the top of my head.
Hah...that's funny. This guy lives 45 minutes from me....
We're all a bit weird here in SK....
Post a Comment
<< Home