Maggie's Farm

We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Much Sorry with Delays
Birth, Death and All That Stuff in Between
How to Honor Labor Day, Every Day
My Yom Kippur Miracle (Repost from 2010)
Good intro to fly casting
Peach update, with pie
NYC update
Easy for you to say: To the elites on mass immigration
For NYC on 9/11, Sailors' Snug Harbor
Pickled Peaches
Water Shoes
Labor Costs in U.S.
Your "identity"
Good news about The Great Courses
Uses of Hot Pepper Jelly/Sauce, Chutneys, and Jams
A Saturday Drive to Litchfield County, CT
How to Pick a Kayak
Civilized: Fruit forks and knives
Loads of kayaking on Cape Cod
Psychology Experiments' Questionable Results

Categories


All categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Add to Google

Subscribe with Bloglines

Tuesday, May 16. 2017

The Rorschach experiment

Hermann Rorschach worked on an interesting experiment: provide people with an ambiguous stimulus (an image) and find out whether their take on it reveals anything useful about them.


Well, of course it does. In fact, everybody's take on everything and anything reveals things about who they are. All of life can be viewed as a projective experiment but Dr. Rorschach thought that perhaps a standardized ambiguous stimulus might be clinically useful.


I think his hypothesis was correct, but only in the right hands. The challenge is in the interpretation of the responses to projective tests.


Are projective "tests" useful? I think they can be interesting, but not necessary.


 A biography of Hermann Rorschach peers into the iconic legend of his inkblots.

Posted by Dr. Joy Bliss in Psychology, and Dr. Bliss at 13:52 | Comments (8) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

http://bouldertherapist.com/html/humor/MentalHealthHumor/rorschach.html
#1 Mike Anderson (Link) on 2017-05-16 14:24 (Reply)
I see 4 people standing in a circle holding hands or playing a game. One of them looks like a bug.

What does anyone else see?
#2 LP on 2017-05-16 15:10 (Reply)
I see Richard Nixon and his mirror image. Wait a minute... Is this a conspiracy??? Are you the same people who keep calling my phone and hanging up. I will get you... :>)
#3 GoneWithTheWind on 2017-05-16 16:00 (Reply)
There isn't much evidence projective tests, including the Rorschach protocol, provide reliable diagnostic information, Exner or no Exner. Clinicians like it anyway, and believe it tells them something.

My thought is it is an excellent device for measuring a psychologist's ability to consider alternative diagnoses.
#4 Assistant Village Idiot (Link) on 2017-05-16 16:05 (Reply)
Sometimes an inkblot is just an inkblot.

I'd say it's about as likely to interpret what someone sees in these tests as it is to interpret someone's dreams, which is nearly impossible. It's hard enough to interpret your own dreams.
#5 Jack Walter on 2017-05-17 07:28 (Reply)
Before pushing me out the door almost 30 years ago, the Army insisted on psychological evaluation. Rorschach was part of the evaluation. When the psychologist presented the first card and asked what I saw, my silent mind said, "(Vagina.)" I made up something. Second card: "(Vagina.)" Third through several more, same thing. Making up a plausible answer is a test of imagination. Now, though, I think I should have told the doc what I saw. I don't know what her reaction would have been, though.
#6 SgtBob (Link) on 2017-05-17 12:06 (Reply)
That is theoretically part of the test. People can get nervous when being tested. It's considered a bad sign if you blurt out things that might paint you in a bad light. Having some social awareness and self-control even under pressure is considered a positive.

I still don't think the test is that useful, but the theory behind it wasn't that bad. It just doesn't seem to do what it's supposed to.
#6.1 Assistant Village Idiot (Link) on 2017-05-19 14:28 (Reply)
Obviously a cat smoking a hookah.
#7 uk(us) on 2017-05-17 19:36 (Reply)

Add Comment
(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)

By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email
addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications.

Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u],
[url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here.

Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (*word*), underscore are made via _word_.
E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications.

To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly.
CAPTCHA

BBCode format allowed
 
 
A Chris Southern Consulting website.