Psycologists Angry at "The Rorschach Cheat Sheet"

I took the test today and went looking for common responses after. From everything I read, my answers were mostly in line with popular responses for most cards and wildly different on others.. Interesting. I enjoyed the test.. I had to go through the cards a second time because I was told I didn't give "enough" responses the first go around. I saw what I saw and didn't over think.

The hardest part of the test was being a creative person and graphic designer by day. I kept wanting to manipulate and change the images to be correct. Like the bat / butterfly.. it needed some cloning to make it look nicer. And figures with extra parts or markings... where's my erase tool. I also saw more into the negative space and space around the blot - looking for shapes... but rarely found any.. I wanted to turn the cards upside down a few times... but didn't assuming they were meant to be seen as they were handed to me.

I was happy to see gradients and color. I assumed they would be straight black and white. So, the depth created a more unique experience.

The image above looks like that rat/bat thingy from Anastasia.

I see a pikachu standing on rocks by a lake, looking at it's reflection. sideways.

what's the diagnosis, doc?

Temper's the one thing you can't get rid of, by losing it.

Maybe they should go see someone about that anger? ;)

Tom Cruise should be happy since

HE KNOWS THE HISTORY OF PYSCHOLOGY AND YOU DON'T

Now we can all know :-D

I was surprised to find out this thing is still being used. I thought it had been de-bunked years and years ago. I was also surprised to see my psychiatrist quoted in the Times article. I think I'll ask him to give me the test just for kicks during my appointment on Thursday. I stared at the one above for 10 minutes and came up with nothing. I'm guessing that's bad.

Professionals are angry at make believe???
lmfao

That test is a bunch of bull. Took it many times as a child. I mainly gave Voltron monsters as answers.

It never ceases to amuse me how Wikipedia drama spreads to even the most unlikely places. I wouldn't have thought Psycologists would be the next group to be drawn into the madness.

I can understand why they are upset because this test relies so heavily on correlation of answers with data that has been collected over many years. To replace these ink blots wold require that they do all of the research and collect all of that data again. On the other hand, who in the world is going to "study" for a Rorschach test? I do not see that happening. I think their precious little test will continue to serve its purpose just fine.

"I am one of those who undergo in various types of Test in www.tickle.com and begun for the test exam year 2005. That figure is known as inkblot that surrounds the inner side of the mental capability and desire of the one who took the Test.

With that, many companies argued that because of computer hackers and those thieves in the internet, they forbid using the Test.

Inkblot also know the truth the inner mental disorder of an individual and because of that, many innocent lives lost the Test and that is the real issue here.

The higher the Test Result taken of an individual, teh higher the risks that the result is being stolen like what i have because i am working inside a Multi-National Company known as Bechtel and their web page is www.bechtel.com and mostly in Covanta Energy, they killed those famous poor people because they are wise and brilliant and faking the identity is also a way to stole money.

My job being an intelligence and as a Freelance Industrial Engineer already reached the most dangerous part of being one of the Top Contender in many Psychological Tests that only Scientist and Geniuses have and that is known as THE CHAMPIONS WILL REMAIN THE CHAMPION AND THE THIEVES STOLE THE RESULT OF THE SCIENTIST AND GENIUSES AND KILLED THE CHAMPIONS TO GAIN MONEY AND FAME."-Jane Bond

I see... a demon...in caster robes... with 6 wings... preparing to cast a spell all while hovering... 0_o

The tests have been available on lien in various books for years, but shouldn't a psychologists be able to tell the difference between someone remembering the answers to a series of images and someone giving an honest answer.

Psychometrics 101 - if the Rorschach measures something real, it should be a [relatively] simple matter to get new images and validate the assessment scales against a sample.

If it's only a valid test with the original stimuli it is, pretty much by definition, a pile of poo.

I see two pigs with their feet touching vetically. Both of them have high-pointed ears.

I highly doubt ink blots really open the inter workings of your noggin to a guy who knows there is no real answer.

Just about the time that they had solved all of our problems. Now someone has to put more ink on a sheet of paper and fold it together.

i see penguins dancing, i wonder what that signifies.

Screw the psychologists and their cargo cult science hocus pocus.

It seems that the only ones that would be angry are those that are lazy and not giving the test correctly

It depends on how rigid the psychologist is in interpreting the test, if they only go on specific pat answers then the test is of limited use because the test shows a lot more than a single simple pattern, it shows how the patients percieve shapes and their thought processes in the way they interpret them.

If the patients know those specific pat answers and give them because that is what the therapists wants to hear then that also says something about their attitudes besides what was in the inkblots.

Systems for Rorschach scoring generally include a concept of "determinants": these are the factors that contribute to estabilish the similarity between the inkblot and the subject's content response about it, and they can represent certain basic experiential-perceptual attitudes, showing aspects of the way a subject perceive the world. Rorschach's original work used only form, color and movement; currently, another major determinant considered is shading.

Form is the most common determinant, and is related to intellectual processes; color responses often provide direct insight into emotional life. Shading and movement have been considered more ambiguously, both in definition and interpretation: Rorschach originally disregarded shading (which was originally not even present on the cards, being a result of the print process), and he considered movement as only actual experiencing of motion, while others have widened the scope of this determinant, taking it to mean that the subject sees something "going on".

More than one determinant can contribute to the formation of the subject's percept, and fusion of two determinants is taken into account, while also assessing which of the two constituted the primary contributor (e.g. "form-color" implies a more refined control of impulse than "color-form"). It is, indeed, from the relation and balance among determinants that personality can be most readily inferred

Maybe it's time to develop a new test...

So, before it was published on Wikipedia, the "secret answers" to this test were only known by very few people: the millions of mental health care professionals in this world.

Wow. That's some huge secret. If it wasn't published on Wikipedia, it would show up somewhere else. Get over it. This information is old - nothing was new about it - and it wasn't really a secret to begin with.

The inkblot test is as accurate as they want you to believe it is. As for people getting educated about psychology, what is wrong with that?

These answers are in the web a long time ago. Personally I don’t know how serious psychologist uses a tool that has “good” or “bad” answers.

I beleave that like many other things in this world you can read A lot into or out of this test. It is old and out dated. like watching clouds diffrent people will see diffrent things. I always enjoyed watching clouds. I always saw neat stuff