Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Wikipedia Debates Rorschach Censorship

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the guy-drawing-the-dirty-pictures dept.

Censorship 635

GigsVT writes "Editors on Wikipedia are engaged in an epic battle over a few piece of paper smeared with ink. The 10 inkblot images that form the classic Rorschach test have fallen into the public domain, and so including them on Wikipedia would seem to be a simple choice. However, some editors have cited the American Psychological Association's statement that exposure of the images to the public is an unethical act, since prior exposure to the images could render them ineffective as a psychological test. Is the censorship of material appropriate, when the public exposure to that material may render it useless?"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I thought they.. (4, Insightful)

tmosley (996283) | more than 5 years ago | (#28695887)

I thought they made those randomly. If there are only ten of them, that seems to indicate that there are a few certain "correct" answers, which kind of throws the whole test into doubt now, doesn't it?

Re:I thought they.. (5, Insightful)

omfglearntoplay (1163771) | more than 5 years ago | (#28695915)

I think the doubt thrown on the validity of the tests is all over the place anyway. Why not just let the tests out and end the debate there?

Re:I thought they.. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28695973)

The test is, and always has been, pop-psychology nonsense. It's a cold reading in a phony clinical setting. The diagnoses is always "more costly therapy sessions".

This is like the association of soothsayers trying to supress the "secret" of tarot or tea leave reading, because if everybody knows it wont be magic anymore.

Re:I thought they.. (5, Insightful)

hardburn (141468) | more than 5 years ago | (#28696423)

Thread should end right here. While the Rorschach test does have some limited scientific validity, it doesn't deserve to be as widespread as it is. The test's "effectiveness" relies on exactly the same psychological blindspot that fortune telling does. Wikipedia isn't hampering the effectiveness of anything that isn't already broken.

Re:I thought they.. (5, Informative)

xant (99438) | more than 5 years ago | (#28695979)

On the contrary, in order to interpret the results scientifically, you have to have already used them and determined a basis for scoring. How this is classically done with the original Rorschach is a series of markings based on the contents of the respondent's answer. They also score things like whether you pick the card up, whether you turn it around, whether you give more than one answer, etc. Without a fixed means of scoring the blots, you don't have data, you just have hand-waving.

But there are other tests out there, with their own means of scoring. Some of them even try to generate random inputs.

Re:I thought they.. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28696119)

Whose ass did they pull the "I see a butterfly" "fixed category of scoring" from?

In other words, your "fixed means of scoring the blots" IS hand-waving.

I'll fix your post:

"[I]n order to interpret the results scientifically, you have to be willing to be a whore for however much you're getting paid to play doctor"

Geez, you'd get more accurate results from a Gypsy fortune teller. At least there you KNOW you're getting ripped off.

Listening to Tom Cruise a bit too much? (5, Informative)

spun (1352) | more than 5 years ago | (#28696483)

Psychologists used other means to diagnose people, then gave them the Rorschach test. They found correlations between certain diagnoses and certain types of answers or behaviors exhibited during the test. The Rorschach test is not a definitive test that will tell you unequivocally what specific mental issues you have. Like all psychological tests, it is just one tool among many that helps a trained expert make a diagnosis. For instance, if the Rorschach test says you are a psychopath, but you show a capacity for empathy and remorse, any trained psychologist will know that the test simply didn't work on you.

Re:I thought they.. (0, Flamebait)

icebike (68054) | more than 5 years ago | (#28696121)

>in order to interpret the results scientifically

You have to be smoking dope.

There is nothing scientific at all about this claptrap, and there never was.

Re:I thought they.. (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28696395)

I think you're missing the point. It's not "scientific" in the sense of a physical experiment that gives concrete, objective results. You can't have a comprehensive objective quantification of someone's mental state, so you're not going to find a test like that anyways.

The purpose of this test is to collect data using a standardized set of inputs, so that the data can be meaningfully compared with other results of the same test. It's simply a tool used in the overall process, not a definitive standalone diagnosis.

Re:I thought they.. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28696451)

I am both a dope smoker and a scientifically-minded person, you insensitive clod!

Re:I thought they.. (1, Insightful)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 5 years ago | (#28696133)

> ...you don't have data, you just have hand-waving.

We're discussing psychology here. Hand waving is already all we have.

Re:I thought they.. (4, Interesting)

clifyt (11768) | more than 5 years ago | (#28696017)

There aren't 'correct' answers to the blots, they are images that one uses to project their beliefs and subconscious on.

The idea is that you won't see them in nature, or anywhere else...but being that the test has been studied, validated and correlated across thousands of individuals, there is a LOT of predictive nature to them. Look at it and tell me what you think of it...I think bunny wabits...ok, 90% of the people that saw this and gave that response grew up to be serial killers.

I'm not a Freudian by any means...I have never given this exam and really don't see the point in doing so...but I have a background in psychometrics. Letting folks get access to this stuff means that more people will be exposed and the more exposure, along with people putting out statistics about what things mean lowers the validity of the exam.

But, if ruining a reliable therapeutic technique for others is worth while, by all means, go ahead and publish the images...its not like they are that hard to come by anyways...no one checks licenses these days if you are ordering most exams these days...

Re:I thought they.. (3, Insightful)

twidarkling (1537077) | more than 5 years ago | (#28696259)

The images are PD now, putting them on wikipedia won't change that. Beyond that, there have been layperson descriptions of what the test entails for years. Even knowing the test exists invalidates the results to at least a degree, since the person looking will try to say what they think the test-giver wants to hear. While THAT might be diagnostically useful, it's not the same as what the person actually sees.

Re:I thought they.. (0)

Shadow of Eternity (795165) | more than 5 years ago | (#28696287)

The only projecting being done is by the examiner who decides that the results mean whatever the hell he wants because there's no possible way to correlate answers with anything meaningful.

Re:I thought they.. (4, Interesting)

Robert1 (513674) | more than 5 years ago | (#28696337)

Incorrect. There actually ARE correct answers to the inkblots - no quotes necessary around that 'correct'. The correctness is assigned a number which aggregates over the course of all the blots and assigns a statistical analysis of the level of pathology of the patients psyche. It's actually very robust scientifically and leaves no room for psychological interpretation and is comparable to recall, spelling, or reverse counting tests.

Rorschach inkblots are not used for projection - on TV they are however. In real life, projection is used as an evaluative tool using a different kind of test. The projective test involves pictures with a very open setup and the patient is allowed to fill in the circumstances of the picture. For instance, one image can be of 3 people sitting around a table with a tree outside, the patient then can fill in what they believe to be occurring, what the characters are saying etc.

Re:I thought they.. (-1, Troll)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 5 years ago | (#28696473)

Hey, do you do voodoo, too?

Re:I thought they.. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28696429)

One wonders how "valuable" a test could be if it could be ruined so easily.

Let's conduct our own little thought experiment:

Which psychologist will make more money over his career? One who cures people in one visit, or one who puts his patients into never-ending rounds of therapy while convincing them they're "getting better".

Makes one wonder how economic pressures force the evolution of psychology, doesn't it?

All I have to say is... (2, Interesting)

2names (531755) | more than 5 years ago | (#28696081)

Where is my face!?!??!

Re:I thought they.. (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 5 years ago | (#28696315)

I didn't think they were random but I assumed there was such a large pool of them such that they'd either be novel or at the least you wouldn't remember them from a previous test.

Re:I thought they.. (4, Funny)

Atrox666 (957601) | more than 5 years ago | (#28696373)

If there are only 10 then why are they all pictures of my mother when she's angry?

If it gets out, we can't bill for it! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28695903)

There, I fixed their complaint.

Here they are. (4, Informative)

xant (99438) | more than 5 years ago | (#28695913)

the Rorshach ink blots [deltabravo.net] . Oops, it seems I have exposed them to the public, I guess the whole debate is moot now.

Seriously though, there are a million associative tests, I didn't think anyone even used the original Rorschach any more except to discuss it in beginning psychology classes.

Re:Here they are. (2, Funny)

rattaroaz (1491445) | more than 5 years ago | (#28696051)

the Rorshach ink blots [deltabravo.net] . Oops, it seems I have exposed them to the public, I guess the whole debate is moot now.

AHHHH!!! My eyes! The goggles. They do nothing!

Re:Here they are. (1)

beatbox32 (325106) | more than 5 years ago | (#28696073)

Way to go jerk.. Now La Psicologia Familia will be knocking at your door with some cement shoes.

Re:Here they are. (1)

jason.sweet (1272826) | more than 5 years ago | (#28696371)

Way to go jerk.. Now La Psicologia Familia will be knocking at your door with some cement shoes.

That's not their style. They just sign the committal papers and let Nurse Ratched take care of you.

Re:Here they are. (5, Informative)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 5 years ago | (#28696257)

Those are the outlines of the inkblots. Those have been public for quite some time now but psychologists believed they had no significant influence on the reliability of the actual test (which, I guess, means the outlines didn't make the tests less unreliable). The wikipedia images are the actual colored blobs and DO have the desired effect of making a useless test unusable.

Re:Here they are. (1)

keytoe (91531) | more than 5 years ago | (#28696321)

I don't know that I've ever seen the actual blots before. I find it interesting (at least on that page) that every single Possible Sexual Imagery entry basically says "Dicks or Vaginas" - no matter how improbable they may be in the actual blot. I could have been a famous psychiatrist for realizing that people see sex organs in everything?!

Re:Here they are. (1)

n30na (1525807) | more than 5 years ago | (#28696479)

Actually, I was given the test a couple years ago. (I was 17 then)

Though, they ended up saying I was psychotic, and nobody else bought it (other psychologists, etc), so who knows. At least i'm immune to the damage now. =P

Re:Here they are. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28696487)

the Rorshach ink blots [deltabravo.net] . Oops, it seems I have exposed them to the public,

No, you slashdotted them. The American Psychological Association will thank you, I am sure.

Lets see... (4, Funny)

Q-Hack! (37846) | more than 5 years ago | (#28695917)

Exposer to to pseudo-science renders it useless??? Now if we can apply that to Intelligent design?

Mod parent up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28696163)

While it may seem like a troll at first, the legitimacy of the test is questioned by other psychologists.

From the wikipedia entry:

The Rorschach inkblot test is considered controversial by some researchers for several reasons. Some skeptics consider the Rorschach inkblot test _pseudoscience_, as several studies suggested that conclusions reached by test administrators in the 1950s were akin to cold reading.

You're a Scientologist, right? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28696413)

en tee

Moot (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28695921)

If they are already in the public domain, won't the kind of people who would want to see them be able to see them? The fact that they might be on wikipedia could make it easier, but they will probably be on google -- which will make it only marginally more difficult.

Progress of society (2, Interesting)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 5 years ago | (#28695939)

I can hardly see how debunking what is in essence a subtle placebo as something that is unethical. In by that same stretch, debunking magic would be unethical. Pretty lame really. It's something almost 100 years old. For it to be phased out now due to there being far more accurate psychoanalysis is a good thing.

Re:Progress of society (2, Interesting)

Gerald (9696) | more than 5 years ago | (#28696093)

by that same stretch, debunking magic would be unethical.

Try going to a Penn & Teller show and telling everyone how each trick is done.

Re:Progress of society (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28696375)

Try going to a Penn & Teller show and telling everyone how each trick is done.

Why bother? Penn& Teller already do that as part of their act.

Re:Progress of society (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 5 years ago | (#28696425)

Try going to a Penn & Teller show and telling everyone how each trick is done.

What the hell are you on about? I've seen Penn & Teller debunk one of their own tricks.

If you got slapped it's probably because it's annoying being near a chattering idiot when you're trying to watch a show.

Panties STINK! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28695943)

Panties Stink!
They really, really stink!
Sometimes they're red, sometimes they're green,
Sometimes they're white or black or pink
Sometimes they're satin, sometimes they're lace
Sometimes they're cotton and soak up stains
But at the end of the day, it really makes you think
Wooooooo-wheeeee! Panties stink!

Sometimes they're on the bathroom floor
Your girlfriend- what a whore!
Sometimes they're warm and wet and raw
From beneath the skirt of your mother-in-law
Brownish stains from daily wear
A gusset full of pubic hair
Just make sure your nose is ready
For the tang of a sweat-soaked wedgie
In your hand a pair of drawers
With a funky feminine discharge
Give your nose a rest, fix yourself a drink
cause wooooooo-wheeeeeee! panties stink!

Cheatsheet (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28695945)

Now I can cheat!

So what??? (5, Funny)

Muad'Dave (255648) | more than 5 years ago | (#28695951)

Everyone knows they're all pictures of boobs anyway.

Re:So what??? (2, Funny)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 5 years ago | (#28696191)

Everyone knows they're all pictures of boobs anyway.

I think you're confusing it with this [minnpost.com] .

Re:So what??? (1)

2obvious4u (871996) | more than 5 years ago | (#28696303)

Plates 8 [wikipedia.org] , 9 [wikipedia.org] , and 10 [wikipedia.org] are clearly vagina. Just like all Georgia O'Keeffe [wikipedia.org] paintings as well.

Plates 3 and 4 are of boobs.

Re:So what??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28696449)

You only score partial credit. 9 and 10 are vaginas WITH TEETH.

Re:So what??? (1)

sootman (158191) | more than 5 years ago | (#28696353)

Bzzt, wrong. They're mostly genitals. [deltabravo.net]

Re:So what??? (1)

jason.sweet (1272826) | more than 5 years ago | (#28696471)

Everyone knows they're all pictures of boobs anyway.

After years of psychological training, I can surmise that you were touching yourself when you wrote that.

Make some new ones? (1)

basementman (1475159) | more than 5 years ago | (#28695961)

How hard would it be to just make ten new ones? Hell I could do it for them, fold a piss of paper in half and take a piss on it. Now you don't have to worry about it for my lifespan + 70 years. I'm just worried some overzealous wikipedia editors might try to kill me so it's released into the public domain earlier.

Re:Make some new ones? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28696203)

fold a piss of paper in half and take a piss on it

Hmmm, I don't think I need a Rorschach test to determine the issue here ...

Describe in single words only the good things that come into your mind about... your mother.

Re:Make some new ones? (1)

jez9999 (618189) | more than 5 years ago | (#28696431)

He's just pissy about her because she was pissed during pregnancy.

Public Domain Man (4, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 5 years ago | (#28695969)

If they're in the public domain, then they're in the public domain, and that ends it. I'm sure the APA can come up with some new, copyrighted ink blot tests. Perhaps they could involve images of Tom Cruise and L. Ron Hubbard in various disturbing poses.

The blots (4, Funny)

DarrenBaker (322210) | more than 5 years ago | (#28695975)

Here are some examples of ink blots, and patient reaction.
http://pbfcomics.com/?cid=PBF233-Psychoanalyst.jpg [pbfcomics.com]

MOD PARENT UP (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28696105)

Perry Bible Fellowship is almost as good a cultural touchstone as the Simpsons... but goes places that broadcast TV isn't allowed.

Are the images important? (1)

witch-doktor (1592325) | more than 5 years ago | (#28695981)

Isn't the main requirement that they be ambiguous, so that what the subject says is more related to their internal state, rather than the input?

Re:Are the images important? (4, Insightful)

camperdave (969942) | more than 5 years ago | (#28696277)

I'm surprised that there's only ten images (and that they haven't changed over the years). I don't know the history of the test, and I am by no means a psychologist or psychiatrist, however I suspect it would work something like this:
  1. Get a series of inkblots together
  2. Gather and correlate data on how healthy people describe blots
  3. Gather and correlate data on how people with known problems describe blots
  4. Show inkblots to patients
  5. See how their results line up with previous correlations
  6. ???
  7. profit

Since when (1)

Alarindris (1253418) | more than 5 years ago | (#28695983)

was this test considered effective for anything?

Haven't too many people already seen them? (1)

necrodeep (96704) | more than 5 years ago | (#28695989)

Seriously - they have to have been in about a hundred movies. And all over the place.

Maybe it's time for the Psychological research people to join the 21st century and make some new digital inkblots?

When were they released? (3, Informative)

oodaloop (1229816) | more than 5 years ago | (#28695991)

The wikipedia page says it made it to public domain in 1992. Why exactly is this news?

Re:When were they released? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28696185)

The wikipedia page says it made it to public domain in 1992. Why exactly is this news?

Typical late Slashdot story, are you surprised? ;)

"Big Secrets" by William Poundstone (4, Informative)

mattack2 (1165421) | more than 5 years ago | (#28696003)

At least some of them showed up in "Big Secrets" by William Poundstone over 20 years ago. (Great book IMHO, though the sequels go down in quality as he scrounges for more secrets.) He also discusses what types of things are 'bad' to see in them.

Ummm... (1)

sudotron (1459285) | more than 5 years ago | (#28696005)

Can't they just make more by pouring some ink on a piece of paper and folding it in half? I thought the point of these was what the patient in question thought they looked like, not the appearance of the actual ink-blot. I could be wrong though.

Re:Ummm... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28696227)

That reproduces the blots themselves, but not the decades of responses from other people to compare against. It would be difficult to reconstruct that, and so I can see how this might be damaging provided they provide useful data in the first place, which I'm in no position to judge one way or the other.

Re:Ummm... (2, Funny)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 5 years ago | (#28696363)

These blobs were specifically designed to include as many penisses, vaginas and boobs as possible.
It's not easy to make blobs which match their quantity of private parts.
Trust me on this.

Big blobbling loss (0)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 5 years ago | (#28696021)

The tests were unreliable to begin with.
So now an unreliable test can't be used anymore.
The only one who loses is psychologists, which is no loss at all.

Actually, it is now an act of full-disclosure (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28696027)

If these images are posted by wikipedia, they are rendered utterly useless. If one assumes that the chances are high that people will (now) come across these images elsewhere and it that could contribute to misdiagnostics, this is not only fine, it is the responsible thing to do.

Publishing them on wikipedia would go a long way into forcing people to produce a new batch of test images (preferably a thousand of them or so), which is the responsible thing to do.

Too late to worry about quack science (1, Insightful)

icebike (68054) | more than 5 years ago | (#28696035)

"since prior exposure to the images could render them ineffective as a psychological test"

They were ineffective the day they were invented. This is VooDoo science it's best, and public exposure of it as a sham is long over do.

This stuff isn't even being taught anymore.

Suggested reading (4, Insightful)

greg1104 (461138) | more than 5 years ago | (#28696037)

It seems that the APA is the latest group that needs to do some reading on why security through obscurity [wikipedia.org] just doesn't work.

Let me google that for you (1)

Ractive (679038) | more than 5 years ago | (#28696049)

Do a google search.
It seems that the stupid blots are already all over the internet so whether this association wants it or not, it has leaked, there's nothing they can do.
I see a Streisand effect coming though...

Rorschach Censorship (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28696067)

I went to the Wikipedia page and saw what appears to be ten pictures of vaginas. Is that why everyone is so worked up about this?

they all look like (1)

goffster (1104287) | more than 5 years ago | (#28696069)

Giant carrot people drinking from bottles while playing musical instruments.

Re:they all look like (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28696187)

Ooo, is this the comment where we all reply stating what they obviously represent?

That first one is a giant Chihuahua eating a lady, obviously. I don't see how anyone could not get that.

People must be told. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28696075)

Where are you going?
Back to basement. Back to slashdot. Evil must be punished. People must be told.
Rorshach... you know I can't let you do that.
Huhhh... of course. Must protect Ballmer's new utopia. One more body amongst foundations makes little difference. Well? What are you waiting for? Mod me down.
Rorshach...
Mod me down!

Subject (1)

Legion303 (97901) | more than 5 years ago | (#28696079)

If you want to know all about the ink blots, enter any public library and look at the psychology section (or get an inter-library loan if they don't have the specific books you need). If wikipedia wants to argue itself into irrelevance, why give a shit?

Children (0, Troll)

shadowbearer (554144) | more than 5 years ago | (#28696089)

squabbling over which marble is prettier.

  Grow the fuck up. There are more pressing problems facing us.

  And no, I didn't RTFA.

  "Look at it this way... in a hundred years, who's gonna care?" - waitress from Terminator.

SB

information wants to be free... (3, Informative)

adolf (21054) | more than 5 years ago | (#28696095)

The website cited for being the source of the image currently at the top of the Wikipedia page is here [geocities.com] , with its English counterpart being right here [geocities.com] .

It includes all 10 Rorschach images.

Don't they all look like boobs anyway? (0, Redundant)

grasshoppa (657393) | more than 5 years ago | (#28696117)

Or is that just me?

Re:Don't they all look like boobs anyway? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28696323)

Yes, you do indeed look like a boob.

Another excuse to ignore public domain. (1)

Artifakt (700173) | more than 5 years ago | (#28696123)

I almost feel for the American Psychiatric Association. Unfortunately, there have been a lot of other people arguing that letting their pet item go into the public domain shouldn't be allowed, for various reasons. Mickey Mouse is, after all, a national treasure, and Disney just wants to conserve that special piece of history, it's really not about the money. We, the people, certainly could give the Rorschach blots some kind of special status via congress. But if we do, there will be a thousand companies trying to stretch that law to cover whatever they think there is some more money in, so I have to come down on the side of we shouldn't.

Clearly they should be omitted from wikipedia... (5, Insightful)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 5 years ago | (#28696149)

... because if they aren't on wikipedia, then nobody will ever find them on the internet and the images will be safe forever!

Wikipedia has these debates all the time (2, Interesting)

panoptical2 (1344319) | more than 5 years ago | (#28696153)

I used to edit Wikipedia a lot, and during that time, I saw a lot of these debates. This is nothing new, just a heated debate over whether to include an image (in this case the Rorschach test images) based upon ethics and Wikipedia policy (which there is actually very little).

Essentially what will happen (or has already happened, I didn't read the whole debate), is that the definition of "consensus" will be called into question, as that's what runs Wikipedia, and is what decides these debates. However, the Wikipedia policy of consensus is so vague and non-standardized that many debates like this end without consensus, and can even escalate into an edit war, followed by admins having to step in. (which is one of the reasons why I no longer edit it)

I really don't see why this specific debate made it on the /. index, there have been many other and similar debates like it, many having much larger implications concerning censorship on Wikipedia by recommendation of a 3rd party organization.

My answers: (1)

WalksOnDirt (704461) | more than 5 years ago | (#28696199)

1) Two bugs on a flower.
2) A high five.
3) Two butlers tugging on a babies cradle.
4) Monster leap-frogging a fence post.
5) Bat.
6) Sheep's skin.
7) Two pregnant women.
8) Two chameleons climbing a bird feeder.
9) Two sea horses.
10) Two men with helmet touching, holding crabs in their far hands.

Did I win?

Re:My answers: (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 5 years ago | (#28696421)

You won a long vacation for one, in a grand hotel where you'll be sponge-bathed in luxury and waited on hand and foot.
A van will come by any minute now to pick you up.

Psychologists are not scientists (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 5 years ago | (#28696213)

However, some editors have cited the American Psychological Association's statement that exposure of the images to the public is an unethical act, since prior exposure to the images could render them ineffective as a psychological test.

      Which goes to show just how full of BS some psychologists are. Either the test is completely subjective and not dependent on the particular ink-blot pattern, so stop being lazy and make your own damned ink blots; OR some psychologists are depending too heavily on their interpretation of a Rorschach "test" during their practice.

      As a physician I completely understand the subjective nature of psychoanalysis and I recognize its value in treating certain psychiatric disorders. However psychology is not entirely dependent on the Rorschach test and appropriate diagnoses can be reached easily without that test by any skilled practitioner, and anyone complaining about the diagrams being viewed by the public could also argue that all medical information should be with-held from the public. After all, we wouldn't want all those hypochondriacs and somatization disorder sufferers to get any ideas, right?

Wait until the optometrists... (5, Funny)

dpbsmith (263124) | more than 5 years ago | (#28696217)

Wait until the optometrists discover that Wikipedia is using an uncensored Snellen eye chart [wikipedia.org] . Pssst! The big letter at the top is an "E."

Re:Wait until the optometrists... (1)

witch-doktor (1592325) | more than 5 years ago | (#28696419)

That's a valid argument. To do it right, you need a randomized chart. But the assumption is that it is in your own self interest to get the proper glasses, so if you 'cheat' on the eye test you are hurting yourself pretty directly.

Wikipedia is full of abusive admins (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28696235)

Such as J.delanoy [wikipedia.org] and Dominic who blocks entire ISPs from editing [wikipedia.org]

Hurm (3, Interesting)

JockTroll (996521) | more than 5 years ago | (#28696243)

July the 14th. Nerd carcass in the toilet, head stuck in the bowl. This place is afraid of me. I shit on its true face. The corridors are infested with loserboys and the putrid smell of their feces-encrusted pants soil the very air as I twist their arms out of their sockets. The accumulated filth of all their fapping to kiddie scat porn will foam at their waist and all the stupid geeks and nerds will scream "save us!"... ... And I'll whisper "fuck you, loserboys." And then I'll beat them up and shit on their faces.

Plain Stupid (1)

alexborges (313924) | more than 5 years ago | (#28696251)

If the test depends on a particular and exact set of images that are decades old, then its worthless.

Publish the damned things.

so lock me up in your institution. (0, Troll)

schizzzee (1298721) | more than 5 years ago | (#28696289)

so really crazy is a difference of opinion. if the 10 ink blobs are not random, then because you dont agree with what i say about what i think they look like and how i go about examining each so that i can make my decision, and if you dont agree with me.. give me a padded room with a view and feed me every day. thank you very much.

Broken model (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28696297)

Wow! This whole "my business model is broken, please prop it up by legislation so I don't have to fix it" meme, is getting tedious.

I don't see anything (1)

Mybrid (410232) | more than 5 years ago | (#28696313)

I don't see anything...

am I dead?

Are they still taken seriously? (1)

dorpus (636554) | more than 5 years ago | (#28696329)

I'm in grad school in a health-related field. I've had more than one professor tell me that the ink blot tests are no longer taken seriously because they are too subjective.

I've seen it, you can take them down now. (1)

2obvious4u (871996) | more than 5 years ago | (#28696333)

Who cares. I've seen them, so you can take them down now.

Contest: what's the earliest publication? (3, Informative)

dpbsmith (263124) | more than 5 years ago | (#28696339)

The earliest publication to the general lay public that I personally know of is their presentation on pages 118-127 of William Poundstone's book Big Secrets, Quill, 1983, ISBN 0-688-04830-7.

In other words, they were out there before the Web was a gleam in Tim Berners-Lee's eye.

Anyone know of any earlier publications?

My Psyc Professor Already Invalidated Them (3, Insightful)

scorp1us (235526) | more than 5 years ago | (#28696347)

Back in college, my psyc prof spent some time going over those "personality" screenings and directly told us how to pass. He in effect, gave us the answer key (for those of us taking notes) on how to present ourselves via test results. His statements about how the scoring is done already invalidated the test. He also covered multi-colored ink blots and told us how to handle those too.

But despite what I know, every time I see an ink blot, I think "ink blot, symmetrical about [X,Y] axis." What's that make me? I don't see anything. Just ink on folded paper. I've stared at these things and my answer never changes. because you know, its still an ink blot.

If this was a government program (1)

BlowHole666 (1152399) | more than 5 years ago | (#28696361)

If this was a government program and posting the details of the program online would render the program useless....we would not be having this debate.

So I say post away.

This is not a troll (0)

rickb928 (945187) | more than 5 years ago | (#28696377)

If they are that important, perhaps they should have patented them?

Just a thought. After all, you can patent a ham sandwich nowadays, so it can't be too hard to patent something actually *useful*. And it would hopefully keep them out of the public's hands.

Then again, perhaps it's time for new inkblots. They did it once... Not like it's rocket science or anything...

Is it Human Nature to Foul One's Home? (1)

MarkvW (1037596) | more than 5 years ago | (#28696391)

Human being seem to always put their own short-term self-interest ahead of group self-interest, even when group self-interest is in the individual's longer term self-interest. There is no good reason to broadcast the Rohrschach test. Anybody who wants to do research can access it without any problem. Nobody else has any legitimate reason to access it unless they're being examined.

Nevertheless . . .

I thought this was illegal... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28696427)

This test is no different than calling Miss Cleo in the late 90's.

Same for Polygraph? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28696433)

If someone posted a detailed, in-depth article explaining how a polygraph works with the bottom-line of "the machine actually does nothing but draw on paper, its the interviewer who makes the decisions" would that article also be subject to censoring? If the public begins to view the polygraph as utter nonsense, wouldn't that also undermine its utility?

Anti-Polygraph [slashdot.org]

seems the psychologists are rather focused on sex (1)

sgrover (1167171) | more than 5 years ago | (#28696435)

Taking a look through those blots without reading the descriptions below them, and I would get one set of answers. Then when I read the descriptions, I am surprised how almost EVERYONE of them *could* be interpreted to be sexual in some way. Some of the suggestions are obvious once you have read that description, but some are just odd. "A vagina in the middle of the blot" - when the area is a solid color... That's like saying you see vagina's when you close your eyes, or look at a wall that is a solid color. Seems to me psychologists are overly interested in sex and the people that may be like minded...

Plate 1 (2, Funny)

PPH (736903) | more than 5 years ago | (#28696491)

Hey! Who put CowboyNeal's photo in there?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?