Talk:Rorschach test/Archive 1

message: "Psychologists prefer that the general public not see them so that it will not skew results when the test is performed and copyrights on the images are vigorously enforced to try to prevent this." Is the above statement possible in the age of internet? What happen when the copyright expire? (Though not likely while Disney is around) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wk muriithi (talk • contribs) 06:23, 5 February 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: No header

message: Sorry to return to the issue of having card one shown in this article. It seems unnecessarily provocative to post this, especially when there is a suitable non-Rorschach card to be in its place. And the issue is not copyright. I guess this doesn't matter in Wikipedia as long as someone wants to do this, no amount of appeal will prevail.
Also there are some problematic statements: the test is not "outdated" because the cards have been put on the Internet. It may spoil test results, however having seen the card does not in itself ruin the results.
Also, the statement about turing the card means the person is brain damaged is not the case. No psychologica testing is that simple. So, either someone with little or no knowledge must have stated this.
Also, using the word "believers" is also provocative.
And as I psychologist, I have problems with the Rorschach. However, I have more of a problem when articles in WP are contentious. The validity issue of the Rorschach test has not been decided for many of the claims against it (e.g., Woods) have been challenged. Again, I am not saying I think that the Rorschach is valid or not but just that the article should show an informed position. Of course this means having the criticisms stated boldly but also the replies to this criticism. To do this, I think, raises the level of scholarship of the article. (The level of scholarship complaint is not only with this article but with many WP articles.)
Maybe I will add to this article but not if it is going to stir up the passions of the anti-Rorschach people. It's not worth an "editing war". So let me know if I should bother. Rsugden 14:41, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  My $0.02 

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

message: Re  SOURCES.  Users DreamGuy and Saxifrage have been so kind as to instruct me on what at the moment is taken to qualify as a source for Wikipedia and what is considered information worthy of incorporation in an article. It is certainly not, nor has it ever been, my intention to break any rules here or suggest any changes of policy. Allow me, however, to explain how these matters are regarded elsewhere.
Beside the Professor's own works cited above, the following are considered in Switzerland to be not only sources but indispensable sources:
- Kerner, Justinus: Klecksographie, 1857
- Hens, Szymon: Phantasiepruefungen mit formalen Klecksen bei Schulkindern, 1917
- Behn-Eschenburg, Hans: Psychische Schueleruntersuchungen mit dem Formdeutversuch, 1921
Without these writings, how could anybody know what the Professor's Tolggengeschichte (sic) was all about? How could anybody guess that the tool (ink blots) that the Professor employed was in common use in his time and that he would never have dreamt of claiming exclusive rights on it? How could anybody understand that his "followers" have taken the work of a decent and honest man and turned it into a travesty and a scam? How could anyone ever find out that these "followers" have to be classed in the same category as clairvoyants, fortune-tellers and all the other practitioners of voodoo science and medicine?
Now, if users Saxifrage and Dreamguy feel that the SPOV on sources and their content should not be heard even on this Discussion Page, I shall be glad to examine their evidence for that too. If  I should find it as convincing as the one presented by them so far regarding the article proper, I would in future refrain from bringing this SPOV up on this page, of course.
--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 11:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the writings are publicly available, especially in English (in translation if nothing else), then they can be used as sources for Wikipedia, so long as they are properly cited; and material from them, if this is the case, can be incorporated, carefully, neutrally and without a stated bias  into the article, for instance like this: "According to such and such person [reference citation footnote]... [assertion that person made in an accessible source so that it can be verified]". I hope this clears things up. In other words you can't say "everybody in English writes his name wrong", but you CAN say, for instance (to use an example you wanted to include earlier), "While the common accepted spelling in English is Rorschach, according to this source that is publicly accessible, his name should actually be spelled as Rohrschach" :) It is perhaps easiest to view  Wikipedia as less a "free encyclopedia" than it is a recompilation of available recorded knowledge,  summarized and organized by volunteers for easier access and understanding. Runa27 00:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: SPOV (the Swiss point of view)

message: For an informed discussion about the inkblot test, it would be useful to add more about the logic behind evaluating the answears. For example, the article states that those who see an animal in the example picture are more social. The idea here is that seeing a fox or two birds are common interpretations. If you see what others see, you'll probably get along better with others, or so the theory goes. It's easier to discuss this statement than "seeing animals = social". 
Another thing that's examined is whether the images you see refer to the whole image or portions of it. If you see something in the image as a whole, you'r able to "take in the whole picture" in life in general. 
If this logic strikes one as flawed, one must in the end ask if any method of interpretation would work. In any case, the inkblot test is not based simply on statistical results among patient groups, as the article may seem to indicate. If so, new inkblot sets could be produced on demand from inexpensive trials and the secrecy of the old tests would not be an issue.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.202.109.87 (talk) 11:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More on methods of interpretation

message: You know, little annoys me more than the obstinantly uninformed derisiveness of so-called "skeptics" on wikipedia for any controversial topic they can find to dump on.  So far I've found wikipedia articles on philosophy, psychoanalysis, the Rorschach test, and many other subjects infested with this pseudo-"skeptical" garbage, always with the obligatory link to that esteemed and,I am sure, rigorously peer-reviewed source of knowledge, the "Skeptic's Dictionary."  Hey skeptics, why don't you turn your skepticism back toward yourselves and ask yourselves why you continually trash ideas about which you have no expertise or detailed knowledge?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.139.7.250 (talk • contribs) 
Moreover, the beginning of the controversy section probably needs to be taken out, as the two points made there are basically completely irrelevent in modern psychological assessment.  This cannot be emphasized enough!  Faustian 13:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Naive skeptics

message: The article seems to ignore the fact that some people (myself included) honestly see nothing when looking at a Rorshach test. Does anybody know if this applies to enough people to affect the validity of the results? Symmetric Chaos 02:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's possible, but Wikipedia only contains information that other reliable sources publish. We'd need some peer-review article or a good journalism piece on that subject before the article could stop "ignoring" that. — Saxifrage ✎ 23:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Re  VALIDITY.  Yes Symmetric Chaos, there are, unfortunately, some people who can't see anything. Professor Rohrschach called them the Sehbehinderte. But I can assure you that the validity of the results is in no way affected by this.--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 08:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seeing Nothing 

message: I am a student psychologist that is outraged by this page.  Regardless of whether or not these inkblots are copyrighted has absolutely no bearing on the ethical issue at hand.  It takes years, sometimes decades, to provide the service of creating a new, creative, reliable test.  The Rorschach is one of these tests which has long been regarded as a hallmark of psychology.  A test such as this cannot be veiwed by the public, simply because it is based on first impressions.  You are ruining this novelty by posting the first card on the internet.  It is an injustice to psychologists who still consider the Rorschach as an integral test.  If Wikipedia ever wishes to be a viable source of information, they will seriously consider becoming an ethical one as well and removing the inkblot picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teenyshan (talk • contribs) 
:I am a student of psychology as well and I disagree with the dissemination of the inkblots in general, but while at Wikipedia I leave my bias behind as much as I can and edit according to Wikipedia's rules. One of these rules is that Wikipedia must remain neutral by not choosing sides in real-world disputes such as this one. Speaking as an editor, I think using a silhouette of only one of the inkblots is a good compromise between the camp that believes the inkblots should be known to all and the camp that believes they must be kept strictly secret.
:Of course, this isn't the only possible good compromise, so constructive suggestions about how Wikipedia can illustrate this article in a neutral but informative way would be appreciated. — Saxifrage ✎ 22:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  Viewing the original image may invalidate the test, impacting client care.  There is no reason to place the controversial image there; interested people can find the link after having been warned about it, rather than have the image pop up immediately when they look at the wiki page.  It is truly irresponsible to place that image here, just because one can.Faustian 19:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

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

message: Does anyone else think the inkblot really really looks like Cyril Sneer? Or does this make me ill? Skittle 00:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see the resemblance. :) — Saxifrage ✎ 19:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inkblot 

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

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

message: Someone please confirm the validity of this edit . Thanks, --WikiSlasher 10:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent major change 

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